, in the light of BBBC’s continuous stream of comments on BBC bias, and some report a judge has filed, BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies has an announcement to make. HE’S RESIGNING! (Thanks, Susan)
Update: There’s wisdom in the comments from Patrick B : ‘Gavyn Davies to offer to resign—but what about DYKE and the rest of the sorry gang of propaganda artists? And will the Board of Governors ACCEPT the resignation, or will they dare Tony Blair to step in and clean the stables? ‘
Further Update: Ok, I really believe that Davies has resigned now, and that it’s been accepted (although Patrick B. still has a point or two I shouldn’t forget). Why? Oh, I heard it on the BBC.
A million years ago, in a different incarnation, I wanted to work for the Beeb. I did all the right things to get a job – went to the right places, got the right degree, edited the right student papers etc.
Then one day I realised just what a huge pile of excrement they pour out. Moreover, in working with the future BBC journalists I realised what a bunch of a-holes they were.
Now I live very far from Beebland, I realise just how arrogant and biased they are.
Today has been a celebration for all disappointed BBC lovers.
Will you bring the champagne, or should I?
Gavyn Davies has resigned.
Eddie Mair – didn’t take him long to start questioning Reid on introducing an enquiry into the rationale for war. Just like Charlie Kennedy in the house of commons. No-one cares for an enquiry into the war, where the rationale has been spelt out ad nauseum.
Gavyn Davies to offer to resign—but what about DYKE and the rest of the sorry gang of propaganda artists? And will the Board of Governors ACCEPT the resignation, or will they dare Tony Blair to step in and clean the stables?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3434661.stm
“Andrew Gilligan today came out fighting with a statement describing Lord Hutton’s report as ‘grossly one-sided.” says the Guardian.”
Yes, well Gilligan and the “Today” team know all about gross one-sededness of course.
This evening’s Six O’Clock News has been hilarious – the best bit so far was the lightweight Sophie Raiworth stating “So, where does the Hutton Report leave the world’s most prestigious news organisation? Nick Higham has this report…” – and all without a hint of irony!
Oh how my sides hurt – prestigious? What a joke! Over the last few years the BBC has lost any prestige it may have once had over it’s broadcasting rivals (unless of course Miss Raiworth was referring to the BBC’s competitors!).
Any organisation that manages to make this wretched govt look good would seem to have serious problems.
The logic of what you are saying is that a single report – most of which was correct – from a gigantic 24 hour rolling-news organisation, broadcast at just after 6.00am on radio 4, is now required to be more accurate than a government “intelligence dossier”, which was used as the basis of the attorney general’s judgement that it would be _legal_ under international law for the United Kingdom to go to war.
We all know from the evidence that Bliar was at the centre of the decision that Kelly be named, that A.C. wanted to use Kelly to “fuck Gilligan”, and that Hoon was even more enthusiastic to do so. We know that A.C. put in at least twelve changes to “sex up” the dossier, and we know that meetings were unminuted – which I understand is against the official guidelines. We also know that members of the intelligence community felt the dossier was “over-egged”, and the leading expert, Kelly himself, had grave misgivings about it.
‘we all know’ selected bits of evidence that mainstream journalists have selected to give maximum news impact. Only Lord Hutton could make criticism of the BBC newsworthy- otherwise all we have is the big media cabal.
Gilligan’s report caused a great deal of disruption in Parliamentarian circles- and I mean bodies such as the Foreign Affairs Committee. This meant that Kelly’s name was going to come out, because the Government couldn’t be seen to be hiding sources of intelligence interest from its regulatory committees. Gilligan and the BBC’s refusal to confirm that Kelly was their only source after he had come forward and testified to what he’d said to journalists, resulted in intense scrutiny of Kelly’s testimony.
Re: Campbell’s ‘word’. You have to remember that Gilligan personally, not the BBC, intensified pressure on Alastair Campbell with a lurid article in the Daily Mail.
I don’t know where you get the idea that Hoon was ‘even keener’ to do so.
Kelly was not ‘the leading expert’, far from it, and he was involved only partially with the dossier.
Some changes that Alastair Campbell reccommended were accepted by the JIC, some rejected, and most were relatively trivial. The famous 45 minutes claim was couched in a paragraph about Saddam’s regional ambitions, and should never have been used by the press to indicate a long range attack because of that.
In my reading of the Hutton report (not the conclusions) I have so far found a lot of Government minutes. If I have failed to account for your other points perhaps I need to continue my reading. I’m very confident that Hutton was right, but it’s very hard to take- an out of the blue reckoning for journalistic practises, and of course for one journalist in particular.
BTW- re Hoon- I do recall something, and I haven’t yet formed a conclusion about him in this affair. I am convinced though that Gilligan was substantially innaccurate and therefore merited harsh criticism. As for the BBC’s follow-up, that was the worst- shallow, lazy and arrogant.