‘The White House has acknowledged for the first time that its intelligence reports on Iraq might have been wrong. ‘ -BBC introduces report of Con Rice’s interviews.
“I think that what we have is evidence that there are differences between what we knew going in and what we found on the ground” -Con Rice on CBS
The two statements do not agree- the difference is subtle but crucial, aside from the inference that we are about to hear of a formal statement- and above is the only meaningful quotation given of Rice’s words in the article on the BBC website. Once again the BBC has ‘interpreted’ the views of its source- in this case remarks made by Condoleeza Rice on CBS [and, I should add, a low-key, tacked-on comment to NBC]- by making a central eye-catching claim that cannot be supported by the evidence they produce. It is interesting how this story found NO place on CNN’s front page at the same time, and no place on CBS either, though I would stress that I don’t believe that CNN or CBS is particularly friendly towards US policy. If it was a real story, as opposed to an uncalled for scrambling of well-chosen words, does it take the BBC’s ‘non-flag-waving’ journalism to discover it? Or is it just the BBC trying to fight back against what it sees (and believes is at the moment popularly seen) as a ‘whitewash’ of the concerns about WMD that appeared to motivate Gilligan? I would submit that there can be a sensible media approach to this issue, and the BBC is leading the media away from it by reporting in this manner.
OFF (ON) TOPIC:
BBC staff raise funds for petition
http://media.guardian.co.uk/bbc/story/0,7521,1135385,00.html
The real fight is now on. Having listened to Radio 4 World at One today, it is clear that the BBC news services are on a crusade. Such is their support throughout the media (along with the Tories!) that I think there’s a very good chance they’ll bring down the government.
It’s quite scary.
Nature shows should be right up their alley – only one source needed.
The BBC & Dyke showed their true colours yesterday – still, we all knew that already – will Gilligan do the honourable thing? Unlikely I feel, he has already shown that he has no morals.
Why has Gilligan not already been fired long ago. Most of the facts on his unprofessional behavior are not in question. These are grounds for termination by any standard. Could Gilligan be telling his BBC overlords that he will spill the beans if they fire him? Look, there could be a Hutton Inquiry on virtually every Gilligan story – and the outcome would be the same: he lied.
Alistair Campbell (whom I do not especially like), made a very good point:
“If the public knew how the Media actually operated, they would be horrified”.
Hutton was praised when the media thought he would attack Blair, but as soon as he criticised the media, Hutton is out of favour.
Of course the Media would side with the BBC, they are a cosy elite (they talk about “the Establishment”, but the Media IS the establishment these days).
I can vote out Blair, but I’m stuck with Gullible Gilligan and John “Blanks” Kampfner (both horribly ugly gits).
I so want Hutton to investigate the media’s abuse of Jessica Lynch.
He’d have a field day!
I thought that only Mr. Berlusconi in my country said that the judge is part of the establishment when the verdict is against him.
The leftist media are behaving in the UK as Mr. Berlusconi.
You could judge of biased nature of the BBC when You see that the employees of a public funded organitation protest although a judge said its handling of the Andrew Gilligan claim was improper. You can understand the power of a media when you know how many still criticize Mr. Blair.
Did anyone catch Greg Dyke being interviewed by Ed Stourton on Today this morning? GD in shocked tones said that Hutton’s report was disasterous for all news media becase it would force all journalists to verify all “whistle-blowers’ ” allegations before they could publish. He thus completely obscured the fact that David Kelly never did allege what Gilligan claimed he did. It was the rhetorical equivalent of octopus ink.
I saw that interview and nearly choked on my cornflakes.
I thought the poor woman interviewer was going to cry.
I notice though tonight the BBC (news 24) seem to have recovered and have got a ‘BUSH LIED’ story as their lead.
Bless ’em
Breaking: GILLIGAN QUITS BBC
‘Mr Gilligan conceded some of his story was wrong, and apologised for it.’
Gilligan has resigned, but his resignation letter is a broadside against what the BBC staff and their supporters now describe as their “enemies”.
“My departure is at my own initiative. But the BBC collectively has been the victim of a grave injustice. If Lord Hutton had fairly considered the evidence he heard, he would have concluded that most of my story was right.
“The government did sex up the dossier, transforming possibilities and probabilities into certainties, removing vital caveats; the 45-minute claim was the `classic example’ of this; and many in the intelligence services, including the leading expert in WMD, were unhappy about it.”
This story is very far from over. We are about to see a state broadcaster defy its own government. The irrational hatred of Bush and Blair is unhinging more and more people. It’s a virus that is infecting the body politic. Hutton was not an antidote, I’m afraid.
I’m sure the Guardian or the Independent will be happy to snap up a “reporter” of Andrew Gilligan’s stature, integrity, and talent.
Actually Susan, I listened to the Guardian’s media correspondent interviewed on Sky News this evening, and he said he wouldn’t want Gilligan working at the Guardian.
I was quite surprised to hear a careful and clinical demolition of Gilligan from the Guardian man (I wish I’d noted his name). It was followed by a Financial Times correspondent who was even more scathing, reminding viewers that Gilligan had committed a serious journalistic no-no by revealing Susan Watts’ source to MPs in his self-serving emails at the parliamentary inquiry.
This chap also went on say (or it might have been a following media chap actually, I’m sorry I was listening through distractions) that the whole “this is the end of media freedom” thing was “piffle”.
It was reassuring to hear sensible voices, especially from the left; it’s just a shame they can’t be heard above the clamouring rabble.
Mr Dyke is merely leaving the BBC to spend more time with his rat Roland.
The BBC wants us to know that even the Russians consider Blair’s government to be Stalinist
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3445689.stm
Well, since Gilligan once worked for the Dailly Telegraph, and since people like Boris Johnson and Peter Oborne have been vociferous in their support of him throughout, I expect that he’ll be found writing for the Spectator at the very least, and quite possibly the Telegraph too.
New BBC Chair Benny Hill Vows Staff Jiggle-Up
Boris Johnson describes himself as a FRIEND of Gilligan. Creepy !
The conservatives are not coming out well from this affair. Just who do they think they are appealing to? What new voters are they trying to pick up?
The BBC is now fighting a rearguard action. Greg Dyke, Gilligan and BBC Newsnight presenters, are decrying that BBC independence is under threat from the government. One even said that nature programs were under threat. Panic mongering with blatantly false allegations yet again.
The BBC still does not get.
The BBC, top management included, made a very serious allegation, that the PM and hence the collective cabinet, deliberately and knowingly misled parliament and the people, and went to war in Iraq, by falsifying intelligence data. If Hutton had shown that this had been true, then the PM and the cabinet would have had no alternative but to resign collectively. In fact the PM would have had to ask the Queen to dissolve parliament. This would have caused a serious crisis in the UK, of the same magnitude as that of Suez.
The BBC cannot now claim innocence. It knew perfectly well what it was up to. Now it is playing the victim.