Opinion

BBC deceit

Published

5 years ago

2021/05/29

By Dr Upul Wijayawardhana

Once upon a time, it was the most trusted broadcaster; to which the world turned for news without distortion or warped opinions. It has a heritage impossible to be matched; the pioneers of the trade, Guglielmo Marconi, inventor of radio, and John Logie Baird, the inventor of television, both being closely associated with it. It was the world’s first national broadcaster and even today is the largest broadcaster, employing over 22,000 around the world. It began life as The British Broadcasting Company, formed on 18 October 1922 by a group of leading wireless manufacturers including Marconi himself. The successor, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), affectionately referred to as The Beeb, Auntie or Auntie Beeb by generations of listeners and viewers, was established by a Royal Charter in January 1927. In November 1929, using its frequencies, John Logie Baird added a new dimension to broadcasting with the first successful experimental television broadcasts from studios near Covent Garden in London. BBC World Service kept listeners around the globe informed during the Second World War. The first head of the BBC was John Reith and his directive, to “inform, educate and entertain”, which the Beeb claims to follow but, unfortunately, things are not what they were.

What has gone wrong since? That is the question on many a lip at the moment and the editorial “Auntie Beeb’s deceit” (The Island, 24 May) sums up the frustrations of many. In fact, the deceit surrounding ‘The Diana interview’ is far worse than what is referred to in the editorial. The inquiry by Lord Dyson, retired judge of the Supreme Court, uncovered not only the dishonesty of Martin Bashir but also the attempted cover-up by the BBC, reminding us of Watergate. Lord Dyson also queried the bizarre decision of the BBC, rehiring Bashir in 2016 as religious affairs correspondent, quickly promoting him to the post of BBC’s Religion Editor.

Martin Bashir, a son of Pakistani immigrants to the UK, who embraced Christianity in his late teens, hit the limelight with the ‘Diana interview’ in 1995, for which he and the BBC won many accolades. Bashir’s prestige was so high that the private broadcaster ITV, snatched him from BBC in 1999. Bashir justified ITV’s ‘purchase’ by scoring another triumph with the 2003 documentary “Living with Michael Jackson”.

However, unlike the Diana interview which raised controversies late, this raised controversy almost immediately, his colleagues claiming that Bashir landed the interview after promising Michael Jackson, that a trip to Africa would be planned for him to visit children with AIDS, accompanied by Kofi Annan, the then UN Secretary-General. This was a false promise and when this was put to Bashir, while under oath in a California court, he refused to answer. Following the broadcast, viewed by 14 million in the UK and 38 million in the US, Jackson complained to the Independent Television Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, accusing Bashir of ‘yellow’ journalism and released a rebuttal interview with clips made by his own cameraman during the interview. After Jackson’s death in 2009, Dieter Wiesner, Jackson’s manager from 1996 to 2003, lamented how Jackson was affected by Bashir’s documentary: “It broke him. It killed him. He took a long time to die, but it started that night. Previously the drugs were a crutch, but after that they became a necessity”

In spite of this controversy, Bashir was able to land lucrative assignments in the USA from 2004 to 2016, first as an anchor for ABC’s Nightline and then as a political commentator for MSNBC, hosting his own programme, and a correspondent for NBC’s Dateline NBC. He left MSNBC in December 2013, after making derogatory comments about the former Governor of Alaska and Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, labelling her ‘a world class idiot’ and suggesting someone should defecate in her mouth.

At the time of Bashir’s rehiring by the BBC in 2016 in spite of all this, perhaps, it was no coincidence that Tony Hall, who was head of News at the time of the Diana Interview, was the Director-General. Lord Dyson found that Bashir carried out a sophisticated ruse and lied to his bosses about it, and that the BBC, having been alerted to his behaviour, mostly papered over it and sought to evade scrutiny on the topic. But, worse still, they rehired him!

Dyson report concludes that Bashir tricked Diana’s brother, Earl Spencer, into introducing him to the troubled princess. Bashir told Spencer he was working on a story on the news media’s bad behaviour and showed Spencer fake bank statements, unwittingly created by a BBC graphic designer at the request of Bashir, which suggested that a member of Spencer’s security team was being paid by newspapers for information. The first bank documents were essentially the bait, Spencer told Dyson. Soon afterward, Bashir set the hook by showing Spencer a second set of false bank statements suggesting that two palace insiders had also received payments from the media — specifically Diana’s private secretary, Patrick Jephson, and Charles’s private secretary, Richard Aylard. After showing Spencer the fake bank statements, Bashir induced him to arrange a meeting with Diana. “By gaining access to Princess Diana in this way, Mr. Bashir was able to persuade her to agree to give the interview,” Lord Dyson wrote, calling such behaviour a “serious breach” of the BBC’s guidelines on “straight dealing.”

