Trouble from nowhere: Sort out news and current affairs
Opinion
Raymond Snoddy pens a letter to Matt Brittin, the first BBC director-general in 80 years with no experience of programme-making, advising that he’s going to need all the help he can get.
Dear Matt,
As director-general, you can face down tabloid headlines about how dancers on Strictly or presenters on MasterChef behave, but it is one piece of thoughtless editing on a documentary about President Trump that can bring down a BBC DG and a CEO of news as Tim Davie and Deborah Turness understand only too well.
It goes without saying that you, as a former Google executive, will need an expert director of news, probably one unsullied by the recent BBC past, with the title and power of also serving as deputy DG. Even then, the buck will still stop with you as you are the BBC’s editor-in-chief despite never having had hands-on experience of journalism.
It is a well-understood truth that, while successful general programmes are important, in an age of streaming endless entertainment, the BBC’s public purpose, and with it the case for universal funding, rests on the quality of its news and current affairs.
Here, there are problems of tactics, strategy, purpose, trust and impartiality.
There will always be errors in the output of one of the world’s largest teams of journalists operating across radio, television and the internet 24-hours a day. They must be reduced to a minimum as Richard Tait, former editor-in-chief of ITN, has already advised you.
It cannot be emphasised enough that the damage caused by the recent removal of experienced editors, and with it the loss of institutional memory, has had its inevitable consequences. Any repeats of such an approach would be unwise.
There are many positives about BBC journalism—areas that need to be cherished rather than fixed—primarily in radio. They include the World Service, Radio 4, and a large number of experienced correspondents, not least fact-checking journalists such as Ros Atkins and the BBC Verify team.
By process of elimination, the main strategic mistakes made by the previous administration were made in BBC Television News and Current Affairs. They involved exerting undue influence on ‘breaking’ 24-hour news, or, as critics would have it, ‘vacuous’ breaking news, at the expense of longer-form investigative and explanatory journalism, which should be the hallmark of what the BBC stands for.
The evisceration of Newsnight and the sacking of teams of experienced journalists was a tragedy, and its afterlife as an upmarket chat show is no substitute. The decision to close down Stephen Sachur’s HARDtalk interview programme without discussion or warning—whose reputation and impact were high and significant outside the UK—was a disgrace.
In an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world, both decisions marked a retreat from what the very essence of the BBC’s public service mission should be. Its experienced staff have been scattered to the four winds, and most are now flourishing elsewhere, and what they achieved cannot be recreated. New generation versions of what they achieved have to be found.
Brexit and coverage of Farage
Trust in recent years has been undermined by a decision taken by a previous DG, ironically, one with loads of journalist experience, Lord (Tony) Hall.
After the Brexit referendum, Hall made clear his view that the UK had decided and that BBC coverage should not appear to question that decision. The deal was done, and the BBC should move forward.
Critics argue that such an approach still seems to influence BBC coverage of Europe, even as the true high cost of Brexit becomes ever more apparent, and there is now a clear majority not just of those who think Brexit was a mistake but of those who actually want to rejoin the EU. The pro-Europe numbers are even more dramatic among younger voters, a segment of viewers the BBC has somehow to attract.
There has also been a loss of trust in the coverage of Nigel Farage and his Reform UK party, a rebranding of his previous Brexit and UKIP parties. Critics suggest that the BBC has been largely responsible for shaping the public persona of Farage through at least 30 appearances on the soft current affairs programme Question Time. The allegation is that not just on Question Time but across BBC news coverage, Reform UK is afforded undue prominence, given it has little more than a handful of MPs, half of whom were elected as Conservatives.
Reform UK press conferences are carried live and at length on BBC News, a privilege not so often accorded to the Liberal Democrats, a long-established party with 72 MPs. Lib Dem leader Ed Davey has made formal complaints against the level of Reform UK coverage on the BBC. To justify such disproportionate coverage, the BBC apparently relies on the circular arguments that Reform UK is ahead in the polls, a treatment which then reinforces that very lead.
Polls can go down as well as up, but the main fallacy may be the journalistic one that Farage and Reform UK is ‘a story’, and that is the only thing that matters, regardless of the consequences for society.
Deborah Turness even gave a presentation to the March 2025 Editorial Guidelines and Standards Committee, suggesting the BBC could run news items that would appeal to Reform UK voters who tend not to trust the broadcaster. Minutes of that meeting were subsequently leaked.
It was a similar, if more dramatic, fallacy that led the US networks to play a central role in the creation of the first Trump presidency through their extensive, uncritical coverage.
Impartiality in the Middle East
Trying to achieve impartiality in the Middle East, even before the joint March 2026 US-Israeli attack on Iran, is obviously a nightmare for the BBC. But there is a fear that the BBC has been weak and over-cautious in the face of the powerful pro-Israel lobby.
The clearest evidence came from how the documentary Gaza: Doctors Under Attack was made and how it was treated by BBC executives. The makers of the documentary revealed at the March 2026 Society of Editors conference that they were told not to use the word genocide or use UN or Amnesty statistics in the programme. Eventually, the documentary was shelved by the BBC, citing fears that it might breach impartiality rules. It was later shown by Channel 4 without noticeable problems.
In the future, the BBC must show greater courage on such vital matters. BBC senior management might also reflect that the best television news programme in the UK is not on the BBC. It is Channel 4 News by a country mile, a programme that night after night gives time to serious issues not being covered elsewhere.
Overall, there is a need for a reset of the strategy and purpose of BBC journalism, with greater attention to its heritage as a public service broadcaster—a reset that should include how programmes such as Question Time are organised and presented.
Luckily, there are plenty of splendid examples to build on across the BBC, as well as the power of fact-checking in a world where politicians blatantly lie as never before.
A review of BBC journalism
The Radio Four Today programme, one of the best things the BBC does, has recently introduced almost a new genre in a fast-moving news programme—a 10-minute essay. It enabled the BBC’s distinguished international editor, Jeremy Bowen, to give a masterclass on the complexities of the current conflicts in the Middle East. More like this, please.
You need a quick review of the current state of BBC journalism and what needs to be done to improve it. As a former McKinsey consultant, the last thing you need is conventional consultancy. You should assemble five people with real experience in the subject to develop basic recommendations within a maximum of three months.
They should set five priorities for consideration in a simple report. The composition of the five would be up to you, but you could do worse than take advantage of the knowledge of Professors Richard Tait and Patrick Barwise. Tait is a seasoned journalist, and Barwise, while not a journalist, does have an unequalled appreciation of what the BBC should be for and how it can be financed.
What is clear is that your courageous appointment is an opportunity to break with the past and to move forward. For the sake of the BBC’s reputation, you would be wise to ensure that this new opportunity encompasses the future of BBC News and Current Affairs and that the mistakes of the past are avoided as much as possible in future.
This is where most storms and troubles appear from out of a clear blue sky to cause chaos at your new organisation. Make sure your BBC can weather those storms.
Good luck.
Raymond Snoddy
Raymond Snoddy is a media consultant, national newspaper columnist and former presenter of NewsWatch on BBC News. He writes for The Media Leader on Wednesdays — bookmark his column here.