The row over the BBC's 1995 interview with Diana, Princess of Wales, covers many of the areas by which Britain might like to define itself: the Royal Family, honesty, integrity and a media which is separate from the state while being legally defended and upheld by it.

However, the controversy also touches upon many facets of modern global life with which Britain might be less keen to align: dishonesty, fake news, cover-ups and the erosion of the media's freedom from political control. 

READ MORE:

BBC apology over Princess Diana interview

Animation: Restoring Notre-Dame

Trash or Treasure: Creative solutions

The BBC has made an "unconditional apology" over the methods used to secure a Panorama interview with the Princess of Wales after an independent inquiry by Lord Dyson, a former senior judge, found journalist Martin Bashir used deception, including forging bank statements, to secure the interview and then lied to BBC managers.

However, the Dyson Report also strongly criticizes BBC management – calling a 1996 internal inquiry inadequate and confirming a cover-up, saying there was "no credible reason" why the inquiry did not treat Bashir's account with "necessary scepticism and caution" given that he had admitted serious breaches of BBC rules. The director of news who conducted the inquiry was Tony Hall, now Lord Hall, who later became the BBC director-general. 

Why was the interview such big news?

The UK's Royal Family has always placed great emphasis on its public image and carefully controlled statements, and Bashir's 1995 interview was by far the most candid and revelatory ever carried out by any serving royal, let alone the wife of the heir to the throne and the mother to the next two in line. 

In the interview, the Princess of Wales admitted having an extramarital affair, said she had been seriously affected by her husband Prince Charles's affair with Camille Parker-Bowles (who became his second wife, the Duchess of Cornwall), revealed she had self-harmed and suffered from bulimia, and claimed Prince Charles's staff were waging a campaign against her. 

The interview attracted an audience of almost 23 million – one of the BBC's highest ever audience figures, at a time when the UK's population was a fraction below 58 million – and won Bashir a BAFTA award. It also hastened the end of the marriage: A month later, Buckingham Palace announced that the Queen had sent letters to Prince Charles and the Princess of Wales advising them to divorce. 

Why was the interview called into question?

Compared with many royal correspondents who had spent years or decades courting their contacts in the Royal Family, Bashir was a relatively junior reporter with hardly any background in the area. 

In early 1996, the Mail on Sunday newspaper revealed claims that Bashir had used forged bank statements to help secure the interview. The Dyson Report says Bashir gained the confidence of Earl Spencer, the Princess of Wales's brother, by showing him statements purporting to detail payments by a newspaper group to one of his former staff.

Back in 1996, the Mail on Sunday allegations prompted an internal BBC inquiry, at which Bashir admitted having the statements mocked up by BBC graphic artist Matt Wiessler but repeatedly denied showing these documents to Earl Spencer. 

The BBC inquiry did not interview Earl Spencer, which the Dyson Report has called "a big mistake." Wiessler was sacked but the internal inquiry cleared Bashir, Panorama and BBC News. The Dyson Report says Bashir "lied and maintained the lie until he realised that it was no longer sustainable. This was most reprehensible behavior, which casts considerable doubt on his credibility generally."

Was there a cover-up?

This is such a pertinent question that Dyson used it as a section title in his report – which makes unpleasant reading for the broadcaster. "I am satisfied that the BBC covered up in its press logs such facts as it had been able to establish about how Mr Bashir secured the interview," Dyson says. 

Dyson notes that there was "no good reason" why none of the BBC's news programmes failed to mention the controversy at the time, considering many other media outlets were doing so. The peer mentions the BBC's "evasive responses" at the time, and that during his own inquiry he has not been persuaded by the attempts made to justify those responses.

But who was responsible? Dyson admits that he has been unable to ascertain who issued an "official line" to editors: "It must have been someone from senior management, but I can't say who it was."

Why is this back in the news now?

Bashir left the BBC in 1999 to work elsewhere in TV – including the 2003 documentary Living with Michael Jackson – but returned in 2016 as religious affairs correspondent, later being promoted to religion editor. His return to the BBC only increased interest in the controversy over the interview, including its origins.

In October 2020, a TV documentary on the UK's Channel 4 alleged Bashir had undertaken an "elaborate plot" to trick the Princess of Wales into being interviewed. Then on November 7, the Daily Mail newspaper published details of a dossier Earl Spencer had compiled, explaining what the earl called the "sheer dishonesty" Bashir had used. 

On November 18, the BBC ordered a six-month inquiry to be conducted by Lord Dyson, formerly the Master of the Rolls – the second-most senior judge in England and Wales. BBC director-general Tim Davie said "The BBC is determined to get to the truth about these events and that is why we have commissioned an independent investigation." In April, it was even announced that Panorama would also investigate itself, with an episode to be broadcast in May, coinciding with the Dyson Report's publication. 

