>
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.
