WEBVTT 00:00:09.689 --> 00:00:14.009 Hello and welcome to The Edition podcast. I'm your host, Charlotte Henry. 00:00:14.729 --> 00:00:18.749 I'm not even going to do a big intro because we've got such a lot to discuss today. 00:00:18.869 --> 00:00:23.649 So I'm joined by Jamie Angus, who is the former World Service Director of the BBC. 00:00:23.709 --> 00:00:26.989 He's now a trustee of the Henry Jackson Society as well out in the US. 00:00:27.509 --> 00:00:30.289 You can't imagine what we're going to talk about today. Hello, Jamie. 00:00:31.509 --> 00:00:36.549 Good morning. You just, I mean, it's fairly obvious why we want to be talking about today. 00:00:36.949 --> 00:00:39.229 There's quite a lot What's going on at your former employer, 00:00:39.309 --> 00:00:42.909 Jamie? The hearing was the day before we recorded this on the Monday of the 00:00:42.909 --> 00:00:45.269 week this show comes out, which is great. 00:00:46.859 --> 00:00:51.619 But obviously, what has led to the hearings is the whole scandal, 00:00:52.059 --> 00:00:55.579 if you want to put it like that, this report coming out over BBC Bias. 00:00:55.819 --> 00:01:00.799 So I sort of want to go from the beginning before we get to the hearings yesterday. 00:01:01.739 --> 00:01:09.699 So what did you make, first of all, as this kind of scandal around the memo erupted, first of all? 00:01:09.819 --> 00:01:13.879 I think what I thought in the end was that this was a very serious mistake, 00:01:14.099 --> 00:01:18.319 the Trump editing mistake, but not an existential mistake. 00:01:18.619 --> 00:01:22.159 And it's curious, isn't it, that in the grand history of BBC scandals, 00:01:22.479 --> 00:01:26.399 that the Director General and the Head of News have ended up resigning over 00:01:26.399 --> 00:01:31.999 a narrow issue that while serious is probably not a kind of existential crisis, 00:01:32.619 --> 00:01:37.239 clearly the material in Michael Prescott's memo, and he talked about that yesterday 00:01:37.239 --> 00:01:42.959 in a hearing, went a lot wider than that and asked whether there was institutional bias in the BBC. 00:01:43.239 --> 00:01:47.259 But it's kind of curious, particularly actually with some of the issues in the 00:01:47.259 --> 00:01:52.159 summer over the withdrawn Gaza documentary, which actually editorially seemed 00:01:52.159 --> 00:01:55.499 to me to be more consequential and more serious. 00:01:55.679 --> 00:02:01.419 The BBC senior leadership stayed in place, but it was this issue and the bad 00:02:01.419 --> 00:02:04.819 handling of the issue that led to those high level resignations. 00:02:05.179 --> 00:02:10.459 Right. But isn't the point that it was a sort of straw that broke the camel's 00:02:10.459 --> 00:02:12.679 back. That's how I've seen it anyway. 00:02:12.939 --> 00:02:17.799 I think if it had just been this Trump edit and just been that problem. 00:02:18.899 --> 00:02:22.299 Deborah Turness, Tim Davey, they wouldn't have resigned. 00:02:23.580 --> 00:02:30.160 But it was the run of things, I think, that seemed to be the problem. 00:02:30.940 --> 00:02:36.020 Yes, and I think what became clear in the hearing yesterday was the kind of 00:02:36.020 --> 00:02:40.700 paralysis on the BBC board and the inability of the BBC board to deal with the 00:02:40.700 --> 00:02:45.740 fallout of the issue was actually the thing that pushed Tim and Deborah over the edge. 00:02:45.920 --> 00:02:51.280 They had both clearly exhausted after a series of quite difficult issues to 00:02:51.280 --> 00:02:55.080 deal with over the course of the year and felt that the fact that the board 00:02:55.080 --> 00:03:00.340 couldn't really align about what it wanted was one of the things that pushed them to resign. 00:03:00.540 --> 00:03:05.480 So I've been sort of saying that this is the whole BBC most recent set of issues 00:03:05.480 --> 00:03:11.240 are a governance issue as much as they are an issue about editorial processes, in fact. 00:03:11.440 --> 00:03:15.180 And I think the longer term consequences from what we heard yesterday should 00:03:15.180 --> 00:03:21.200 be about how the BBC is governed as much about the work of the BBC journalists who work there. Right. 00:03:21.540 --> 00:03:25.160 And, well, because people do try and differentiate this, because we often hear 00:03:25.160 --> 00:03:28.760 that thing, there's loads of great journalists working at the BBC trying to do really good work. 00:03:28.900 --> 00:03:31.820 I'm assuming that's something you would endorse, having worked with many journalists 00:03:31.820 --> 00:03:34.620 at the BBC over your time there. Yeah. 00:03:35.340 --> 00:03:41.040 Yeah. Sorry, go on. No, just as it goes higher and higher, things get really messy. 00:03:41.260 --> 00:03:43.800 One might make the case that those journalists are not being served. 00:03:45.185 --> 00:03:49.125 Indeed. I think one of the things that comes out of this, the whole memo and 00:03:49.125 --> 00:03:53.085 the kind of wider set of criticisms is, and I felt this when I was there, 00:03:53.345 --> 00:03:57.625 it is inevitable that even with the outstanding journalists who do work in BBC 00:03:57.625 --> 00:04:03.285 News, the BBC will sometimes make editorial mistakes and it will sometimes do 00:04:03.285 --> 00:04:07.365 things editorially that it comes to regret and feels that it should reframe or retract. 00:04:07.365 --> 00:04:11.545 That is just an inevitable consequence of the sheer amount of output that the 00:04:11.545 --> 00:04:16.445 BBC puts out, bearing in mind that it broadcasts in over 40 languages, 00:04:16.445 --> 00:04:21.005 as well as all the English output and all the other content in English that the BBC makes. 00:04:21.005 --> 00:04:24.785 So I think one of the issues that this has thrown up, which was discussed at 00:04:24.785 --> 00:04:30.385 the hearing yesterday, was how does the BBC respond when it legitimately decides 00:04:30.385 --> 00:04:31.585 that it's made a mistake? 00:04:31.785 --> 00:04:33.805 And in this case, a serious mistake. 00:04:34.025 --> 00:04:36.965 And I think one of the things that this has revealed is that the BBC, 00:04:37.265 --> 00:04:40.605 including its own chairman, doesn't really know the answer to that question. 00:04:40.605 --> 00:04:45.425 It was very clear from the hearings yesterday that Samir Shah has not yet decided 00:04:45.425 --> 00:04:49.705 how the BBC should respond when these kinds of serious errors arise. 00:04:49.865 --> 00:04:54.625 In fact, it sounded like he commissioned an additional review in order to come 00:04:54.625 --> 00:04:55.725 up to some answers to that. 00:04:55.905 --> 00:04:58.925 It's the most BBC thing I've ever heard, I think, actually. 