The report was delivered to the BBC in mid-May, and on May 14, the BBC announced that Bashir had quit on health grounds – the 58-year-old had been recovering from heart surgery and complications developing after testing positive for COVID-19. The same day, Davie postponed the Panorama special – to which Earl Spencer tweeted "Well there's a surprise."

What does the Dyson Report say?

Lord Dyson concluded that the Princess of Wales "would probably have agreed to be interviewed by any experienced and reputable reporter in whom she had confidence," but slated how Bashir had "deceived and induced" Earl Spencer, "in serious breach" of BBC guidelines.

But Dyson did not limit his criticism to Bashir, criticizing BBC executives Tim Suter, Richard Peel and Lord Hall for reasoning that Bashir's dealings were "absolutely straight on fair" on the basis of his "uncorroborated assertions." Dyson also said that BBC executive Tim Gardam had "too readily accepted that Bashir was telling the truth about the fake documents."

Dyson called the 1996 investigation by Lord Hall and another BBC manager, Anne Sloman, "woefully ineffective" and says "Lord Hall could not reasonably have concluded, as he did, that Mr Bashir was an honest and honorable man."

What has been the reaction?

The Princess of Wales's sons have both issued public statements. Prince Harry hailed "the first step towards justice and truth" but noted that "practices like these and even worse are still widespread today."

Prince William described his "indescribable sadness to know that the BBC's failures contributed significantly to [his mother's] fear, paranoia and isolation that I remember from those final years with her... She was failed not just by a rogue reporter but by leaders of the BBC, who looked the other way rather than asking the tough questions."

Sacked graphic designer Matt Wiessler told BBC Radio 4's Today program that the BBC had done the "absolute minimum" to acknowledge how badly he had been treated. "There is this culture within the BBC that the little people – me, being the whistleblower – that we don't really need to be addressed," he said. "Only under duress do we get some sort of apology and some sort of acknowledgement."

Wiessler said he would like a personal apology from senior figures at the time. "They know who they are and they didn't do anything to help people like me," he said. "It's just really weak, calculating and, quite honestly, after 25 years, it's nasty what they are doing to this day."

Former Panorama producer Mark Killick, who was sacked from the program after raising concerns, said that senior managers fostered a "culture of fear" to deter whistleblowers. "I was told 'We only want loyal people on the program' – I had been on Panorama for 10 years, and I was effectively let go," he told BBC Breakfast.

"Many people had their reputations destroyed by a smear campaign authorized by BBC senior management, and many of them lost their jobs," Killick said. "The culture of fear that was established then… they sent a clear message to everyone in the BBC: 'Do not refer up, do not bring the BBC bad news.'"

Lord Hall, who led the 1996 internal inquiry and was the director general when Bashir returned in 2016, has resigned his role as chairman of the National Gallery, acknowledging his continuing chairmanship "would be a distraction" for the art museum: "I am very sorry for the events of 25 years ago and I believe leadership means taking responsibility."

Dyson's report revealed that Tim Suter, who had been the BBC's managing director of weekly programs when the interview aired, questioned Bashir at the time but took no action after finding his dealings to be "straight and fair." 

Suter has now stepped down from the board of TV watchdog Ofcom, which he joined in 2017. CEO Melanie Dawes said Ofcom had questions for the BBC over its "transparency and accountability" as a result of the Dyson Report.

What is the wider significance?

The BBC has long been held as a bastion of editorial integrity, and is widely respected by many people around the world, but at home it has increasingly come under attack in recent years – from politicians and the public alike. 

Unlike many broadcasters, which are either owned privately or by the state, it operates in a curious and somehow very British compromise. It is a statutory corporation funded via the regressive tax of the license fee, independent from direct government intervention – yet every decade it has to appeal to the government's Home Secretary for a new charter to broadcast. The current charter runs out in 2026.

This legislative necessity has been wielded as a threat by various governments. As far back as the 1970s, both Labour and Conservative administrations considered abolishing the license fee, although they have differed on whether the BBC should then be changed to a state broadcaster or deregulated into another private company. 

The BBC is a sprawling, disparate operation (with more than 35,000 staff) and it is perhaps a telling symbol of its hard-won editorial impartiality that it is routinely accused of bias by those on both sides of the political spectrum. 

However, in recent years the growth of social media has coalesced and hardened public opposition. The Twitter account @DefundTheBBC has more than 100,000 followers, and the Dyson Report has prompted #DefundTheBBC hashtags from public figures as disparate as socialist politician George Galloway, former Labour minister Kate Hoey, libertarian London Mayor candidate Laurence Fox and former tabloid newspaper editor Kelvin MacKenzie. 

Such widespread disaffection will worry the BBC, perhaps especially under the current Conservative government. Within days of winning the 2019 general election, prime minister Boris Johnson's administration was loudly briefing that it was considering decriminalizing non-payment of the license fee. 

That would undoubtedly be popular among agitators across the political spectrum, and it would open up long-term questions about the funding and future of this British institution. For the BBC, the wounding words of the Dyson Report may be just the beginning.