“It is likely that these statements were created by Mr. Bashir and contained information that he had fabricated,” the report states, adding “Mr. Bashir would have little difficulty in playing on her fears and paranoia,”

Prince William confirmed that this indeed was what happened. On release of the Dyson report he made a terse statement wherein he remarked “The interview was a major contribution to making my parents’ relationship worse and has since hurt countless others. It brings indescribable sadness to know that the BBC’s failures contributed significantly to her fear, paranoia and isolation that I remember from those final years with her”.

When the graphic designer who made fake bank statements for Bashir brought this to the attention of his superiors, he was sacked! Tony Hall, who held the inquiry, claimed he was satisfied with Bashir’s assurance that the statements were not used but failed in his duty by not seeking confirmation by contacting Diana’s brother. Dyson report states:

“And without knowing Earl Spencer’s version of the facts; without receiving from Mr Bashir a credible explanation of what he had done and why he had done it; and in the light of his serious and unexplained lies, Lord Hall could not reasonably have concluded, as he did, that Mr Bashir was an honest and honourable man”

Though some argue that what Diana stated in the interview were known facts, it cannot be denied that some were distorted facts based on untruths fed to a vulnerable woman by a dishonest journalist. Much is made of the letter Diana had sent after the interview but this, again, had been done at the behest of Bashir. In fact, Earl Spencer stated in a subsequent BBC Panorama programme: “I have seen the content of the letter. It does not exonerate the BBC as far as I’m concerned because Diana is dealing from a position from having been lied to. She didn’t know that the whole obtaining of the interview was based on a series of falsehoods that led to her being vulnerable to this.” He added “Well, the irony is that I met Martin Bashir on 31 August 1995 because exactly two years later she died and I do draw a line between the two events.”

Beeb did its best to cover up but continued efforts of the British Tabloids, Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday as well the TV journalist Andy Webb resulted in the new management, after Tony Hall left the BBC, requesting Lord Dyson to hold the inquiry. Writing in the Daily Mail, Andy Webb has this to say:

“The BBC’s deceit and lies over the Bashir/Diana debacle, in a cover-up that lasted more than 25 years, is for me the most shameful episode in its history. Lord Dyson’s blistering condemnation yesterday of BBC star reporter Martin Bashir and several of his bosses at the corporation has been a very long time coming.

I have witnessed the state broadcaster’s feints and dodges over this affair repeatedly. My requests for information — information the BBC was legally bound to provide — have been blocked and barricaded.

Patrick Jephson, the Princess’s private secretary, left her service immediately after the Panorama interview. Bashir falsely suggested he was in league with MI5 and was spying on her for Prince Charles. Jephson believes that broke the trust Diana held for him. When he spoke to me about this, he had tears in his eyes.

Tiggy Legge-Bourke, nanny to princes William and Harry, had her reputation utterly traduced. Bashir encouraged Diana to believe Tiggy had an affair with Charles and even aborted his baby. These people could certainly argue they have suffered lifelong hurt at the hands of the BBC.”

It looks as if the problems are not likely to end soon for Auntie Beeb. Those who lost their jobs, as a result of the actions of a rogue journalist and managers who attempted a cover-up, are likely to claim compensation and it is rumoured that Auntie may have cough up about five million pounds!

Unfortunately, this is not an incident in isolation. Most Brits of a certain generation are unlikely to ever forget Auntie Beeb’s malicious behaviour towards the national treasure, Sir Cliff Richard.

All News Advertisement

Opinion

Ministerial resignation and new political culture

Published

2 days ago

2026/04/21

Thilina Walpola

Kumara Jayakody

The resignation of Energy Minister Kumara Jayakody comes after several weeks of controversy over his ministerial role. The controversy sharpened when the minister was indicted by the Commission on Bribery and Corruption for a transaction he was involved in ten years ago as a government official in the Fertiliser Corporation. The other issue was the government’s purchase of substandard coal from a new supplier. Minister Jayakody’s resignation followed the appointment of a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry to investigate coal and petroleum purchases. The minister who resigned, along with the Secretary to the Ministry of Energy, Udayanga Hemapala, stated that they did not wish to compromise the integrity of the investigation to be undertaken by the Commission of Inquiry.