00:05:01.020 --> 00:05:06.180 I mean, I was slightly concerned about it because I can see that if you take 00:05:06.180 --> 00:05:09.600 Samir Shah's evidence on face value, he said, listen. 00:05:10.080 --> 00:05:14.500 My whole of my first year as chairman of the BBC has been occupied with this, 00:05:14.640 --> 00:05:16.120 what he described as culture review. 00:05:16.300 --> 00:05:19.440 You know, had some really serious issues in the fallout, I think, 00:05:19.560 --> 00:05:23.680 from actually the Tim Westwood issue and how on-air talent was kind of protected. 00:05:23.820 --> 00:05:26.860 This is about Hugh Edwards and Tim Westwood, right? And he said, 00:05:26.980 --> 00:05:32.320 I was very, very focused on looking at how the culture of the BBC had protected 00:05:32.320 --> 00:05:37.420 people who'd done wrongdoing and what needs to change in order to protect the 00:05:37.420 --> 00:05:40.260 staff and who work there and the contributors who come to the BBC. 00:05:40.520 --> 00:05:44.940 And the implication was he sort of hadn't really had the chance to think in 00:05:44.940 --> 00:05:48.360 more depth about some of the editorial issues and some of the process issues 00:05:48.360 --> 00:05:52.740 we've just discussed about how those should be governed when there is significant 00:05:52.740 --> 00:05:54.840 disagreement on the board itself. 00:05:54.840 --> 00:05:58.960 I'm not sure that was a really strong case, to be honest, because I think the 00:05:58.960 --> 00:06:05.600 MPs at the hearing were looking to hear the chairman had really gripped this and knew his own mind. 00:06:05.820 --> 00:06:08.420 And although there are lots of good things about Samir Shah, 00:06:08.660 --> 00:06:13.540 it didn't seem to me like he had a very strong set of opinions himself as chairman 00:06:13.540 --> 00:06:15.420 about how these things should run. 00:06:15.420 --> 00:06:19.540 And I think it's interesting that some of the strongest BBC chairmen in the 00:06:19.540 --> 00:06:23.540 past, and I think in my time, I would pick out probably Chris Patton, 00:06:23.720 --> 00:06:26.920 Lord Patton, and Michael Grade, Lord Grade as well, I believe, 00:06:27.320 --> 00:06:32.180 you know, two chairmen of the BBC who absolutely knew their own mind about things 00:06:32.180 --> 00:06:34.440 as well as chairing a board process. 00:06:34.440 --> 00:06:39.080 And for better and for worse, they were able to impose that vision onto the BBC. 00:06:39.500 --> 00:06:42.680 And I think one of the big questions that comes out of this is like, 00:06:42.860 --> 00:06:47.920 does Samir Shah himself feel he has the ability to do that in a period where 00:06:47.920 --> 00:06:53.740 he has to appoint a new director general and secure charter review in the next 00:06:53.740 --> 00:06:56.060 sort of, you know, six to 12 months? 00:06:56.060 --> 00:06:58.800 That's a really, really tall order, I think. It is. 00:06:58.960 --> 00:07:01.400 I think, again, let's take a step back because there's a lot, 00:07:01.420 --> 00:07:04.740 a lot to unpack from your answers, which are fascinating. 00:07:05.513 --> 00:07:08.353 I think, first of all, particularly for our American listeners, 00:07:08.593 --> 00:07:15.313 we need to sort of unpack the structure of the BBC, because it's not like any 00:07:15.313 --> 00:07:16.973 other media institution, really. 00:07:17.233 --> 00:07:22.833 And I think some of that goes to the heart of what the drama has been here, right? 00:07:24.253 --> 00:07:28.113 So just to remind people, some of the issues that came up in that Michael Prescott 00:07:28.113 --> 00:07:31.693 memo that got leaked, there was talk of... 00:07:31.693 --> 00:07:35.633 First of all, there was the Donald Trump edit, which made it look like Trump 00:07:35.633 --> 00:07:40.753 had directly called for a march on the Capitol when actually the two quotes 00:07:40.753 --> 00:07:44.533 put together were about 45 minutes apart, weren't they? Something like that. 00:07:44.953 --> 00:07:50.393 Now, as listeners and readers will know, I have about zero time for Donald Trump and his politics. 00:07:50.733 --> 00:07:59.613 And I think I could make the case that that speech that this was taken from did push the crowd. 00:07:59.613 --> 00:08:04.213 But what clearly didn't happen was those two sentences said at the same time. 00:08:04.433 --> 00:08:05.913 That is not what happened. 00:08:06.153 --> 00:08:11.033 And there was nothing done editorially or in production to make it clear that 00:08:11.033 --> 00:08:14.313 those two things were said at separate points in this speech. One. 00:08:14.613 --> 00:08:19.913 Two, the Michael Prescott memo points out there has been issues of bias, 00:08:19.913 --> 00:08:23.413 let's put it that way, around coverage of the Israel-Hamas war, 00:08:23.633 --> 00:08:25.913 of issues around transgender people. 00:08:25.913 --> 00:08:30.673 So those have been big, hot topics within the media and there were concerns 00:08:30.673 --> 00:08:35.893 around bias around that and perhaps not doing the best journalism, if I can put it that way, 00:08:36.393 --> 00:08:41.033 around such important and interesting topics because of... 00:08:41.855 --> 00:08:46.855 Well, he sort of put it as biased, didn't he? But there's other ways we could put that. 00:08:47.555 --> 00:08:51.835 So there was a lot going on there. And for me, I repeat what I said earlier, 00:08:51.955 --> 00:08:54.435 the Trump thing felt like the straw that broke the camel's back. 00:08:54.715 --> 00:09:01.255 And I would say also that because there's been deep frustrations with the BBC 00:09:01.255 --> 00:09:05.035 for a long time, as you know well, Jamie, there's always been frustrations with the BBC. 00:09:05.615 --> 00:09:09.795 A lot of the time, it's been your fault, I believe, hasn't it, for a good part of time. 00:09:10.755 --> 00:09:17.595 And so the BBC is always going to receive a higher level of criticism in the 00:09:17.595 --> 00:09:22.555 UK than other media organisations because of the, well, we pay for it thing with the licence fee. 00:09:22.735 --> 00:09:30.295 And that is why my rather rambling answer, that the structure that you're describing is different. 00:09:30.935 --> 00:09:34.715 There is a chairman and a separate, a board that's meant to be independent. 00:09:35.135 --> 00:09:38.775 There is the director general who who's sort of, as I understand it, 00:09:38.835 --> 00:09:41.755 the kind of person, he's like the CEO of the BBC, right? The DJ. 00:09:42.075 --> 00:09:44.175 He's the person that runs it day to day. 00:09:44.675 --> 00:09:48.355 This huge organisation, I mean, you explained how many languages it goes out 00:09:48.355 --> 00:09:51.955 in, goes out in a huge number of countries. 