Can the BBC’s reputation survive the Princess Diana interview scandal? It needs to get its house in order

Following Lord Dyson’s report, the BBC (once again) finds itself in the dock, with the government threatening to force changes in the way the corporation is governed and run. This time, it’s serious. Having reported on fake news, now our national broadcaster stands accused of the same thing.

Dyson’s findings lay bare the way the BBC, having found out about the fake documents used to entice Lord Spencer to introduce his sister to Martin Bashir, failed to conduct a proper investigation and continued to exploit and benefit commercially from a programme which had been produced in very dubious circumstances.

Having worked at the BBC until 1994, the year before the Panorama interview with Princess Diana, I am not surprised. The BBC was (and still is) far too self-satisfied and overconfident in its abilities to police itself. And to paper over any shortcomings for fear of government interference. Indeed, my old boss John Birt – director-general at the time – told Lord Dyson that he thought it was “perfectly reasonable” for the BBC to take Bashir at his word during the initial investigation into the interview that Lord Dyson called "woefully ineffective".

Even more incredible, the chair of the board of governors, the late Duke Hussey, was left out of the loop during the preparation of the programme because it was felt that – as his wife was (and still is) a valued lady-in-waiting to the Queen – he would not be impartial.

BBC news and current affairs in the early 1990s was a bastion of male preening, with investigative programmes like Panorama winning many awards and much praise. Few insiders at the BBC would question the actions of a distinguished programme maker like Steve Hewlett, then editor of Panorama. A larger-than-life macho character, he is alleged to have told his deputy, Harry Dean, “it’s none of your f*****g business” when Dean phoned to reveal that graphic designer Matt Weissler had serious concerns about the bank statements that he had created three weeks earlier.

Andrew Neil, who worked in BBC current affairs at the time, was one of the many insiders who could not understand how Bashir managed to get such a scoop. Now we know – Bashir acted in a “deceitful” way and then reeled in a vulnerable woman by being charming and persuasive.

Tom Mangold, another former investigative journalist on Panorama, has said that Hewlett refused to believe him and three other colleagues when they voiced their concerns. Of the four, Mangold says one was sacked, and another warned it might affect his career. Whistleblower Mark Killick (an ex-producer on Panorama) said he was “effectively let go” and says the management thought anyone raising concerns was “jealous” of a newbie’s scoop.

The current director-general, Tim Davie, deserves praise for commissioning the Dyson report and finally apologising to all concerned. But now the BBC must be fearing not just government interference but legal action from former employees seeking redress for whistleblowing.

In spite of two subsequent investigations into how Bashir secured the interview, no one at the BBC appears to have realised – and this is the key point – Earl Spencer was shown the fake documents two weeks before Bashir met with Diana. Documents which led to Spencer introducing the reporter to his sister.

Spencer took notes at the later meeting in which Bashir made 38 different allegations about Diana’s security, her private secretary, Charles and the princes’ nanny, and Earl Spencer’s own employees. These allegations clearly tipped the balance in Bashir’s favour and gained Diana’s trust.

People were badly affected by Diana’s interview, some losing their jobs, others resigning. Their reputations hung out to dry. All have had to live with the innuendo perpetrated by the Panorama programme. They might well consider seeking damages from the BBC.

If she had not been shown fake bank statements, and fed a batch of stories about people close to her – stories which Bashir denies were concocted – was she so determined to put her version of events about her failing marriage that she would have talked anyway?

She had already turned down the BBC in 1993 when Tony Hall had proposed Sue Lawley conduct an interview. Then, the BBC considered Nicholas Witchell – but Hewlett replaced Witchell with Bashir, a relatively unknown reporter. A few years earlier, Bashir had come to me for a job; his background had been in sport, and I found him unimpressive. We were looking for presenters for Reportage, a current affairs programme for young people I launched on BBC2, with Krishnan Guru-Murthy and Tyler Brulee in 1988.

What emerges from this sorry tale is that the BBC is an unnecessarily complicated place to work. I found its labyrinthine structure impossible to navigate. There were heads of newsgathering, weekly programmes, daytime programmes, heads of everything – probably stationery – and that was simply news; current affairs were in a separate department.

The BBC gloats about the prizes it wins, and in this case, was willing to overlook the grim truth about how it landed a scoop. Diana would have talked anyway, but Bashir tipped her into paranoia, and she eventually dispensed with her support system and her security. She didn’t trust anyone.

The BBC needs to simplify how it’s run, because that way no one can build up huge departments which self-police their output. Lord Grade would like an independent editorial board of trusted experts set up to monitor journalism. That is a good idea because the current management structure, a board of BBC executives and non-executive appointees, is not equipped to do this.

The corporation always used to say that the BBC was impartial and set the gold standard in reporting. But there’s only one standard – which is telling the truth and acting honourably. Bashir and all the executives who decided not to do anything for fear of the bad press have seriously undermined the BBC’s reputation. With social media forming the source of news for many young people, the BBC must get its house in order fast to remain relevant.