BBC faces crisis over Trump documentary edit; chair admits ‘error of judgement’ after top executives resign

BBC Director General Tim Davie and Chief Executive of News Deborah Turness - File Photos

BBC Chairperson Samir Shah has acknowledged that the broadcaster made an “error of judgment” in editing a 2024 documentary about US President Donald Trump, following the resignations of Director General Tim Davie and Chief Executive of News Deborah Turness over the controversy.

In a written statement submitted to the UK Parliament’s Culture, Media and Sport Committee on Monday, Shah said the network accepted responsibility for how the Trump footage was presented. “The conclusion of that deliberation is that we accept that the way the speech was edited did give the impression of a direct call for violent action. The BBC would like to apologise for that error of judgement,” Shah said.

He also rejected claims that the corporation failed to take corrective measures, describing them as “simply not true.”

Editing controversy and fallout

The controversy stems from a segment aired by Panorama, the BBC’s flagship investigative programme. According to a whistleblower memo obtained by The Telegraph, Trump’s January 6, 2021, speech was edited to make it appear that he had urged his supporters to “fight like hell” before the Capitol riots. Critics argued the edit distorted the speech’s context, prompting outrage from Trump’s supporters and renewed accusations of editorial bias.

The backlash quickly grew into a full-blown crisis for the BBC. Critics accused the network of failing to uphold neutrality in its coverage of politically sensitive issues, including US politics, the Israel-Hamas war, and transgender rights.

Leadership shake-up

The fallout from the Panorama controversy led to two high-profile resignations over the weekend. Both Tim Davie and Deborah Turness stepped down from their roles, marking a significant moment for the public broadcaster already under pressure for its impartiality record.

Davie clarified in a statement that his resignation was a personal choice, not a result of board pressure. “This is entirely my decision, and I remain very thankful to the Chair and Board for their unswerving and unanimous support throughout my entire tenure, including during recent days,” he said, as quoted by Reuters.

He added that the Trump documentary incident was not the sole reason for his exit, but it did influence his decision. “Ultimately, I had to take responsibility,” Davie said. Appointed in 2020, he will continue to serve as Director General until a successor is named.

Turness, who led BBC News, also admitted mistakes were made. In a statement published on the BBC’s website, she said, “The corporation had made mistakes,” but insisted the broadcaster was not institutionally biased. “I want to be absolutely clear recent allegations that BBC News is institutionally biased are wrong,” she said in an internal email aimed at calming staff concerns and reaffirming the organisation’s commitment to impartial journalism.

Allegations of broader bias

The Panorama issue surfaced alongside a leaked internal report that deepened scrutiny of the BBC’s editorial integrity. The report, compiled by a former adviser on editorial standards, alleged that BBC Arabic displayed bias against Israel in its Gaza war coverage and that some staff intentionally downplayed stories dealing with gender and trans-related issues.

These findings intensified accusations that the BBC has failed to meet its own standards of objectivity and fairness, a charge the corporation’s leadership has repeatedly denied.

BBC to review editorial practices

In response to the mounting criticism, the BBC has announced a comprehensive review of its editorial practices for Panorama and other current affairs programmes. The network said the review aims to ensure full compliance with its impartiality code and to strengthen safeguards against editorial lapses.

The developments represent one of the BBC’s most serious credibility crises in recent years. As the broadcaster moves to restore public trust, its leadership faces growing pressure to prove that its editorial standards remain independent, transparent and free from political influence.