00:09:52.275 --> 00:09:55.815 I mean, talking of the language, of course, one of the issues that came out 00:09:55.815 --> 00:09:56.915 of the Michael Prescott memo, 00:09:57.635 --> 00:10:04.535 was BBC Arabic and the way it was distorting stories around the Israel-Hamas 00:10:04.535 --> 00:10:07.595 war and the way they were reporting those stories. 00:10:07.795 --> 00:10:11.155 So there's a huge amount for the Director General to take on. 00:10:11.275 --> 00:10:15.155 They have this chairman and separate board as a sort of overseeing entity. 00:10:15.795 --> 00:10:20.055 And they have the charter that you were talking about, this review that comes up periodically, 00:10:20.595 --> 00:10:23.615 and decides whether the licence fee is going to stay the same, 00:10:23.835 --> 00:10:26.335 whether the whole structure is going to change, what the cost it will be, 00:10:26.415 --> 00:10:31.435 all sorts of things that has to renew the BBC's charter so that it can exist. And. 00:10:32.466 --> 00:10:38.866 You're right that that is all on the plate now. And the BBC and Samir Shah himself 00:10:38.866 --> 00:10:42.106 have to decide if he is the right person to deal with these highly, 00:10:42.246 --> 00:10:43.586 highly political issues. 00:10:44.166 --> 00:10:47.866 And I'm slightly getting the impression from you, you're unconvinced. 00:10:48.846 --> 00:10:54.226 I thought it was an unconvincing performance. And I think the chairman of Caroline 00:10:54.226 --> 00:10:57.926 Dylidge said on the BBC last night that she and the committee found it unconvincing. 00:10:58.706 --> 00:11:01.066 She's the chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. She's the chair of 00:11:01.066 --> 00:11:04.386 the Media Committee. So, yeah, you've raised a lot of issues there. 00:11:04.546 --> 00:11:08.866 So you say the BBC board is independent, but it's not really clear that it is independent. 00:11:09.106 --> 00:11:14.046 So this is one of the really big issues about the BBC, how the BBC governs itself. 00:11:14.246 --> 00:11:18.986 It is never really clear whether the board is primarily there to defend the 00:11:18.986 --> 00:11:25.226 BBC and its existence when things go really badly wrong or to be a quasi-independent. 00:11:25.723 --> 00:11:31.683 Overseer of the BBC, including kind of interrogating it and criticising its editorial output. 00:11:31.883 --> 00:11:36.443 Of course, it has to do both things. The BBC board has an independent chair, 00:11:36.663 --> 00:11:41.223 it has a small number of independent directors, but it also has senior executives 00:11:41.223 --> 00:11:46.663 from the BBC, including the director general and I believe the director of news as board members. 00:11:46.783 --> 00:11:50.963 So it's what you might call a unitary board rather than an actually independent board. 00:11:51.123 --> 00:11:55.363 And actually, my view is that There was a period when the BBC board was separate 00:11:55.363 --> 00:11:56.583 and wholly independent, and 00:11:56.583 --> 00:12:00.143 I felt that that was a better and more appropriate way to govern the BBC. 00:12:00.423 --> 00:12:05.803 I'm also finding curious that the BBC chairman is a part-time job at uni. 00:12:05.923 --> 00:12:10.683 This is an organisation of, what, 20,000 staff across more than 50 countries, 00:12:10.763 --> 00:12:15.643 broadcasting in 40 languages, encompassing public service and commercial activity. 00:12:15.883 --> 00:12:17.903 Its chairman works three days a week. 00:12:18.323 --> 00:12:22.643 For my money, that's not the right arrangement. My personal view is the BBC 00:12:22.643 --> 00:12:27.143 should have a full-time executive chairman, and the executive chairman should 00:12:27.143 --> 00:12:30.963 be responsible for some of the longer-term thinking about the BBC, 00:12:31.183 --> 00:12:34.963 including a lot of the nuts and bolts of charter review, which is coming up, 00:12:35.043 --> 00:12:36.943 and we should talk specifically about that. 00:12:37.303 --> 00:12:41.043 And then the DG of the BBC, the director general of the BBC, 00:12:41.283 --> 00:12:45.623 should be the editor-in-chief and the day-to-day CEO, effectively, 00:12:45.763 --> 00:12:47.383 of the organisation, but should 00:12:47.383 --> 00:12:52.483 focus a bit more on the kind of immediate issues in front of him or her. 00:12:52.683 --> 00:12:56.043 That would be a better governance system, in my view. 00:12:56.223 --> 00:13:00.143 But the government has had some time to think about this, and I get no sense 00:13:00.143 --> 00:13:07.363 from Lisa Nandy that she's about to change that governance structure in the next six to 12 months. 00:13:08.223 --> 00:13:12.103 She's, of course, the culture secretary. And that's another weird part of the 00:13:12.103 --> 00:13:14.283 whole structure, right? Because the culture secretary. 00:13:15.263 --> 00:13:20.523 We know, has meaningful conversations, let's put it that way, 00:13:20.663 --> 00:13:26.743 and discussion and overseeing of the BBC, but again, has to pretend to be wholly independent. 00:13:27.123 --> 00:13:31.083 The Culture Secretary cannot be seen to be interfering with the BBC. Yes. 00:13:31.323 --> 00:13:34.463 And, you know, there is no, let's be honest, there's no perfect structure for 00:13:34.463 --> 00:13:38.583 this because clearly the BBC is not a state broadcaster. 00:13:38.743 --> 00:13:42.463 It is not an arm of the government, as many public broadcasters are in other countries. 00:13:42.663 --> 00:13:47.143 The BBC is a corporation, an independent corporation with a royal charter. 00:13:47.463 --> 00:13:51.723 But as one of such cultural significance in the UK and globally, 00:13:51.983 --> 00:13:57.463 there clearly need to be some touch points where the government at least oversees 00:13:57.463 --> 00:14:00.143 the governance of the BBC, right? 00:14:00.303 --> 00:14:03.843 And there is no perfect way of doing this. And a lot of the discussion about 00:14:03.843 --> 00:14:08.123 the BBC board has been to do with so-called political appointees on the board. 00:14:08.283 --> 00:14:12.423 You heard Robbie Gibb, who's a former Conservative Communications Director in 00:14:12.423 --> 00:14:16.403 Downing Street and, as he pointed out yesterday, a very long-standing BBC. 00:14:16.803 --> 00:14:18.963 You know, 25-year BBC news career. 00:14:19.163 --> 00:14:23.303 Prior to that, there's been a lot of commentary about Robbie Gibbs' role on the board. 00:14:23.483 --> 00:14:28.583 He made a spirited defence of himself, I thought, at the committee hearing yesterday, 00:14:28.863 --> 00:14:34.243 saying that he loved the BBC and had no interests other than to try and protect its integrity. 