The government’s initial resistance to holding the minister accountable for the costly purchase was based on the argument that the official procedure had been followed in ordering the coal. However, the fact that the procedure permitted a disadvantageous purchase which has come to light on this occasion suggests a weakness in the process. The government’s appointment of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry to examine purchases as far back as 2009 follows from this observation. In this time 450 purchases are reported to have been made, and if several of them were as disadvantageous as this one, the cost to the country can be imagined. The need to investigate transactions since 2009 also arises from the possibility that loopholes in official government procedures in the past would have permitted private enrichment at a high cost to the country.

Concerns have been expressed in the past that the purchase of coal and petroleum, often on an emergency basis, enabled the use of emergency procurement processes which do not require going through the full tender procedures. The government has pledged to eradicate corruption as its priority. As a result, the general population would expect it to do everything within its power to correct those systems that permitted such corruption. Accountability is not only forward looking to ensure non-corrupt practices in the present, it is also backward looking to ensure that corrupt practices of the past are discontinued. This would be a matter of concern to those who headed government ministries and departments in previous governments. Those who have misapplied the systems can be expected to do their utmost to resist any investigation into the past.

Politically Astute

One of the main reasons for the government’s continuing popularity among the general population, as reflected in February 2026 public opinion poll by Verité Research, has been its willingness to address the problem of corruption. Public opinion studies have consistently shown that corruption remains one of the top concerns of citizens in Sri Lanka. The arrests and indictments of members of former governments have been viewed with general satisfaction as paving the way to a less corrupt society. At the same time, the resignations of Minister Kumara Jayakody and Secretary Udayanga Hemapala are an indication that not even government members will be spared if they are found to have crossed red lines. This is an important signal, as public confidence depends not only on holding political opponents to account but also on demonstrating fairness and consistency within one’s own ranks.

There appears to be a strategy on the part of the opposition to target government leaders and allege corruption so that ministers will be forced to step down. Organised protests against other ministers, and demonstrations outside their homes, are on the rise. The government appears not to want to give in to this opposition strategy and therefore delayed the resignation of Minister Jayakody until it had itself established the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry. It enabled the minister to step down without it seeming that the government was yielding to opposition pressure. In political terms, this was a calibrated response that sought to balance the need for accountability with the need to maintain authority and coherence in governance.

The demand by opposition parties to focus attention on the coal problem could also be seen as an attempt to shift the national debate from the corruption of the past to controversies in the present. The opposition’s endeavour would be to take the heat off themselves in regard to the corruption of the past and turn it onto the government by making it the focus of inquiries into corruption. The decision to set up a Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry accompanied by the resignation of the minister and the ministry secretary was a politically astute way of demonstrating that the government will have no tolerance for corruption. It will also help to remind the general public about the rampant corruption of past governments which prevents the opposition’s corruption accusations against the government from gaining traction amongst the people.

New Practice

The resignation of a government minister who faces allegations but has not been convicted is still a relatively new practice in Sri Lanka. The general practice in Sri Lanka up to the present time has been for those in government service, if found to be at fault, to be transferred rather than removed from office. This is commonly seen in the case of police officers who, if found to have used excessive force or engaged in abuse, are transferred to another station rather than subjected to more serious disciplinary action. A similar pattern was seen in the case of former minister Keheliya Rambukwella, who faced allegations of corruption in the health field but was reassigned to a different portfolio rather than removed from government.

Against this background, the present resignation assumes greater importance. It signals a willingness to break with past practices and to establish a higher standard of conduct in public office. However, a single instance does not in itself create a lasting change. What is required is the consistent application of the same principle across all cases, irrespective of political affiliation or convenience. This is where the government has an opportunity to strengthen its credibility. By ensuring that the same standards of accountability are applied to its own members as to those of previous governments, it can demonstrate that its commitment to good governance is not selective.

The establishment of the Special Presidential Commission of Inquiry, the willingness to accept ministerial resignation, and the recognition of systemic weaknesses in procurement are all steps in the right direction. The challenge now is to ensure that these steps are followed through with determination and consistency. If the investigations are conducted impartially and lead to meaningful reforms, the present controversy could mark a turning point. The resignation of the minister should not be seen as an isolated event but as the beginning of a new practice. If it becomes part of a broader pattern of accountability, it can contribute to a new political culture and to restoring public trust in government.

by Jehan Perera

Opinion

Shutting roof top solar panels – a crime

Published

3 days ago

2026/04/20

Thilina Walpola

The Island newspaper’s lead news item on the 12th of April 2026 was on the CEB request to shut down rooftop solar power during the low demand periods. Their argument is that rooftop solar panels produce about 300 MW power during the day and there is no procedure to balance the grid with such a load.

