Trump remark was wrong but presenter strayed into comment

Naga Munchetty had criticised Donald Trump in a way that was inappropriate for someone in her role on a breakfast show.

She said that his comments, telling a number of his Democratic female politicians, were “embedded in racism”.

For this she was rightly criticised, and only mildly, by a standards watchdog.

BBC bosses then rushed after that decision to say that were not impartial on racism, in the same way that they are not impartial on murder or other bad things.

The problem though is the principle. It is essential that the national broadcaster has the support of all its viewers.

That is why, like the monarchy, it has to be politically impartial, particularly at times of bitter political division.

The point is not whether or not President Trump’s comments were regrettable: they were, and it is not unreasonable for someone to observe that they reveal racial prejudice.

But journalists report such a row, and report criticism or support for the protagonists in such a row, and analyse the impact of the controversy. If they move on to give their own assessment of the situation, they have moved into comment.

Comment is a key part of the media landscape, but it should be openly identifiable as comment and is not the role of BBC reporters or presenters.