00:14:34.423 --> 00:14:36.483 His critics would tell you otherwise. 00:14:36.763 --> 00:14:42.283 There is an issue about how do you assemble a group of people on the BBC board 00:14:42.283 --> 00:14:44.943 with a diverse set of editorial views? 00:14:45.183 --> 00:14:48.763 And then what do you do when they fundamentally disagree? And this was a question 00:14:48.763 --> 00:14:52.063 that Samir Shah, the chairman, posed yesterday at the hearing. 00:14:52.203 --> 00:14:56.683 He said, I haven't got the answer yet about what we do when the board is effectively 00:14:56.683 --> 00:14:58.663 paralysed by disagreement. 00:14:58.663 --> 00:15:03.323 And I thought that was a moment where I thought that was not a strong answer, 00:15:03.323 --> 00:15:04.943 because as the board chair, 00:15:05.163 --> 00:15:08.803 anyone who's ever been on a board or chair the board, that's your job that's 00:15:08.803 --> 00:15:13.083 where you earn your money is you have to find a way through when there is broadly 00:15:13.083 --> 00:15:17.163 it's your job to navigate through that that's literally why you're there yeah 00:15:17.163 --> 00:15:19.563 sort of the clues in the title. 00:15:21.151 --> 00:15:24.951 But look, he raises an important point, 00:15:25.091 --> 00:15:29.711 which clearly was a lot of disagreement on the board about the kind of tactics 00:15:29.711 --> 00:15:34.731 of how to deal with BBC News apologising for something that everyone broadly 00:15:34.731 --> 00:15:36.671 now concedes that they got wrong. 00:15:36.671 --> 00:15:41.231 But I think, you know, the question for me is that he himself said they, 00:15:41.631 --> 00:15:45.831 you know, these issues were raised in January, February and May of this year. 00:15:45.991 --> 00:15:50.971 And it took until November for the BBC to actually kind of grind. 00:15:51.171 --> 00:15:54.811 It took all that time and a sort of protracted public scandal for the BBC to 00:15:54.811 --> 00:15:56.131 grind to some kind of resolution. 00:15:56.471 --> 00:16:00.211 That is clearly a dysfunctional board and board process. 00:16:00.211 --> 00:16:04.611 And that was very evident. And it feels to me like that ought to be fixed, 00:16:04.791 --> 00:16:08.151 particularly in a time when the board's about to select a new director general 00:16:08.151 --> 00:16:11.571 and try and renew the BBC's 11-year royal charter. 00:16:13.004 --> 00:16:16.424 There's so much more I want to talk to you about. I wanted to work your time in the BBC. 00:16:16.644 --> 00:16:19.144 I want to talk to you about where you think the corporation goes forward. 00:16:19.284 --> 00:16:23.004 But first, I want to thank today's sponsor, CleanMyMac. 00:16:23.164 --> 00:16:25.984 It is your ultimate solution for Mac control and care. 00:16:26.184 --> 00:16:30.284 It's notarised by Apple and meticulously crafted by MacPore, 00:16:30.444 --> 00:16:33.024 a leading macOS and iOS software development company. 00:16:33.164 --> 00:16:36.284 I have to say, it is one of my favourite products that I use. 00:16:36.364 --> 00:16:39.784 It has kept my older machines running for a lot longer than they have any right 00:16:39.784 --> 00:16:43.324 to by simply cleaning up the mess that goes there. 00:16:43.464 --> 00:16:46.984 There's all sorts of great features that it has, but the main thing I want to 00:16:46.984 --> 00:16:50.324 talk to you about is the feature which connects to things like Google Cloud, 00:16:50.544 --> 00:16:55.804 iCloud, all those cloud storage products that you use and can get somewhat messy. 00:16:56.024 --> 00:17:00.444 But CleanMyMac can now connect with those and clean it all up, 00:17:00.564 --> 00:17:04.944 which makes a huge, huge difference to both your wallet and your mental health. 00:17:05.084 --> 00:17:09.044 There's some other great products too, which are part of CleanMyMac. 00:17:09.044 --> 00:17:13.704 It's got SmartCare, which is an optimisation tool. It's a sleek, 00:17:13.844 --> 00:17:14.784 user-friendly dashboard. 00:17:15.124 --> 00:17:18.664 Gives you complete control over how your Mac performs in a specific moment. 00:17:18.864 --> 00:17:23.684 There's CleanUp and MyClutter, which gets rid of system cache and development 00:17:23.684 --> 00:17:25.764 junks and other unnecessary files. 00:17:25.944 --> 00:17:28.724 Again, helping your machine move smoothly. 00:17:28.964 --> 00:17:33.904 And there's an assistant and menu app as well, as well as anti-malware facilities. 00:17:33.904 --> 00:17:39.024 So it's a hugely diverse tool for just one piece of software. 00:17:39.304 --> 00:17:43.744 And as I say, this cloud cleanup function is a new thing, and it's quite a game 00:17:43.744 --> 00:17:45.084 changer within CleanMyMac. 00:17:45.304 --> 00:17:48.944 It connects to your accounts on iCloud, OneDrive, Google Drive, 00:17:49.504 --> 00:17:54.524 scans the cloud, finds large space wasters, and helps clean up that whole system. 00:17:55.296 --> 00:17:57.216 There's, I'm thrilled to say 00:17:57.216 --> 00:18:03.376 that they're supporting this show and you can also get a bit of money off. 00:18:03.656 --> 00:18:10.456 So get tidy and try seven days free and use my code addition for 20% off at 00:18:10.456 --> 00:18:13.976 clnmy.com slash addition. 00:18:14.236 --> 00:18:16.236 That's addition with A-D-D. 00:18:16.516 --> 00:18:23.856 And the code again is clnmy.com slash addition to get 20% off. 00:18:23.856 --> 00:18:29.716 Thank you so much to CleanMyMac from MacPore for not only keeping my machines 00:18:29.716 --> 00:18:32.516 running, but supporting this show. 00:18:33.536 --> 00:18:37.876 I'm back with Jamie Angus, who is a former senior figure at the BBC. 00:18:38.976 --> 00:18:43.156 You've done quite a lot of jobs in the BBC. Just remind our listeners about that. 00:18:43.336 --> 00:18:46.536 I was a BBC News producer for a very long time. 00:18:46.656 --> 00:18:50.056 I was the editor of the Today programme. I was the director of the BBC World 00:18:50.056 --> 00:18:52.736 Service, the wonderful World Service, which we should talk about a bit. 00:18:52.736 --> 00:18:57.496 And I was a BBC senior news manager for a bit right at the end of my career, 00:18:57.756 --> 00:19:00.156 so kind of worked right across the waterfront. 