[interestednovice]

It’s probably a fair point that issues get blown up, but I expect that really to go both ways.

If we have a Conservative government, people supporting Labour will claim the BBC has “government bias” and look to point out the bias. If we have a Labour government, of course those who are Conservative-supporting would be doing the same thing. Social media, in general, is “populated” largely by people who skew to the left. Large sections of the press, conversely, skew to the right. The BBC has to walk a tightrope with every sensitive issue. It’s partly why it can’t be seen to “let things go” if there is a clamour for action to be taken, and why an apology in this case probably wouldn’t even have worked as certain people would not have allowed this to be brushed under the carpet anyway.

But they should just 'let things go', especially if they are just a storm in a teacup anyway. These things are generally all forgotten about after a day or two anyway. The BBC should be bold, unafraid, confident. It is a byword for quality across the world, and the epitome of public service broadcasting. They ought to remember how much goodwill they have, not just here but internationally, too. Have some balls, for heaven's sake!

Whilst I agree with you generally, I think the pressure on the BBC from itself (at management level) and the wider media, especially, is that it must be “seen to be firm” once it takes a stance, so can’t allow spats of any sort to go unpunished. Because there is always a focus on value for money, it’s especially distasteful if one of its highest earners is seen to be “crossing the line”. There also seems to be an unwritten element to the rules where you get a few strikes and then something has to happen, as the BBC starts to look embarrassing if no action is taken. That was the case with Clarkson and it appears to be the case here too.