Emily Maitlis says BBC's Brexit coverage 'wasn't' balanced

We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info

On Wednesday 24 August, Emily Maitlis delivered the MacTaggart Memorial Lecture at the Edinburgh International TV Festival, where she claimed there is an “active Tory party agent” shaping the BBC news content. The former Newsnight presenter left the corporation in February after signing with Global. She departed along with former BBC North American editor, Jon Sopel, and the pair are due to launch their joint podcast entitled “The News Agents” next week. Maitlis has now hit out at her former employer, deploring the BBC for apologising following her Newsnight speech where she criticised Dominic Cummings and his infamous trip to Barnard Castle.

In May 2020, Maitlis said, during her monologue, that Boris Johnson’s former advisor had broken the coronavirus lockdown rules – and claimed Mr Cummings had texted her afterwards himself, offering his “wry support” for her lambasting him.

Speaking on Newsnight, she added: “The country can see that and it’s shocked the government cannot.”

However, the BBC then apologised “speedily”, according to Maitlis, which the former BBC Breakfast presenter argued demonstrated the corporation was frightened of holding power to account.

She went on to say that this must be viewed in the context of an “active agent of the Conservative party” former Director of Communications at No10 under Theresa May, Sir Robbie Gibb, sitting on the board, “acting as the arbiter of BBC impartiality”.

The 51-year-old said during her speech on August 24: “We show our impartiality when we report without fear or favour.

“When we are not scared to hold power to account, even when it feels uncomfortable to do so.

“When we understand that if we’ve covered rule-breaking by a Scottish chief medical officer or an English government scientist then journalistic rigour should be applied to those who make policy within No 10.

“The one person – ironically – who understood this was Dominic Cummings himself. Who texted me that very evening to offer his wry support.

“Why had the BBC immediately and publicly sought to confirm the government spokesman’s opinion? Without any kind of due process?

“It makes no sense for an organisation that is admirably, famously rigorous about procedure – unless it was perhaps sending a message of reassurance directly to the government itself?

“Put this in the context of the BBC board, where another active agent of the Conservative party – former Downing Street spin doctor, and former adviser to BBC rival GB News [Sir Robbie Gibb] – now sits, acting as the arbiter of BBC impartiality.

“According to the Financial Times, he’s attempted to block the appointments of journalists he considers damaging to government relations, provoking Labour’s deputy leader (among others) to call it ‘Tory cronyism at the heart of the BBC’.”

But now, speaking to inews, a BBC insider said her speech has demonstrated that her departure was the “best decision” for everyone involved.

The source said: “Emily has nailed her political colours to the mast now. She was chafing against the impartiality guidelines during the end of her time at Newsnight.

“[BBC Director General] Tim [Davie] is relaxed that she has gone. It looks the best decision for everyone.”

DON’T MISS: State pension age: What next for WASPI? [ANALYSIS]
‘Golden rule’ for removing toilet limescale with just 2 ingredients [INSIGHT]
Asda warns customers of major change coming to all UK stores next week [REPORT]

In response to her speech, the BBC has reinstated that their apology for her Newsnight monologue was not as a result of “pressure” from the government.

A spokesperson has said: “As we have made clear previously in relation to Newsnight we did not take action as a result of any pressure from Number 10 or government and to suggest otherwise is wrong.

“The BBC found the programme breached its editorial standards and that decision still stands.”

Source: Read Full Article