00:19:01.382 --> 00:19:06.242 Yes. So the Today programme is like the headline radio show in the UK. 00:19:06.542 --> 00:19:13.802 That 10 past 8am interview slot is one that politicians will literally fight bare knuckle to get. 00:19:13.982 --> 00:19:17.642 Even in this modern world, I think it still holds some kind of prestige and 00:19:17.642 --> 00:19:19.182 significance. So you were working on that. 00:19:19.802 --> 00:19:23.182 You've just talked about the wonderful World Service. Go on then. 00:19:23.662 --> 00:19:27.662 Why is it still wonderful? Well, I think one of the things that came out of 00:19:27.662 --> 00:19:31.882 this set of hearings, actually, which is that you know, everyone is concerned 00:19:31.882 --> 00:19:37.102 that the future of the World Service gets kind of chewed up in this overall period of turmoil. 00:19:37.402 --> 00:19:40.762 And the funding of the World Service is under a great deal of pressure, 00:19:41.082 --> 00:19:45.762 partly because of a reduction in license fee revenue, for reasons we can discuss. 00:19:46.082 --> 00:19:50.162 But also because the government's own ability to, the government also puts money 00:19:50.162 --> 00:19:51.222 in to support the World Service. 00:19:51.342 --> 00:19:55.242 And that money has also been under pressure because of overall pressures on public spending. 00:19:55.482 --> 00:19:58.282 We've got the budget coming up right tomorrow when we're recording this. 00:19:58.402 --> 00:20:00.122 So this is a very current issue. 00:20:00.302 --> 00:20:05.662 But if you look across the piece, I'm sitting in New Hampshire in the United States. 00:20:05.942 --> 00:20:14.482 Here, President Donald Trump has dismantled the entirety of America's international news broadcasting. 00:20:14.682 --> 00:20:18.722 So the Voice of America family of broadcasters, which people may be familiar 00:20:18.722 --> 00:20:22.502 with, has effectively just been shuttered overnight, had all their money taken 00:20:22.502 --> 00:20:27.302 away, has left an enormous gap in the kind of international firmament. 00:20:27.502 --> 00:20:29.042 And the BBC World Service is 00:20:29.042 --> 00:20:33.542 one of the last standing, creditable international broadcasters at scale. 00:20:33.702 --> 00:20:37.702 And it's incredibly important, therefore, that both the BBC and the government 00:20:37.702 --> 00:20:42.242 seize this moment to really consolidate and secure its future rather than allowing 00:20:42.242 --> 00:20:44.482 it to drift into further uncertainty. 00:20:44.722 --> 00:20:49.062 I think something that people underestimate as well is the soft power of the 00:20:49.062 --> 00:20:55.042 BBC broadly and the World Service specifically. It is a huge piece of diplomatic 00:20:55.042 --> 00:20:57.702 and political soft power for the United Kingdom. 00:20:58.422 --> 00:21:03.242 And I think sometimes that is overlooked. Was that your experience whilst working there? 00:21:04.389 --> 00:21:08.109 Yeah, of course. And, you know, whichever, I've been working in the Gulf for, 00:21:08.389 --> 00:21:11.449 you know, the last three and a half years and I'm now in the US and, 00:21:11.609 --> 00:21:17.229 you know, both of those regions, the BBC still has enormous salience and respect, actually, 00:21:17.449 --> 00:21:20.849 even amongst people who, you know, you talk to kind of Gulf opinion formers 00:21:20.849 --> 00:21:25.309 who are often criticised on the BBC's airwaves, but still have enormous respect 00:21:25.309 --> 00:21:28.949 for it and are concerned that sort of, 00:21:29.069 --> 00:21:31.209 you know, increasing cuts to 00:21:31.209 --> 00:21:34.289 the BBC World Service have made it less and less present in that market. 00:21:34.389 --> 00:21:37.809 Here in the United States, of course, the BBC is very highly valued. 00:21:37.929 --> 00:21:41.829 The BBC has put up a paywall on its website in the United States. 00:21:41.969 --> 00:21:45.949 So I now have to pay a subscription if I want to view more than a couple of 00:21:45.949 --> 00:21:47.689 news stories on the BBC News website. 00:21:47.929 --> 00:21:50.449 That's interesting and probably a wise thing to do. 00:21:50.709 --> 00:21:52.349 It shows that how people in North 00:21:52.349 --> 00:21:55.849 America are prepared to pay for the BBC because they like it so much. 00:21:57.124 --> 00:22:01.184 All different markets in the world, whether it's giving away free in Myanmar 00:22:01.184 --> 00:22:06.484 and on shortwave to people in North Korea, or whether you charge people in North America for it. 00:22:07.144 --> 00:22:11.464 The BBC World Service, but also the wider selection of BBC drama, 00:22:11.884 --> 00:22:16.524 sport news, factual programming is just incredibly valued. 00:22:16.604 --> 00:22:20.484 And as you say, an excellent value for money in terms of UK soft power at a 00:22:20.484 --> 00:22:23.664 time when countries like the United States, which is completely withdrawn from 00:22:23.664 --> 00:22:25.704 that space. I say it every time. 00:22:26.004 --> 00:22:29.344 I talk about the BBC and I suspect my listeners are getting very bored of it, 00:22:29.424 --> 00:22:30.984 but I'm happy to reiterate it. 00:22:31.224 --> 00:22:36.784 I have always said for a very long time that the BBC licence fee is the best 00:22:36.784 --> 00:22:38.624 value for money subscription I have. 00:22:38.764 --> 00:22:41.904 And I don't just mean looking at the iPlayer, watching the TV. 00:22:42.204 --> 00:22:46.884 I'm talking about how for most of my Saturday, BBC Radio 5 Live is on in the background. 00:22:47.424 --> 00:22:51.824 I'm talking about how I wake up every morning with Nick Grimshaw and BBC 6 music. 00:22:52.624 --> 00:22:55.404 You know those the same money goes to 00:22:55.404 --> 00:22:58.484 all of those things i understand why people object 00:22:58.484 --> 00:23:01.384 and you know don't like this kind of what they perceive 00:23:01.384 --> 00:23:04.224 as a tax but i will always reiterate that pound for found 00:23:04.224 --> 00:23:07.224 it's pretty much the best value subscription 00:23:07.224 --> 00:23:09.864 i have and yet i am horrified by some of 00:23:09.864 --> 00:23:15.704 the things that came out by the telegraph in that michael prescott memo i don't 00:23:15.704 --> 00:23:19.064 think you know if you've read my newsletters on it i was increasingly horrified 00:23:19.064 --> 00:23:25.364 by the way the bbc covered Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza and hearing about 00:23:25.364 --> 00:23:29.444 what was going on at BBC Arabic only enhances that horror for me. 00:23:30.847 --> 00:23:33.807 So how did we get to that point? 00:23:34.027 --> 00:23:37.207 Because it can't just be about the editorial structures you were talking about 00:23:37.207 --> 00:23:39.447 earlier, or the governance structures. 