Rod: the real story

There was more to Rod Liddle's departure from the Today programme than he told readers of his column in The Guardian. Tim Luckhurst explains

The BBC knows that its treatment of Rod Liddle was not a presentational triumph. The suspicion exists that the corporation danced to a tune played by The Daily Telegraph. Liddle's friends are keen to encourage that perception. One says: "The BBC now looks weak. They do look as if they responded exclusively to the Telegraph."

The strongest allegation from the Liddle camp is that Gavyn Davies, the BBC's historically Labour-friendly chairman, had long been concerned that Liddle's iconoclastic credentials would attract accusations of bias. That was not in his interests, and he was determined Liddle should go. The furious reaction of the Telegraph to Liddle's Guardian column, in which he suggested that the people united in support of the Countryside Alliance might remind citizens "why you voted Labour in 1997", gave Davies his chance, the Liddle camp says.

This is what really happened. Liddle's columns are always submitted for approval by Stephen Mitchell, the head of radio news. Even last week's epistle, "Reader, I chose you", in which Liddle offered a stupendously neutered account of his own departure, was subjected to corporate censorship. (The Guardian has not shared this information with its readers.)

The offending comments about Alliance marchers were sent to Mitchell too. He did not receive them. Liddle's column contained two parts, one long piece, one short. Each was sent as a separate e-mail attachment. Mitchell did not get the second, shorter segment. He says: "It was Rod's responsibility to make sure all his column reached me. It did not do so on this occasion."

Mitchell does not even hint that the omission was deliberate. Another senior BBC News source says: "You could say Rod had a death wish. He was writing an unusually sharp column and we had been talking to him about it for months. But, against that background, why abandon all that goodwill by pretending to have sent it?" A Liddle supporter muddies the waters further: "He was going to leave Today in five or six weeks' time anyway. He had decided. But with the glorious immaturity he has made his hallmark, he thought he'd have a bit of fun first."

Plausible? It is clear Liddle was contemplating departure from Today. He told me so two months ago. His name has been linked with opportunities to present political programmes on Radio 5 Live and BBC4. He has signed up with the William Morris literary agency and plans a novel "mainly about oral sex" and a political book "about the narrowing of the agenda, the narrowing of thought, the things that we are no longer allowed to say".

But Liddle did not tell the BBC he wanted to move on. Mitchell says that, even after the Guardian column, "Rod did not have to go. He had a choice. I would have been more than happy for him to continue editing the Today programme if he had ceased to write the column that had caused the problem." Liddle acknowledges that the offer to remain as editor was made.

Mitchell first saw Liddle's offending column on the morning it was published, Wednesday 25 September. He knew it crossed the barrier of what was acceptable from the editor of Today. Mitchell showed the piece to Mark Damazer, the deputy director of news, not for confirmation of his opinion, but because his colleague needed to know. Damazer's reaction was identical.

That day, Liddle's three direct superiors, Mitchell, Damazer and Richard Sambrook, the director of news, all communicated their concern to him. He met Mitchell and received e-mails from Damazer and Sambrook. He was left in no doubt that he had gone too far. A long-discussed decision as to whether he would continue to write for newspapers or edit Today would have to be made. No public statement was issued, leaving the BBC vulnerable to the claim that Liddle's transgression was not taken seriously until it was attacked in print. But it is clear that if Liddle had been as certain as his friends say that he wanted to leave Today, he had the opportunity to say so.

Next dayThe Daily Telegraph accused Liddle of "blatant bias, animus and even party allegiance". Damazer spoke to Liddle repeatedly by telephone. They agreed to meet at 11.30 on Friday morning at Television Centre. Liddle had still not said that he wished to leave Today. The meeting was postponed, and Liddle finally met Damazer on Friday evening. The ultimatum was delivered. Liddle could drop his column and retain his editorship or resign his editorship and retain the column. Damazer and Mitchell had already concluded that Liddle's credibility as editor could be restored.

On Monday, Liddle met Sambrook and declared that he was willing to quit. There have been suggestions that this meeting followed a showdown with the director general, Greg Dyke, and interference by Gavyn Davies. Liddle did not discuss his dilemma with Dyke. Davies had no direct involvement and conveyed a clear message that the issue was not one in which he would become enmeshed. But those who gave Liddle the ultimatum had been aware for more than a year that the BBC chairman regarded Liddle as a loose cannon. Liddle's friends say his managers did not need to be told that shifting him from the job would be popular at the top. Sambrook is known to take a different view from Damazer and Mitchell. Sources say he knew three months ago that Liddle wanted to leave Today. Sambrook would have been content to allow Liddle to work out his notice rather than leave in what appeared to be a direct response to The Daily Telegraph.

So what persuaded Liddle to go? His team at Today are intensely loyal. Like Mitchell, Damazer, and Sambrook, they recognise that their unconventional, outrageous and entertaining editor exhibited superb judgement throughout his tenure. They insist that his "traditionalist" enemies had been circling him for years. It is true that Liddle was widely resented.

Liddle is emphatic that the BBC's hostility to his Guardian column "became much more energetic" after the Telegraph's response. He has never accepted that his comments about the Countryside Alliance were incompatible with his status as Today editor. Nor does he agree that he endorsed the BBC's public pronouncements that they were. Indeed, Liddle is adamant that the part of the BBC statement containing his endorsement was never actually read to him.

Tim Luckhurst is the author of 'This is Today – a biography of the Today programme' (Aurum Press, £16.99)