We’re in a post-truth world… the BBC is one of those rare organisations where the only remit is to seek the truth, and to disseminate the truth. There aren’t many places left in the world that still aim to do that.
The Great Room was filled to capacity this week for a lively, candid discussion about the BBC at a defining moment for public service media.
Chaired by ITV’s Arts Editor, Nina Nannar, the panel brought together ex-Editor of the Guardian and Prospect, Alan Rusbridger, journalist and podcast host from The Times, Manveen Rana, author and co-host of The News Agents, Lewis Goodall, and Editor-in Chief of By-line Times, Hardeep Matharu, to examine what a renewed, resilient BBC could – and should – become.
The conversation ranged from governance and funding to editorial confidence, and the deeper question of what ‘public service’ should mean at a time of fragmented trust, political pressure and rapidly changing consumer habits.
Opening the evening, Nannar placed the BBC in its long historical sweep. For “103 years”, she noted, it has shaped how people in this country understand the world – “not just through information, but through shared narratives and collective moments.” Today, however, the BBC operates amid “intense political scrutiny” and economic pressure, with the current licence fee settlement ending in 2027 – forcing urgent questions about funding, legitimacy and purpose.
Panellists were united on the BBC’s importance, even as they disagreed on its current performance. Rana argued that the BBC still matters precisely because it operates in a “post-truth” environment, remaining one of the few institutions with an explicit duty to “seek the truth and disseminate the truth”, and one whose global reputation continues to carry weight.
The BBC has been running on its own reputational fumes for some time now, both in terms of the way it approaches news, but also entertainment.
Rusbridger framed the BBC as a crucial stabiliser in what he described as an era of “information chaos”. Despite sustained criticism, he argued, it remains more trusted than much of the commercial press – and weakening it would risk pushing the UK towards a more polarised, tribal media landscape.
Matharu argued that the BBC has become a “weaponised” institution in a culture war that is “American in its nature”. For her, that status underlined rather than diminished its importance – but only if it recommits to public service journalism in the public interest, prepared to challenge power at a moment “when truth itself is being contested”.
Goodall agreed the BBC has never been more necessary in principle – but firmly questioned whether it is currently equipped to meet that moment.
Too often, he argued, it has relied on past prestige rather than renewed confidence, “running on its own reputational fumes” across both news and entertainment. Claims of BBC exceptionalism, from formats like The Traitors to flagship events such as Eurovision, which are themselves commercial imports rather than BBC inventions, were not enough: the corporation must also prove its value through bold action.
One of the most charged sections of the evening focused on impartiality – and the difference between being impartial and appearing impartial.
Goodall argued that the BBC has too often allowed itself to be “bullied” by the concept, shifting from a system of robust editorial judgement towards one that prioritises the management of reaction above all else. This has translated to an assessment of a “good day” in BBC journalism being one which “did not result in a storm of social media, or a call from Downing Street”.
While this might win the day in the short term, Goodall argued, it has the long-term effect of making the BBC “less interesting, less compelling, and less able to compete in the noise of the journalistic age we’re living in.”
Rana reinforced the point with a stark account of editorial risk-aversion. She described investigations delayed or sidelined by nervous management even when legal advice supported publication, recounting cases that only ran when senior editors were away. The effect, she argued, has been a gradual weakening of the BBC’s “editorial spine” – not because of a lack of journalistic talent, but a lack of confidence at the top.
Rusbridger agreed that caution has become embedded but traced it to structural pressures: a ten-year charter renewal cycle that turns independence into periodic political negotiation, a governance model lacking sufficient distance from government, and a media environment primed to attack the BBC at any turn. The result, he suggested, is a place where “everybody is covering each other’s backs” rather than a place of editorial boldness.
On funding, Rana argued that while public service broadcasting still requires collective funding, the licence-fee model now feels out of step with how audiences actually use the BBC – through radio, podcasts and online news as much as television. The question, she suggested, is not whether the BBC should be funded, but how its funding model can better reflect modern media habits.
Matharu was clear that “if we want a public service broadcaster, we have to pay” but argued that the licence fee can no longer be defended by habit alone. The public, she suggested, senses “something has shifted” in the BBC’s journalism as resources move from news and investigations towards competing in the entertainment market. For her, the licence fee is only justifiable if the BBC leads an honest conversation about its purpose in 2026 and recommits to its public service core.
Rusbridger was unequivocal: the BBC remains “incredible value for money”, and democratic societies depend on shared facts. Without a universal model, he warned, audiences fragment into competing realities. Goodall agreed on the need for universality, but noted that reform – whether through an internet levy or alternative funding – risks deepening political polarisation around the BBC itself.
The BBC itself has become a massive pawn in this culture war that has engulfed us in the UK, which is very American in its nature. The fact that the BBC has become so weaponised shows how important it is.
As discussion turned to leadership, Rusbridger argued the next director-general would need “rhinoceros skin”, clarity of purpose and the courage to withstand sustained pressure.
In the closing moments, the panel returned to first principles: editorial integrity, confidence, and the BBC’s willingness to “tell people what they do not want to hear”, echoing the George Orwell inscription outside Broadcasting House.
The implication was clear. Renewal will not come through caution or risk management, but through judgement, leadership and a renewed commitment to public service.
The full discussion is available to watch on YouTube.
The thought you would in any way weaken this magnificent institution at a time when people don’t know what to believe, seems to me incredible we’re even having this debate.
This conversation forms part of the RSA’s wider programme of public events – bringing together leading voices to probe the big issues shaping public life today. Visit the RSA website to discover upcoming discussions and join future debates in the Great Room and beyond.