00:23:39.727 --> 00:23:43.827 Is there a fundamental editorial problem and a cultural problem within the BBC? 00:23:44.947 --> 00:23:48.047 I just want to ask answer specifically about bbc 00:23:48.047 --> 00:23:51.007 arabic because i've given a lot of thoughts i was obviously responsible 00:23:51.007 --> 00:23:55.627 for the word service director but actually with the additional perspective of 00:23:55.627 --> 00:23:59.287 having been based in the uae and saudi in a kind of arabic working for an arabic 00:23:59.287 --> 00:24:03.407 news broadcaster actually for the last three years or so there is i think it's 00:24:03.407 --> 00:24:06.307 really important for people to understand who don't i'm not an affluent arabic 00:24:06.307 --> 00:24:09.407 speaker by the way but this is my my perception of the market. 00:24:09.567 --> 00:24:15.867 There is a series of cultural expectations in Arabic news about how issues around 00:24:15.867 --> 00:24:21.587 Israel and the Palestinians are reported that, bluntly, I think are in conflict 00:24:21.587 --> 00:24:24.047 with the BBC's editorial guidelines. 00:24:24.687 --> 00:24:27.747 And the BBC faces a pretty stark editorial choice. 00:24:27.927 --> 00:24:33.407 I think the BBC Arabic has tried to ride both horses in the sense that it wants 00:24:33.407 --> 00:24:40.147 people to consume its output and find familiar Arabic language describing these complex set of issues. 00:24:40.527 --> 00:24:43.767 And it wants to kind of attract an audience, understandably, 00:24:43.847 --> 00:24:45.507 because public money is being spent on it. 00:24:45.607 --> 00:24:49.607 But I'm beginning to come to the view, I think, that that is no longer consistent 00:24:49.607 --> 00:24:54.787 with the BBC's mission on impartiality and how it treats Israel and Palestine 00:24:54.787 --> 00:24:56.867 question, and specifically the Gaza war. 00:24:56.987 --> 00:25:01.407 Because it's clear to me that there are cultural expectations in the Arabic-speaking 00:25:01.407 --> 00:25:04.347 world about the kind of language that's used. 00:25:04.767 --> 00:25:09.927 So just to take two issues, there are issues of language around do you use Arabic 00:25:09.927 --> 00:25:13.307 words that might equate to genocide or not? 00:25:13.407 --> 00:25:16.247 And then there are a set of issues which are picked out in the Michael Prescott 00:25:16.247 --> 00:25:19.087 report about the length at which you quote 00:25:19.495 --> 00:25:27.235 Gaza, Hamas ministry spokespeople, for example. These are just two trivial but important examples. 00:25:27.395 --> 00:25:29.235 I don't think they're trivial at all, actually. Right. 00:25:29.455 --> 00:25:33.195 And Arabic news audiences have an expectation, right, you're wrong, 00:25:33.275 --> 00:25:34.835 that they will just read. 00:25:35.095 --> 00:25:40.795 You know, in reporting or listen to in broadcast reporting, kind of lengthy 00:25:40.795 --> 00:25:45.795 representations and statements from Hamas-supported organisations inside Gaza. 00:25:46.015 --> 00:25:50.495 And that's just a sort of customary issue, and I'm not really saying whether it's right or wrong. 00:25:50.615 --> 00:25:55.275 But it's very clear to me that that is inconsistent with the BBC's editorial 00:25:55.275 --> 00:26:00.155 guidelines, and that it is not possible for the BBC to have two sets of editorial 00:26:00.155 --> 00:26:02.795 guidelines, one in Arabic and one in English. 00:26:03.015 --> 00:26:06.995 And I think BBC Arabic is approaching a kind of choice moment where, 00:26:07.175 --> 00:26:11.975 and I think the only conceivable path actually is that BBC Arabic cleaves to 00:26:11.975 --> 00:26:16.435 exactly the same set of rules that the BBC English output does. 00:26:16.635 --> 00:26:20.735 And it may have to sacrifice some audience because of that, because there are 00:26:20.735 --> 00:26:25.695 members of the Arabic speaking audience who will be upset by the fact that the 00:26:25.695 --> 00:26:27.795 BBC is doing this and will stop using it. 00:26:27.915 --> 00:26:33.715 And I think it's no longer possible for the BBC in BBC Arabic to try and have it both ways. 00:26:33.875 --> 00:26:38.675 And that's my considered view based on actually being present in the market now for a few years. 00:26:38.775 --> 00:26:43.275 And I think it was a legitimate question that was raised by the Michael Prescott memo. 00:26:43.515 --> 00:26:47.435 And I think it's something that even Samir Shah himself said that they had commissioned 00:26:47.435 --> 00:26:50.755 additional work on this and changed the structure of BBC Arabic to make some 00:26:50.755 --> 00:26:51.955 changes along those lines. 00:26:52.135 --> 00:26:56.515 I'm thrilled to have you on the show because of your experience of this whole 00:26:56.515 --> 00:26:58.475 part of the debate, because it was a big one. 00:26:58.615 --> 00:27:03.015 My contention to you, though, is, and I'm thrilled you outlined the specifics 00:27:03.015 --> 00:27:08.075 around BBC Arabic, but I suspect, in fact, I know I don't suspect. 00:27:08.375 --> 00:27:12.935 If you spoke to, for example, large members of the British Jewish community, 00:27:13.315 --> 00:27:14.835 senior figures in that community... 00:27:15.471 --> 00:27:18.331 They would say, okay, well, that's one thing. And thank you very much for explaining 00:27:18.331 --> 00:27:20.231 that, Jamie, about BBC Arabic. 00:27:21.131 --> 00:27:24.311 What about the report on the BBC 10 o'clock news in English? 00:27:24.451 --> 00:27:26.231 I think that's, yeah, I mean, I think that's right. 00:27:26.391 --> 00:27:30.911 And I think there is, let's agree that this issue is going to remain highly 00:27:30.911 --> 00:27:32.311 contentious and divisive, 00:27:32.491 --> 00:27:36.571 and it's going to attract very strong views on both sides, because let's remember 00:27:36.571 --> 00:27:41.391 that the BBC is equally under pressure from a group of, you know, 00:27:41.471 --> 00:27:46.131 groups of Palestinian activists who feel that the BBC is biased in the opposite direction. 00:27:46.311 --> 00:27:50.291 I don't say that because I don't like this argument that both sets of people 00:27:50.291 --> 00:27:52.411 are complaining, therefore the BBC is in the right place. 00:27:52.551 --> 00:27:56.131 I think that's wrong. I was going to ask you about that. That's a defence that's often made, isn't it? 00:27:57.171 --> 00:28:00.571 The BBC has to, in a sense, it does have to listen to criticism, 00:28:00.571 --> 00:28:05.351 but it also has to work out from first principles the rules that govern its 00:28:05.351 --> 00:28:09.631 coverage of this unbelievably hotly disputed issue and then follow those rules. 00:28:09.831 --> 00:28:13.291 And if it gets them wrong, then it has to, in the case, for example, 00:28:13.391 --> 00:28:17.611 of the Gaza documentary over the summer, be prepared to admit that and correct quickly. 