Chris Patten: BBC has more senior managers than the communist party

The chairman of the BBC Trust added that Rupert Murdoch's newspapers "were bound to question" his position, but the crisis could be solved by better management.

Chris Patten, the chairman of the BBC Trust, today told Andrew Marr that the BBC was facing its worst crisis since the Hutton Inquiry.

He said that "awful" journalism  had "disgraced" Newsnight, and therefore he understood why the director-general, George Entwistle, had resigned.

Marr asked him whether Entwistle's "car-crash interview" with John Humphreys on Radio 4's Today programme had contributed to his decision to leave. "You don't go on an interview with John Humphreys and expect the bowling to be slow full tosses," Patten replied.

"We're a news organisation and our credibility depends on telling the truth," he added.

Marr asked whether Entwistle's "lack of curiosity" about the incorrect Newsnight story was the problem. Patten agreed partially, adding "from the beginning… he was implicated in the crisis. He was director of vision when that first Newsnight programme went out".

However, he said, Entwistle was "cerebral, decent, honest, brave".

Asked about his own position, Patten said that it was "bound to be under question by Rupert Murdoch's newspapers, let's be clear about that". 

But he later added that opponents of the BBC "are fairly cagey about the way they talk about it" because of the corporation's wide public support. "It is one of the things which defines Britishness." 

As for the suggestion that Newsnight was "toast" - as presenter Eddie Mair suggested on Friday's programme - Patten said: "That's a rather quick judgment … at the heart of our journalism is good investigative, uncompromising journalism, and Newsnight been part of that tradition. We want to hold on to that. We want to make sure that Newsnight and other programmes are properly managed.

"It's obviously been compromised by the fact that senior executives were recused from involvement . . . [but] decisions about the programme went up through every damned layer [of management]".

After Andrew Marr complained about the existence of an out-of-touch "senior management group" at the corporation, Patten said that he had always joked there were "more senior leaders at the BBC than in the Chinese communist party" but that it had worked to change itself.

The BBC Trust chairman promised to appoint a replacement for Entwistle within weeks, and not to let the corporation become too risk-averse. 

Chris Patten on Andrew Marr's programme.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Show Hide image

No, David Cameron’s speech was not “left wing”

Come on, guys.

There is a strange journalistic phenomenon that occurs when a party leader makes a speech. It is a blend of groupthink, relief, utter certainty, and online backslapping. It happened particularly quickly after David Cameron’s speech to Tory party conference today. A few pundits decided that – because he mentioned, like, diversity and social mobility – this was a centre-left speech. A leftwing speech, even. Or at least a clear grab for the liberal centre ground. And so that’s what everyone now believes. The analysis is decided. The commentary is written. Thank God for that.

Really? It’s quite easy, even as one of those nasty, wicked Tories, to mention that you actually don’t much like racism, and point out that you’d quite like poor children to get jobs, without moving onto Labour's "territory". Which normal person is in favour of discriminating against someone on the basis of race, or blocking opportunity on the basis of class? Of course he’s against that. He’s a politician operating in a liberal democracy. And this isn’t Ukip conference.

Looking at the whole package, it was actually quite a rightwing speech. It was a paean to defence – championing drones, protecting Britain from the evils of the world, and getting all excited about “launching the biggest aircraft carriers in our history”.

It was a festival of flagwaving guff about the British “character”, a celebration of shoehorning our history chronologically onto the curriculum, looking towards a “Greater Britain”, asking for more “national pride”. There was even a Bake Off pun.

He also deployed the illiberal device of inculcating a divide-and-rule fear of the “shadow of extremism – hanging over every single one of us”, informing us that children in UK madrassas are having their “heads filled with poison and their hearts filled with hate”, and saying Britain shouldn’t be “overwhelmed” with refugees, before quickly changing the subject to ousting Assad. How unashamedly centrist, of you, Mr Prime Minister.

Benefit cuts and a reduction of tax credits will mean the Prime Minister’s enthusiasm for “equality of opportunity, as opposed to equality of outcome” will be just that – with the outcome pretty bleak for those who end up losing any opportunity that comes with state support. And his excitement about diversity in his cabinet rings a little hollow the day following a tubthumping anti-immigration speech from his Home Secretary.

If this year's Tory conference wins the party votes, it’ll be because of its conservative commitment – not lefty love bombing.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.