[thePineapple]

Interesting report in The Times [paywall] about the BBC News recruitment process,  rewritten by Daily Mail.

Not sure how much the Mail goes into it, but here's a quote from the Times.

One of the presenters who went through the process said it had been “sham”. The presenter added that BBC management “go on at length about BBC values such as truth, accuracy, impartiality and transparency but were behind a fig-leaf selection process that was predetermined months before anyone did a job interview”.

It appears that the Times has got at least three of the 15 presenters who applied to talk to them. Getting that many of a small group of high profile people to speak against their employer is quite the coup imo. There must be some real acrimony.

[Keith]

It appears that the Times has got at least three of the 15 presenters who applied to talk to them. Getting that many of a small group of high profile people to speak against their employer is quite the coup imo. There must be some real acrimony.

I seem to recall there were a few raised eyebrows so to speak on this forum at the time the 5 presenters were announced. I seem to recall it was observed that the 5 presenters all had a mainly World News background, rather than any UK News channel background. With that in mind it's not surprising that they've at least done/started an internal review into how the process was done.

[harshy]

All of them that got announced were and had branded shows on bbc world news and all who got rejected were from the Uk news channel who I am sure were all more than capable to control an autocue with their feet.

[News76]

It seems this "inquiry" has been ongoing since 8th June so clearly some aren't happy-whether this is the group of 5 that have been off air for the last 4 months or others remains to be seen.

Either this surely can't go on for too much longer since this has become more than a "HR issue" now.

[Marcell]

While the 5 presenters are all highly experienced and capable, it does feel like they were chosen before the hiring process even started.

Each of them except Maryam had their own branded show.

[Newsroom]

Well well well, it was always going to come out in the wash that the process was wrong right off the bat!

I couldn't be happier this has happened. No wonder those in waiting and gleefully waiting.

[DTV]

I seem to recall there were a few raised eyebrows so to speak on this forum at the time the 5 presenters were announced. I seem to recall it was observed that the 5 presenters all had a mainly World News background, rather than any UK News channel background.

Though I suppose that would be the BBC's defence - the most senior World News presenters were the most senior and best paid presenters across the two news channels (excluding those who were de facto largely network presenters), they wouldn't have got that gig in the first place if BBC executives didn't already feel they were better than the others. Whether that is right is debateable, but their appointment wasn't the most surprising.

Plus, I feel that the World/UK background thing is overdone - unless plans changed rapidly, it's clear they were never going down the full world news route and three of the five presenters had considerable domestic experience - Amroliwala as an NC presenter for 17 years, Moshiri as an NC business presenter and Fraser as one of the lead Brexit reporters and UK-oriented 100 Days presenter.

[News76]

Well well well, it was always going to come out in the wash that the process was wrong right off the bat!

I couldn't be happier this has happened. No wonder those in waiting and gleefully waiting.

Now we wait for the findings if they ever do come out-i'm not going as far as The Times saying the process was corrupt as that's the wrong word to use but illegal would be a better word to describe.

[Stockland Hillman]

Though I suppose that would be the BBC's defence - the most senior World News presenters were the most senior and best paid presenters across the two news channels (excluding those who were de facto largely network presenters), they wouldn't have got that gig in the first place if BBC executives didn't already feel they were better than the others. Whether that is right is debateable, but their appointment wasn't the most surprising.

Plus, I feel that the World/UK background thing is overdone - unless plans changed rapidly, it's clear they were never going down the full world news route and three of the five presenters had considerable domestic experience - Amroliwala as an NC presenter for 17 years, Moshiri as an NC business presenter and Fraser as one of the lead Brexit reporters and UK-oriented 100 Days presenter.

But its not 'debatable' in law.  For a large organisation the job specification,  scoring criteria,  interview questions would all be designed to ensure a fair process. Having  favorites that we're 'tipped off' they would get the jobs is the antithesis of a fair process.

[DTV]

But its not 'debatable' in law.  For a large organisation the job specification,  scoring criteria,  interview questions would all be designed to ensure a fair process. Having  favorites that we're 'tipped off' they would get the jobs is the antithesis of a fair process.

I was referring to the talents of the presenters as to what was debateable, and that absolutely is as it is somewhat subjective. Unless the losing presenters can provide hard proof that the winning presenters were 'tipped off' or chosen beforehand, BBC executives can simply hide behind such subjectivity.

I mean, to play devil's advocate, you could even suggest the fact that the most senior WN/NC presenters were chosen shows a reasonably fair process as you'd sure hope that you had already given your most prestigious channel presenting jobs to your best presenters.