00:28:17.831 --> 00:28:20.911 So the BBC does have to listen to its audience, but in a sense, 00:28:21.011 --> 00:28:24.911 it also has to tune out some of the noise and operate from first principles. 00:28:25.091 --> 00:28:28.911 And I broadly pay tribute to people at the BBC who do this every day, 00:28:29.111 --> 00:28:33.691 because on this most hotly contested issue, BBC is producing enormous amounts 00:28:33.691 --> 00:28:37.051 of output and much of it is of excellent quality. 00:28:37.211 --> 00:28:40.711 I might push back and dispute that, but I understand the point you're making. And. 00:28:41.803 --> 00:28:47.063 The documentary was one thing. For many people, that documentary was symptomatic of a wider problem. 00:28:47.823 --> 00:28:54.503 I mean, how on earth do you get a documentary in which the narrator, the child narrator, 00:28:54.903 --> 00:28:58.783 turns out to be the son of a relatively 00:28:58.783 --> 00:29:03.823 senior Hamas figure and not tell anyone, not tell your audience? 00:29:04.143 --> 00:29:07.283 That's bizarre. As I say, night after night, 00:29:07.463 --> 00:29:10.923 there were people who were horrified by the way a number 00:29:10.923 --> 00:29:14.463 I'm not going to pick out an individual of very senior BBC 00:29:14.463 --> 00:29:17.503 correspondents were reporting on the war the language they 00:29:17.503 --> 00:29:20.263 were using the sources they were using the framing they were 00:29:20.263 --> 00:29:23.163 using that you know 00:29:23.163 --> 00:29:27.603 we all have to be aware of our own biases and opinions right 100% just because 00:29:27.603 --> 00:29:30.783 I don't like something doesn't mean it's wrong just because I disagree with 00:29:30.783 --> 00:29:37.283 something doesn't mean that person is wrong but equally there was it felt like 00:29:37.283 --> 00:29:42.983 there was a cultural issue that really horrified a lot of people. 00:29:43.903 --> 00:29:46.363 I'm thinking about right at the start of the war, for example, 00:29:46.483 --> 00:29:51.843 where one correspondent saw there was an explosion at a hospital in Gaza. 00:29:52.203 --> 00:29:56.783 A correspondent whose name I can't remember said, well, I can't see how it can 00:29:56.783 --> 00:29:58.643 be anything else but an Israeli bomb. 00:29:58.943 --> 00:30:02.423 It turned out to be a missile that was meant to be fired into Israel that had 00:30:02.423 --> 00:30:04.783 fallen short, for example. 00:30:05.903 --> 00:30:11.123 And those kind of initial reactions really troubled a lot of people, including me. 00:30:11.883 --> 00:30:16.703 Do you not think there is some kind of systematic issue there or cultural issue? 00:30:18.082 --> 00:30:22.462 I don't actually. I think that there have been significant mistakes, 00:30:22.642 --> 00:30:28.362 but I think they're mistakes that come against a background of people trying 00:30:28.362 --> 00:30:31.642 to do their best in very, very difficult circumstances. 00:30:32.122 --> 00:30:36.362 So I think either you've got people reporting on the ground in situations of 00:30:36.362 --> 00:30:40.542 imperfect information based in some senses on kind of biased and unreliable 00:30:40.542 --> 00:30:42.102 sources, or alternatively, 00:30:42.202 --> 00:30:45.462 you've got people trying to make sense of events from London who haven't necessarily 00:30:45.462 --> 00:30:47.282 lived and experienced the region. 00:30:47.562 --> 00:30:52.042 And I think the best of the BBC, the best reporting the BBC does often comes 00:30:52.042 --> 00:30:53.682 from people who have lived and worked 00:30:53.682 --> 00:30:57.182 in the region and at least have that additional sense of perspective. 00:30:57.442 --> 00:31:00.582 But equally, I hear you saying that actually some of those figures, 00:31:00.782 --> 00:31:03.682 you also don't like some of the things they say on air. 00:31:03.802 --> 00:31:10.062 But I do feel that this issue has become so hotly contested that we're never 00:31:10.062 --> 00:31:13.302 going to get to a position where everyone is happy with all of the output, 00:31:13.582 --> 00:31:18.982 and that the BBC really needs to focus, as I said, on sticking to its principles 00:31:18.982 --> 00:31:21.482 about the language and framing of reporting. 00:31:21.702 --> 00:31:25.722 I think you're right to raise framing, actually, because increasingly bias, 00:31:26.042 --> 00:31:30.722 so-called bias, is actually about story selection and framing, 00:31:30.942 --> 00:31:34.922 rather than it is about sort of naked pushing one party above the other. 00:31:34.922 --> 00:31:37.462 100%. I think it's much more insidious. Right. 00:31:37.842 --> 00:31:41.782 And it's like, which I really found this towards the end of my time at the BBC 00:31:41.782 --> 00:31:46.262 as an editor, it was like accusations of bias were much more around just which 00:31:46.262 --> 00:31:50.402 stories you chose and how you framed them than they were about, oh, 00:31:50.762 --> 00:31:54.222 you know, you had too much sync of a conservative and not enough sync of somebody 00:31:54.222 --> 00:31:55.462 from the Labour Party. Yeah. 00:31:56.198 --> 00:32:00.858 Trivial. It was always much more these issues about just even in picking this 00:32:00.858 --> 00:32:05.878 story and narrative, you have committed an act of institutional bias. 00:32:06.038 --> 00:32:10.198 And I think that is much more where the action is. And it's much harder, 00:32:10.378 --> 00:32:13.098 actually, to navigate through that day by day. 00:32:13.218 --> 00:32:16.798 I have some views on that, actually, just briefly. I think a lot of this is 00:32:16.798 --> 00:32:23.858 to do with the rise of digital news and the importance of first-person storytelling in digital news. 00:32:24.118 --> 00:32:29.298 So the very format of digital news tends to be around here is a person and here 00:32:29.298 --> 00:32:31.658 is their inspiring and uplifting story. 00:32:31.878 --> 00:32:36.118 That is how a lot of digital content is written and produced. 00:32:36.118 --> 00:32:41.898 That format in itself is quite problematic for a public service broadcaster 00:32:41.898 --> 00:32:45.818 that is committed to fair and impartial reporting. 00:32:46.078 --> 00:32:48.938 And I think we could do a whole program just on this issue, but I'm just saying 00:32:48.938 --> 00:32:53.798 this is a structural issue to do with how the news is reported in the digital world. 00:32:53.918 --> 00:32:56.338 That poses an increasing issue. 00:32:56.478 --> 00:32:59.578 So it might be, I'm a refugee in Gaza. 00:32:59.818 --> 00:33:05.758 I'm living in a tent. Here's my daily life. That would be a popular and possibly 00:33:05.758 --> 00:33:09.598 journalistically valid thing for the BBC to do. In and of itself, that's not a problem. 