They seem to have a wide range of people from different backgrounds and industries. It's a non executive role, so I assume it's more for 'experience and wisdom' in their respective fields and expertise than anything else.
If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company? Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?
>
If he was there to wield influence, he's not done very well this time - otherwise why would the BBC report on possible foul play by his former company
Well it such a big story now, they can hardly not run with it can they?
> Why would they explicitly mention his connection with the BBC?
Again, because they have to. I find it fascinating that private industry leaders would be involved, non-executive or otherwise, in the running of a state broadcasting company. The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all. Does not seem impartial.
> The BBC is spending British taxpayer's money after all.
There used to be funding from the Foreign Office for BBC World Service, but that has now ended. There's a tiny payment from Department of Work and Pensions to cover the discount for people over 70.
He's clearly there to wield influence. What other possible reason?