As an admirer of the institution of the BBC, I have to say that I am more persuaded by Emily Maitlis’s comments about what happened after she said on Newsnight that Dominic Cummings had broken lockdown rules than by the denials of the BBC’s chief content officer, Charlotte Moore (BBC says ‘in no way’ did government prompt it to censure Emily Maitlis, 25 August).
In the days leading up to Boris Johnson’s resignation, I tuned in to the BBC News at Ten nightly, only to switch quickly to ITN for reliable reporting of events. There were fine reporters on the BBC, but it appeared that they were compelled to describe developments in the blandest of terms.
I wondered whether the BBC, sticking to the rules it now obeys, would strive for objectivity if our country was governed by a Jair Bolsonaro or a Donald Trump, or would feel obliged to call out wickedness and lies.
Ray Jenkin
Cardiff
• Re Gaby Hinsliff’s article (Emily Maitlis is finally free to say what needed saying: the BBC has lost its nerve, 25 August), I saw the Emily Maitlis homily on Dominic Cummings. I thought it was out of order, a view shared by former journalistic colleagues, and was unsurprised that the BBC later apologised. The fault was less Maitlis’s for trying it on than her editor’s for allowing it. Whether Downing Street complained is neither here nor there. It was an error. Hinsliff and others should beware post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Will Wyatt
Chief executive, BBC Broadcast, 1996-99
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