00:33:09.978 --> 00:33:13.938 Exactly. Or it might say, I'm a trans woman athlete. 00:33:14.178 --> 00:33:19.138 Here is my story of how I struggled and won through and got recognition. 00:33:19.358 --> 00:33:23.838 And you can immediately see both of those pieces are potentially journalistically 00:33:23.838 --> 00:33:28.258 valid, but also intensely problematic in a hotly contested set of issues. 00:33:28.258 --> 00:33:33.598 And, you know, absolutely journalistically valid those as first-person stories. 00:33:34.018 --> 00:33:37.638 You know, probably two things I would be interested in watching or reading. 00:33:38.833 --> 00:33:43.413 But yes, then there's a framing and it's much more complicated than saying, 00:33:43.613 --> 00:33:48.613 oh, the Tory MP got seven minutes, the Labour MP only got four with Laura Koonsberg. 00:33:48.773 --> 00:33:51.193 It's much more complicated. Yes, I think that's absolutely right. 00:33:51.553 --> 00:33:53.853 I mean, I could keep talking to you about all this for ages. 00:33:54.493 --> 00:33:58.373 But just to wrap up a couple of things, some people have put it to me, 00:33:58.493 --> 00:34:02.173 and again, I think it's a pretty fair argument that some of these problems that 00:34:02.173 --> 00:34:08.433 you and I have talked about come from the loss of quite senior journalists within the BBC. 00:34:09.273 --> 00:34:14.933 There's been a bit of a whole sort of quite significant tear that has been taken 00:34:14.933 --> 00:34:18.713 out of the BBC just because of cuts to the corporation. 00:34:18.913 --> 00:34:23.213 And some of those people might have been able to stop some of these problems before they went to air. 00:34:23.593 --> 00:34:28.413 Do you think that's a fair point? Yeah, I think it is a fair point that it has happened. 00:34:28.873 --> 00:34:33.133 I'm not sure that any of these individual issues were necessarily rooted to 00:34:33.133 --> 00:34:34.973 that. But I do think it is a good point. 00:34:35.113 --> 00:34:39.413 The BBC generally and BBC News in particular has been making what feels like 00:34:39.413 --> 00:34:45.073 an endless cycle of savings over the last decade, mainly driven by fall in license fee revenue. 00:34:45.393 --> 00:34:50.493 And this has been difficult, dispiriting and disruptive for the BBC Newsroom. 00:34:50.613 --> 00:34:56.713 And it has resulted in a hollowing out of deep expertise in some subject areas 00:34:56.713 --> 00:35:01.733 and also some kind of layers of oversight about how material would be checked. 00:35:01.953 --> 00:35:06.813 And it is frustrating to me that having been part of a leadership team that 00:35:06.813 --> 00:35:08.413 had to implement some of those savings. 00:35:09.090 --> 00:35:11.910 Then sometimes the BBC board turns around and says, oh, well, 00:35:11.970 --> 00:35:15.370 actually, we better put an additional editorial role about, you know, 00:35:15.470 --> 00:35:19.470 kind of editorial standards and oversight of long form journalism back into 00:35:19.470 --> 00:35:21.670 place because of this thing that went wrong. 00:35:21.810 --> 00:35:25.250 And we're like, well, you could have just not told us to take it out in the first place. 00:35:25.410 --> 00:35:28.290 And maybe we'd have all saved ourselves an awful lot of time and effort. 00:35:28.290 --> 00:35:33.650 And again, I think I've said this to you on the pod before, a year ago when I was last on, 00:35:33.730 --> 00:35:39.690 but I feel that the BBC is pushing too many of the cuts into areas of its absolute 00:35:39.690 --> 00:35:43.330 core activity that are unique to public service broadcasting, 00:35:43.430 --> 00:35:45.490 including news and local radio, 00:35:45.710 --> 00:35:49.090 for example, actually, which is something that I feel strongly about that is 00:35:49.090 --> 00:35:50.410 unique that the BBC does. 00:35:50.410 --> 00:35:55.470 The BBC has convinced itself that it needs to protect the video content that 00:35:55.470 --> 00:35:58.650 drives use of iPlayer, which broadly I can understand. 00:35:58.870 --> 00:36:03.010 But one of the consequences of that is that too many of those savings are being 00:36:03.010 --> 00:36:07.770 pushed into highly editorial sensitive areas in BBC News, including the World Service, 00:36:07.910 --> 00:36:11.710 and that there is a price to be paid for that and that some of these editorial 00:36:11.710 --> 00:36:14.070 mistakes are probably linked to those savings. 00:36:15.419 --> 00:36:18.719 Jamie, it's been fascinating. Where can people keep up with you if they want? 00:36:19.999 --> 00:36:24.539 Well, you can follow me on LinkedIn most of the time if you just search for Jamie Angus. 00:36:24.739 --> 00:36:29.959 I post occasional rants and thoughts about media generally on there and a fascinating 00:36:29.959 --> 00:36:33.079 time in the media in the United States and of course in the UK. 00:36:33.299 --> 00:36:36.359 We've got all this kind of interesting consolidation going on, 00:36:36.559 --> 00:36:41.319 you know, fewer and fewer owners and compacting newspapers and media organisations together. 00:36:41.579 --> 00:36:44.959 Just a fascinating time outside of the BBC and you're just one of the reasons 00:36:44.959 --> 00:36:49.539 why this question of the BBC's charter review sorting out the next 11 years 00:36:49.539 --> 00:36:52.859 of the licence fee or other ways of paying for it is incredibly important and 00:36:52.859 --> 00:36:55.419 maybe we'll come back in a few months and talk about that 00:36:55.839 --> 00:37:01.299 would be a good special to do I hope so, I really hope you can't take the editor 00:37:01.299 --> 00:37:04.679 you can stop the guy being an editor you can't take the editor out of him, 00:37:04.739 --> 00:37:06.279 look at that he's already planning programming. 00:37:07.319 --> 00:37:12.139 It's great to have you on Jamie Charlotte Henry of course and you can follow me at Charlotte A. 00:37:12.219 --> 00:37:15.959 Henry across most of social media head over to theedition.net 00:37:15.959 --> 00:37:19.179 where you can listen and watch previous episodes you 00:37:19.179 --> 00:37:22.359 can read previous newsletters and you 00:37:22.359 --> 00:37:25.659 can sign up on there if you check out the right time there might be a little 00:37:25.659 --> 00:37:30.099 back Friday offer going on as well so that's over at theedition.net I hope you'll 00:37:30.099 --> 00:37:33.499 pick up copies of my new book as well Streaming Wars which covers the whole 00:37:33.499 --> 00:37:38.479 entertainment space and how it has changed in the streaming era I'll see you 00:37:38.479 --> 00:37:41.339 all next week thanks very much speak soon.