- 14 November 2025
The saga unfolding at the BBC is more than a crisis of leadership, it is the latest example of the distinctive governance problems that arise in media organisations. The broadcaster’s credibility is under scrutiny, but the issues reach far beyond one institution. Governance failures have rocked newsrooms and studios worldwide, from Fox News’s US $787 million defamation settlement with Dominion Voting Systems to the resignation of CNN’s chief executive Jeff Zucker over undisclosed conflicts of interest. Each case highlights the complex pressures that arise when influence, trust and editorial freedom intersect and raises a broader question: is governance in these organisations truly different, or simply more exposed?
When governance comes under the spotlight
The BBC’s recent turmoil, sparked by a mis-edited documentary clip of Donald Trump, internal leaks and consequent senior departures, has again revealed how delicate governance can be in an institution built on trust. Trust remains the BBC’s most valuable currency. When impartiality or transparency is questioned, the organisation’s value to the public is tested.
Yet, despite controversy, confidence in the BBC has not collapsed. In a recent Today interview, BBC Chair Samir Shah defended the Corporation’s reputation, citing surveys showing that “Britons trusted BBC News more than any other news outlet.” That resilience underscores both the depth of the relationship between broadcaster and audience and the responsibility on the Board to protect it.
Still, the governance test is severe. The BBC’s Board has been criticised for being under-equipped to address the complex mix of editorial, political and reputational risks it faces, a challenge mirrored across commercial media. WhileFox News’s Dominion settlement illustrated what happens when boards fail to question how narratives are broadcast.
Maintaining trust
Media companies differ from other corporates in a number of ways, but are those differences enough to make governance uniquely difficult?
The trust of the audience for the brand is vital. When governance fails, through perceived bias, conflict of interest or ethical breaches, trust and audiences can be lost, as the News of the World phone-hacking scandal once proved.
Power within media companies is often dispersed and informal. Editors, presenters and producers often command more influence than executives or investors. ITV’s This Morning review, led by an independent KC, showed how informal cultures around star presenters can distort accountability and expose weaknesses in complaints handling.
Public service broadcasters must balance editorial independence, political neutrality and regulatory oversight, while commercial outlets must reconcile integrity with shareholder and advertiser demands. These competing pressures make governance uniquely intricate and publicly exposed.
While the principles of good governance remain constant, the context magnifies the risk. Governance frameworks that work well in other sectors can falter when scrutiny is constant and decisions are judged in real time by millions.
Board sits centre stage
The board lies at the heart of this tension. When the BBC adopted a unitary board model in 2017, replacing its previous two-tier system of Governors and Trust, it simplified oversight but arguably weakened the protective buffer between management and scrutiny.
Across the sector, board composition is a recurring fault line. Fox Corporation’s directors face shareholder action for “failure of oversight.” CNN’s parent, Warner Bros. Discovery, has clarified its editorial governance arrangements after executive upheaval.
Boards in such organisations need a rare mix of skills, fluency in editorial ethics as well as commercial strategy. Directors must understand impartiality, sourcing and the public-interest test, yet maintain distance from day-to-day content decisions. Independence and insight must coexist, a delicate balance that few boards achieve comfortably.
Political appointments and independence
Public service media face an added complication through politicised appointments. The BBC Board includes members selected on ministerial advice, a structure designed to represent the four nations but long criticised for exposing the body to political influence. Channel 4, while publicly owned, also has its chair and non-executive directors formally appointed by the Secretary of State, a process that has periodically drawn scrutiny from Parliament and industry observers concerned about potential pressure on editorial independence.
Across Europe, the Council of Europe and the European Broadcasting Union have warned that such arrangements risk blurring accountability. If senior appointments are seen as politically motivated, even the perception of partisanship can corrode public confidence in a broadcaster’s impartiality. For boards, this creates a governance paradox. They must engage with government to secure funding and regulation, yet remain demonstrably independent of it.
Some commentators argue that public accountability justifies ministerial involvement, while others view it as an enduring structural weakness. Whatever the balance, the challenge for governance professionals is to maintain transparency around appointments and ensure that codes of conduct and conflicts procedures protect independence once appointees are in post. Board composition, then, is not only about skill sets but legitimacy: can a board act for the public good rather than for political or commercial patrons?
A call for reflection
Media governance now operates at digital speed. Algorithms amplify bias, AI tools blur fact and fabrication, and crises spread virally within hours. Fox, CNN and the BBC have each discovered that by the time formal processes engage, trust may already be damaged.
For the BBC, the 2027 Charter review looms amid debate about impartiality and funding. For private media, shifting investor expectations around ESG, ethics, and ideology are reshaping strategy and oversight. Across the sector, there is a clear need for reflection and for independent evaluation of whether boards have the right composition and capability for a world where governance failures are instant news.
The intensity of media governance
Governance professionals within media organisations work under exceptional pressure. Their role extends beyond compliance to diplomacy, bridging creative independence and corporate accountability. They must earn the confidence of editorial leaders, map informal power networks and translate governance principles into newsroom reality. In practice, they act as the organisation’s conscience, steadying culture when reputation wobbles.
For those outside the sector, the lessons are increasingly relevant. The scrutiny faced by broadcasters prefigures what many other industries now experience, constant public visibility, digital amplification and the accelerating governance risks of AI. Perhaps governance is not fundamentally different in media, but the environment is a few years ahead of the curve. As technology collapses the distance between internal decision-making and public perception, is every organisation becoming a media organisation of sorts?
In the media world of today, governance is never backstage. Boards that understand how visibility, politics, technology and trust intertwine will be best placed to navigate a landscape where the governance principles may be the same, but the exposure, pressure and pace are far greater.
Key governance take-aways for media organisations
- Build boards that blend editorial literacy, ethical awareness and safeguarding expertise with financial and strategic acumen.
- Keep a clear separation between oversight and content decisions to preserve independence and accountability.
- Ensure transparent appointment and tenure processes to guard against political or ownership influence.
- Recognise informal power networks such as star talent, freelancers and social-media influencers as part of the risk landscape.
- Strengthen digital and data literacy to govern algorithmic and AI-related risks.
- Elevate culture, ethics and safeguarding to strategic board oversight rather than operational afterthoughts.