The BBC launched a new show at the Houses of Parliament yesterday and I went along to review it. This was the format. A committee of disgruntled MPs, some of whom had eaten red meat for breakfast, fired questions at the two top bosses of the BBC about the Jonathan Ross/Russell Brand phone prank affair. Like Dragons’ Den but with morals.

Mark Thompson, the Director-General of the BBC, and Sir Michael Lyons, Chairman of the BBC Trust, looked nervous. They had brought a ridiculous number of people with them. There are villages with smaller populations than their combined entourage. Perhaps they knew the BBC would be attacked for being a “bloated bureaucracy” and so brought along some of the bloat as a visual aid.

The two make for an odd couple (which isn’t a bad name for a show). Mr Thompson is large and lugubrious and, with his stubbly beard and closely shaved head, looks like a convict on the run. Sir Michael is small and quick as a fox, and looks – with his coiffed white hair – a bit of a smoothie-chops. They began by issuing the apology of all apologies for the broadcast. It was a serious lapse in editorial judgment, went way beyond the boundaries, was on the wrong side of the line, blah, blah. The words of contrition trotted forth, like ponies pulling a trap, in perfect formation. But the words seemed empty, as if they were nothing to do with the people saying them.

Nigel Evans, a Tory, asked if either, personally, had any regrets.

This was their Edith Piaf moment. Mr Thompson looked up at the ceiling, as if seeking guidance from her. In the end, he decided that he, like her, had none. Sir Michael gave a nonanswer that meandered, eventually, to the conclusion of no, not really.

Nigel’s voice rose: “But do both of you accept that you were slow in your reactions? Sir Michael, you got duffed up on the Today programme for this!”

Sir Michael hated that. “I am very clear. There was no lack of speed. This is a mythology that I just don’t accept. No lack of speed! No lack of speed! I refute and reject any suggestion that there was further action that the trust should have taken.” Now Nigel attacked Mr Thompson: hadn’t he been lamentably slow to react? Mr Thompson, very slowly, disagreed. Once again he took us through the chronology (the chronology mantra was getting tedious, like torture by time-line). But Nigel wouldn’t leave it alone. They were the top bosses. Why couldn’t they see how slow they’d been to react?

Mr Thompson sought solace in the ceiling again while Sir Michael explained why it was all a plot. The BBC had taken action that has had “consequences” for those involved (that’s management speak for fired). “That is so exceptional in our society that you [the politicians and press] have to look for a different story to tell,” he said.

Another Tory MP, Philip Davies, piled in: didn’t they accept this was a failure of their leadership?

“No, I don’t,” said Sir Michael, embarking on a lecture about the nature of leadership (his is great, by the way). Mr Thompson also had thought about this and had decided: “There will sometimes be human error.” But not, of course, his.

So there you have it. They, personally, did nothing wrong. I think they should name this show “The Mutual Appreciation Society”. I’m giving it one star.

Times Recommends

• Margot Fonteyn: In her footsteps
• Forget beautiful people, let's have wonky Brits
• Fundamentalist brew: faith and power