What happened?
On 14 May, an inquiry found that the BBC acted in an unethical and deceitful manner to obtain a 1995 interview with Princess Diana. The inquiry, conducted by retired judge Lord Dyson, found that journalist Martin Bashir had "deceived and induced" Diana's brother Earl Spencer to arrange an interview with her by falsifying bank documents. Dyson report said: "Without justification, the BBC fell short of the high standards of integrity and transparency which are its hallmark by covering up in its press logs such facts as it had been able to establish about how Mr Bashir secured the interview too and failing to mention Mr Bashir's activities or the BBC investigations of them on any news programme." 

The BBC subsequently apologized to both Earl Spencer and Diana's son Prince William, but the latter hit out against the media outlet nevertheless. Prince William said: "The interview was a major contribution to making my parents' relationship worse and has since hurt countless others."

What is the background?
First, the importance of the integrity of big media houses. With terms like alternative truth and fake news dominating the discourse over the last few years, premier news outlets like the BBC must retain their credibility that has been the hallmark for over a century. While the blame, in this case, falls largely on the shoulders of Bashir, the report has blamed BBC for a "woefully ineffective" investigation into the affair in 1996.

Second, the unethical practices of media houses and individual reporters. The scandal once again brings to attention the unethical practices that journalists often resort to for a breaking story or a scoop. Ten years ago, a phone-hacking scandal, where it emerged that reporters had hacked the phones of hundreds of people, including members of the royal family, had caused the closure of the 'News of the World' newspaper. 

Third, the market for tabloid journalism. While the blame does lie solely on Bashir's and BBC's shoulders, the fact remains that such sensationalist content attracts a significant number of viewers. A case in point is the recent interview that Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle had held with Oprah Winfrey, which attracted 17.1 million viewers. It can be argued that ultimately the media is giving the public what they want the most and the unethical practices that go hand-in-hand with the nature of the content.

Fourth, the obsession that UK media have with their royalty. The lengths to which Bashir went to get the interview, and the frenzy with which it was received, exemplifies the hype that surrounds the British royal family, something that often ends up having negative consequences. Two decades later, the sensationalist coverage of Prince Harry's split with the family shows that nothing has changed.

What does it mean?
While the incident and its handling is a blot on BBC's credibility, the fact that they have owned up to their mistakes and apologized for them is a good sign. On 7 May, the Guardian had apologized for the errors in judgment that it had made during its 200 years of existence. These are indeed good precedents for media companies to follow when accountability has been sacrificed for a short-term gain.