We as well as a large academic and industrial consortium members have been trying to promote solar energy as a viable and sustainable power source since the early 1990’s. We formed the Solar Energy Society and made representations to Government politicians about the need to have solar power generation. This continuous promotional work contributed to the rapid increase in PV solar companies from three in the early 1990’s to over 650 active PV solar companies established today in the country. These companies have created tens of thousands of high-quality jobs, as well as moving in the right direction for sustainable development.

However, all these efforts appear to have been in vain since the CEB policy makers have continuously rejected solar energy as a viable alternative. Their power generation plans at that time did not include solar energy at all but only relied on imported coal power plants and diesel power generation. Even at the meetings where CEB senior staff were present, we emphasised the importance of installation of battery storage facilities and grid balancing for which they have done nothing at all over the past three decades. Now they have grudgingly accepted the need to include solar energy, which was an election promise of the present government. The government policy is that Sri Lanka should go for renewables to satisfy 70% of its energy needs by 2030 and soon move towards the green hydrogen technology by using solar and wind energy.

The question is why the diesel generators and hydropower stations cannot be shut off one by one to accommodate the solar power generated during the daytime. Unlike a coal-fired plant, diesel generators and hydro power plants can be shut off in a relatively shorter period of time. Norochchalai Lakvijaya power plant produces around 900 MW of power while the total country requirement is 2500 MW on a daily basis. The remainder is provided by diesel generators, hydro and other renewable energy sources.

The need for work to achieve this goal of grid balancing should be the primary responsibility of the CEB. Modern grid balancing systems are in operation in countries such as Germany where around 56% of its energy come from renewable sources. They also plan to increase this to reach 80% of the energy required through renewables by 2030. Our CEB is hell bent on diesel power plants. Who benefits from such emergency power purchases is anybody’s guess?

The Government and the CEB should realise that all roof top solar plants are privately financed through personal funds or bank loans with no financial burden on the Government. It is a crime to request them not to operate these solar panels and get the necessary credits for the power transmitted to the national grid. It appears that the results of CEB’s lack of grid balancing experience and unwillingness to learn over three decades have now passed to the privately-funded rooftop solar panel owners. It is unfortunate that the Government is not considering the contributions of ordinary individuals who provide clean power to the national grid at no cost to the Government. Over 150,000 rooftop solar panels owners are severely affected by these ruthless decisions by the CEB, and this will lead to the un-popularity of this new government in the end.

by Professors Oliver Ileperuma and I M Dharmadasa

Opinion

Nilanthi Jayasinghe – An Appreciation

Published

4 days ago

2026/04/19

Thilina Walpola

It was with shock that I realized that the article in the Sunday Island of April 5 about the winsome graduate gazing serenely at her surroundings was, in fact, an obituary about Nilanthi Jayasinghe, a former colleague who I had held in high esteem. I had lost touch with Nilanthi since my retirement and this news that she had passed away, saddened me deeply

I knew and had worked with Nilanthi – Mrs Jayasinghe as we used to call her – at the Open University of Sri Lanka in the 1990s. As Director, Operations, she was a figure that we as heads of academic departments, relied on; a central bastion of the complex structure that underpinned academic activities at Sri Lanka’s major distance education provider. Few people realize what it takes to provide distance education in an environment not geared to this form of teaching/learning – the volume of Information that has to be created, printed and delivered; the variety of timetables that have to be scheduled; the massive amount of continuous assessment assignments and tests that have to be prepared and sent out; the organization of a multitude of face-to face teaching sessions; the complex scheduling of examinations and tests – all this needed to be attended to for a student population of more than 20,000 and for 23 centres of study dotted across Sri Lanka.

It was an unenviable task but Nilanthi Jayasinghe with her flair for organization, handled it all with aplomb and a deep sense of commitment. If there were delays and inconclusive action on our part, she never reprimanded but would work with us to sort things out. Her work as Director, Operations brought her into contact with staff across the spectrum-from the Vice-Chancellor to the apprentice in the Open University’s Printing Press. Nilanthi treated everyone with dignity and as a result, was respected by all at the university. She was sensitive, kind-hearted, a good friend who would readily share problems and help to solve them. The year NIlanthi retired, I was out of the island. When I came back to the Open University, I felt bereft without the steadfast support of her stalwart presence .

The article in the ‘Sunday Island’ describes her life after retirement, looking after family members and enjoying the presence of a granddaughter.

After a lifetime of commitment to others, Nilanthi Jayasinghe truly deserved this happiness.

May she be blessed with peace.

Ryhana Raheem

Professor Emeritus
Open University of Sri Lanka.