The BBC and double standards!

Am I alone in thinking that there is a whiff of hypocrisy in the air over some elements of the media’s coverage of the Dominic Cummings affair?

BBC chiefs have acknowledged that the comments made by experienced presenter Emily Maitlis on Tuesday’s Newsnight were not acceptable and are quoted as saying “….the introduction we broadcast did not meet our standards of due impartiality”.

Now I would have thought that an acknowledgement that the comments of a senior and respected presenter on one of the BBC’s flagship programmes breached the BBC’s standards of due impartiality would be regarded as important. Is not the reputation of the BBC and its public funding based on its reputation for impartiality? However I have seen no apology by Ms Maitlis or the production team for this serious error.

Indeed the item on the BBC’s website seemed to support their presenter highlighting that she had not been removed from the following night’s programme but that she had asked “for the night off”. The programmes editor and deputy editor were both quoted making clear that Ms Maitlis had not been taken off air or replaced and Ms Maitlis was quoted via her twitter account referring to being “overwhelmed by all the kindness, messages – and support on here…”.

Of course the subject matter of her comments were the Prime Minister’s continued support of Mr Cummings notwithstanding him allegedly breaking the rules. Is it just me that spots a certain irony – is it a case of do what we say and not what we do?

Similarly I saw in the media pictures of the scrum of reporters outside Mr Cumming’s house all striving for a comment or photograph. There seemed to be a police officer in attendance but no obvious concern at the apparent failure of this media scrum to properly social distance.
We have also had to endure the daily press conferences with reporters given the privilege of being allowed to question the Government representative and advisors but so often squandering that opportunity by repeating questions asked previously or asking a question when it was apparent to all that the answer was either obvious, or on some occasions unknown. No wonder the idea of questions from members of the public was introduced.

There also seems to be the view running across all TV programmes that to achieve a good or effective interview there is a requirement for the questioner to be aggressive and to interrupt constantly rather than using guile and intellect to achieve an illuminating response.
When all this is over and the relevant data is to hand reaction to the virus will need to be properly reviewed (hopefully avoiding an excess of hindsight!) but perhaps the BBC should also be prepared to critically assess the performance of its own team.