A seismic moment that shows rift at top of BBC

This is a seismic situation. Losing both the managing director and CEO of BBC News at the same time is unprecedented. An extraordinary moment in BBC history.

This cannot be taken lightly.

On the face of it, Tim Davie’s resignation seems logical.

I’ve been wondering for a while if you’re weighing up how long you want to stay in a high-pressure job.

As the controversy grew this year, there were occasions when I interviewed him and he did not seem like his usual Tigger-like self.

In his resignation statement he cited “the very intense personal and professional demands of leading this role for many years in these heated times”.

My assessment is that the latest controversy has been felt too much after successive crises (two Gaza documentaries, the Bob Vylan Glastonbury affair among them) and there is not enough fuel in the tank for another war.

As John Shield, former head of BBC communications, told me, “The job of Director General is one of the hardest jobs in public life.”

“This has been a relentless process for him. He’s a very talented leader driving real change, but at some point it becomes unsustainably exhausting.”

I heard at the weekend that there was still great shock when Tim Davie shared his decision with colleagues.

Deborah Turness’ statement makes clear that she is resigning on principle. After the ongoing controversy around the President Trump Panorama damaged the BBC, he said: “This remains with me and I decided last night to offer my resignation to the director general.”

But as with every resignation, and certainly with both resignations, I can’t help but think there’s more to it than meets the eye. And there is another story emerging about the functionality and structure of the BBC Board and its role in what is happening.

There appears to be a rift between the Board and the news division, with some claiming the BBC has failed for too long to address institutional bias within the BBC, and others questioning whether what is emerging is an orchestrated and politicized campaign against the corporation laying claim to two major scalps.

For much of a week since the Telegraph first published its report, I have been at a loss to understand why the BBC has failed to act on a series of damaging headlines about allegations of systemic bias.

It was necessary to split the allegations into two separate stories.

The first issue, regarding the editing of Trump’s speech on the Panorama program, had to be addressed immediately. Either with a swift apology or a justification explaining why it believes the BBC did not mischaracterize the president’s remarks.

This would allow the BBC to fight for its journalism more widely. Remember, he was accused of institutional bias. From lack of impartiality. Accusations that cut at the heart of the news operation.

Panorama could have tried to rebut other claims of institutional bias by apologizing (or mounting a robust defense) for the mistake around it.

It could be said that the BBC had already taken action to ensure editorial impartiality and had already taken action, for example, about problems at BBC Arabic.

Instead the BBC allowed the story to grow further – and we ended up with a situation where the Trump White House called the BBC “fake news” and this attracted some attention.

According to information I have obtained from many sources at the BBC, a statement about Panorama has been ready for publication for days.

The BBC planned to say that Trump did not intend to mislead the public in his edit, but believed there should have been some sort of white light or wipe to make it clear to viewers that, on second viewing, these were two different parts of the speech.

I understand that Deborah Turness became increasingly angry and frustrated as the week progressed at being prevented by the Board from making this apology.

Instead, the BBC Board decided to write a letter to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.

Many people, both inside and outside the BBC, see the failure to respond as a serious mistake. The Telegraph’s coverage of the allegations was damaging and the BBC did not tackle them directly.

I am told Turness went to a board meeting on Thursday to discuss the crisis around the Telegraph stories and was, as some described it, “torn apart”.

Those who question the BBC’s journalism call this accountability.

But another source described it as the result of “two years of relentless criticism of BBC journalism by board members and advisers, all of the same political persuasion”.

They point to former BBC editor Robbie Gibb, who left to become Theresa May’s Downing St communications director and is now a member of the Board.

Former Sun editor and now BBC presenter David Yelland described it as “nothing short of a coup”. He claims the BBC Board has been weakened and “elements close to it are working with hostile newspaper editors, a former Prime Minister and enemies of public service broadcasting”.

But another former Sun editor, Kelvin MacKenzie, had a very different approach. Speaking on the BBC News Channel, he said the resignations were “the right thing to do – this was an issue that was never going away”.

He said editing the speech could lead to Trump being sued or the BBC being banned from the White House. “If you can’t be trusted with this [the speech of the US president] “What can you trust?” he said.

And for the first time, the US president himself has weighed in on the debate. In a post on the Truth Social platform, he celebrated the resignations and accused the BBC of “altering” his speech and “trying to step on the scales of the presidential election”.

One line in Tim Davie’s statement caught my attention. He said of the BBC: “We should defend it, not weaponise it.”

Some are asking tonight whether the resignations of both the News’s director and chief executive indicate that the BBC is being weaponised.