Dire coverage of the Trump state visit proves the BBC no longer knows what it's for

It started with the the Thames Diamond Jubilee Pageant in 2012. It was was a parade of 670 boats on the Thames. But the real talking point was the BBC coverage. For the first time, the BBC made a complete mess of the coverage of a major national event. “Dire reaction to BBC coverage of another great event”, wrote Jonathan Dimbleby. “Am asked whether bigwigs have lost the plot.”

It’s always fascinating when a major national institution loses its touch. That’s what happened to the BBC in 2012. They decided their coverage should be more “relevant”, more “youthful”, and the result was entirely predictable.

The BBC is painfully unsure what it’s for. It doesn’t seem to like the Britain who pays its licence fees – too white, too old, too right-wing, too rural and suburban. They don’t really like doing what the viewers want to see.

Enter Trump. The obvious thing to say about the Trump visit was that he’s the democratically elected president of the United States, here to pay tribute to the Queen, the D-Day veterans and America’s greatest ally. They could then have just handed the whole thing over to Outside Broadcasts, who would produce lovely pictures of Buckingham Palace, and reliable presenters from the News Channel, who would provide the commentary.

Instead some bright spark thought they’d invite Simon Schama to come along and do his bad fairy act and throw the apple of discord everywhere. “I know that state visits have been extended to gangsters, criminals and buffoons before… but there’s no reason to add another one”. “I hope the queen has some hand sanitiser. I think Trump’s a morally degraded person.”
Of course, Schama is a perfect Newsnight booking. Fluent lively, engaging. But when you have an all-day live outside broadcast and so many things can go wrong, you don’t want to strand your presenter with a guest who wants to tell your daytime audience what a horrible man the US President is. Not the time, not the place. The Newsnight studio, alone with Emily Maitlis and a few consenting adults from Novara Media: that’s the place for Schama in that sort of mood.

So why do it? Because the young BBC news producers and execs loathe Trump and everything he stands for, and will have cheered Schama to the rafters. I listened in disbelief, not because I disagree with Schama, for many years one of my favourite historians, but because this was just bad manners and would have spoiled an occasion for many daytime viewers. The daytime audience wanted to see the beautiful pictures, hear the wonderful music, admire the soldiers, enjoy the fact that here’s something Britain does brilliantly, better than anyone, and feel some pride in that. But the sort of people who invite Owen Jones or Ash Sarkar onto the BBC think this is all a bit, well, right-wing, so let’s get Simon on to shake it all up a bit. Schama wasn’t balanced with a right-wing historian like Andrew Roberts or Max Hastings, he was just allowed to rubbish the whole thing.

Within minutes Schama had vanished. He must have broken the world record for getting rid of a difficult programme guest. The wonderfully dependable Jon Sopel replaced him. There was a brief moment later when you could see a flurry of white wispy hair and Schama looked a bit shamefaced at having crashed onscreen again, and then he was gone. Extraordinary.

The problem the BBC had on the first day was obvious. Everything went so well. Trump was gracious and respectful towards the Queen. He got on well with Charles. Both speeches at the state dinner were exemplary. In the meantime, the BBC was yearning to turn the Trump visit into a news story, so kept going on and on about a pathetic exchange of tweets between the President and Sadiq Khan. This was what football pundits call “handbags”, a bit of nonsense which should be kept in proportion. Sadiq Khan and Trump have previous history. They are both adults. It’s got nothing to do with the price of beans. Going on about it was just a way of saying to all the angry leftists on Twitter, “We’re on your side, really. Good ol’ Sadiq. Good ol’ Schama. A bas les aristos.”

In the past, the BBC would have revelled in the pageantry and the gorgeous pictures. But that’s not enough for them now. They wanted to stir things up: Trump and Sadiq, Trump and the NHS, Trump and Corbyn. I don’t think I’m the only licence fee payer who senses an agenda out there and who wishes that the BBC would stick to doing what it used to superbly well. Who knew Trump would come out of all this better than the BBC?