The entire top half of the BBC News website is devoted to BBC news:

The BBC sources understand, but the BBC will not confirm, that the BBC is losing it.

The man who sent that now infamous tweet on the morning of the Newsnight McAlpine report has resigned from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Their Managing Editor Iain Overton’s name no longer appears on the BIJ website. Another stunning success for the operation that before this had revealed that Bell Pottinger broke Wikipedia’s terms of use and smeared Help for Heroes. Supporters are running for the hills…

UPDATE:

Iain Overton has told friends that he had no editorial control over Newsnight McAlpine film and deeply regrets ceding his responsibilities—
Josh Halliday (@JoshHalliday) November 12, 2012

Nicely forgetting the fact that the BIJ’s Angus Stickler didn’t even show Steve Messham a picture of Lord McAlpine and that it was his misjudged and premature tweet that started this whole sorry mess.

UPDATE: TBIJ have released another statement. The word missing is ‘sorry’…

Statement from Jeremy Paxman:

“George Entwistle’s departure is a great shame. He has been brought low by cowards and incompetents.

The real problem here is the BBC’s decision, in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry, to play safe by appointing biddable people.

They then compounded the problem by enforcing a series of cuts on programme budgets, while bloating the management

That is how you arrive at the current mess on Newsnight. I very much doubt the problem is unique to that programme.

I had hoped that George might stay to sort this out.It is a great pity that a talented man has been sacrificed. While time-servers prosper.

I shall not be issuing any further statements or doing any interviews.”

Right, so who is next for the chop?

As if two internal inquiries, a select committee grilling and a police investigation were not enough, the BBC are now facing interest from another quarter: Ofcom are sniffing around. Guido understands that Ofcom are keeping a close eye on ongoing developments with a view to launching their own action. While they do not have the power to make the Beeb undergo a full fit and proper person test, Ofcom boss Ed Richard explains in a letter to Tory MP Philip Davies:

“We licence a number of BBC companies and we will have regard to any relevant findings of the ongoing BBC inquiry, the police and the select committee in relation to these.”

Their interest will hardly be welcome at Great Portland Street…

Via BBC

If the lawyers don’t spike it, tonight’s Newsnight could be pretty spectacularly explosive. Bureau of Investigative Journalism hack Iain Overton has been working on a major story that is currently being legalled.

Hopefully George Entwistle has not commissioned any forthcoming Christmas specials about said politician…

If all goes well we've got a Newsnight out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile.—
Iain Overton (@iainoverton) November 02, 2012

It hasn’t been an easy few weeks for BBC News director Helen Boaden. First she was accused of blocking the Newsnight Jimmy Savile exposé, and now she has had to take to the witness stand to defend the Beeb over another alleged cover up. Twice looks like carelessness.

This time round Boaden was facing questions over why the BBC are refusing to answer a freedom of information request asking which scientists attended an infamous 2006 climate change seminar. The BBC Trust have admitted that the seminar led to an unprecedented editorial decision to no longer give equal airtime to opponents of the climate change lobby. Boaden and co’s refusal to disclose who spoke during this all-important discussion is suspicious to say the least. Why would they not want us to know who these “scientific experts” that dictated their editorial policy are?  The legal costs billed to the license fee payer are rumoured to have hit six figures…

UPDATE: Tory MP Peter Lilley and former Chancellor Nigel Lawson have today written to the BBC complaining about bias in their coverage of climate change stories. Lord Patten has a lot on his plate…

Some other media commentators will say it is unfair to put Emily Maitlis on the frontpage of a newspaper over her dress, Guido is not one of them. After all a small forest was destroyed to put the resulting shock and outrage into print following Jeremy Paxman going tie-less. The Daily Mail has covered Maitlis flashing a bit of leg and covering her legs in tight leather trousers and stiletto boots. It does however seem a tad unfair to compare her to a Doctor Who baddie…

Fashion conscious readers will want to know that her outfit is a £1,175 bespoke Suzannah Crabb dress described as a “Future Retro Cocktail Dress … re-inspired with a lengthened skirt part, and 3/4 sleeves. This couture silk version is individually tailored in London from 100% Silk. A fun, flattering and versatile event dress with drama enough for a unique party to black tie affair. An ultimate special event dress with  presence. The playful silhouette is both unique and flattering.” Perfect for News at Ten, which has gone downhill since they stopped wearing black-tie…

The entire “gag” email sent to Grant Shapps by the BBC spin team two weeks ago has been leaked:

The incorrect “editorial reasons line” was still being pushed then.

Via Mail Online

The BBC have promised on several occasions that the two inquiries being held into the Jimmy Savile allegations will be comprehensive and independent. The role of gathering evidence for these two inquiries has been delegated to the international law firm Reed Smith, who will provide legal advice to the inquiry chairs and support them in reaching their conclusions. But Reed Smith are hardly the most objective of choices.

Reed Smith has previously defended the BBC in litigation cases on numerous occasions, indeed judging by their website they appear to consider the Beeb one of their major media clients. No less than six of their current lawyers have worked for the BBC in the past. Most interestingly of all, this year Reed Smith hosted a series of conferences entitled “Protecting the Media”.

Is it really appropriate for the law firm tasked with gathering evidence against the BBC to have such a flagrant vested interest? Why has the BBC appointed a company with experience in firefighting for the media to investigate the allegations made against it? Hardly allaying suspicions…