Author Archives: Ed Thomas

. True, everybody’s done it in this case, so what the heck, but you might have thought the BBC would have had enough of misreporting sources. Nicholas Vance has an excellent account of how the BBC has managed to distil the the interviews given by Dr Kelly,… sorry, Dr Kay, into a pithy little sound-byte, ‘it turns out we were all wrong’. True, the ‘sound-byte’ itself as an irritating noun could as well as have been invented by Blair and Campbell, but the BBC reminds me of a person who thinks they know the rules of a game, and then proves by performance (by performance I mean, well, a number of them have had to resign) that they don’t- and can’t stand the fact. What’s irritating in particular is that there’s a perfectly good sceptical approach to be taken, but the BBC can’t resist the controversial name-calling that, again, they’ve learned from the politicians.

As Nicholas points out, referring to a Guardian profile (I’ve ruthlessly borrowed Nicholas’ links), they’ve also learned from their recent mentor, Greg Dyke. Dyke’s obviously an excellent media man (who triumphed at the BBC in the ratings over his old ITV employers) and an ideological warrior- but Hutton showed he knew nothing about Government, either with a big or a small ‘g’. It seems to me that the politicians can only get away with their spin and their name-calling while the press lacks the moral authority to criticise them for it- which is where the BBC’s political stance interferes with their primary job of being impartial observers. They can’t have their cake and eat it; they can’t accuse the UK Government or the US President on their chosen ideological grounds (here I’d call them ‘post-colonial relativism’)- and report Dr Kay’s remarks faithfully. Melanie Phillips explains why the two don’t tally in the case of Dr Kay.

When I noticed what Eamonn pointed out in the comments- that the BBC website was giving extraordinary prominence to two short protests against the Hutton Report before and during its debate in Parliament- I zipped along the wires to see for myself. I couldn’t find it until I realised they’d put it on the World Edition page- where there were two stories about the protests (the second story is totally trivial), presented as follows:

Protests delay UK’s WMD debate

Anti-war protesters heckle Tony Blair as MPs debate the Hutton Report on Iraq weapons expert David Kelly.

Obviously it’s weird that this is ‘World News’. It’s also a bit odd to describe it as a ‘WMD debate’, implying a bust-up over the tricky political issue of WMD, when it was launched as a debate on the Hutton Report- a tricky political issue for the BBC. Having seen the cynical and confused world press’ reaction to the Hutton Report via BBC surveys, however, I can see why the Beeb think that broad definition has some mileage. Perhaps they see the Hutton Report as a domestic, British judgement (who could be more domestic, more ‘British’ than Lord Hutton?), whereas their vindication is seen to be found in the reaction of their world audience. The key part of the major report is Mr Blair’s response to the dossier-phrasing fears expressed by Dr Brian Jones- apparently given some fresh energy by an interview with Jones in The Independent according to the Beeb. Whether that was actually raised in Parliament as part of the Commons debate is not at all clear (and it should be, in this report), but it was certainly dealt with in Jones’ interview with Lord Hutton.

Update: I’ve just noticed that the headlines covering the same story have changed considerably- rather Gilliganesque I’d say. The main headline now reads ‘Hutton report ‘was no Whitewash’ ‘– and no-one’s accusing the PM of lying, either, absolutely not, just let’s make that clear. It’s now been put onto the UK Edition as well, which begs the question- why not there in the first place? Oh, I get it, it’s a naming strategy to help the world get up to speed on the Beeb’s No1 story. Update2: Melanie Phillips cuts down to size The Independent’s report which helped fuel the Beeb’s afternoon anti-Hutton bonanza.

– the storm has passed and they’re not kicking up another one just at the moment. Meanwhile, pundits are stock-taking, generally with a sense that somehow journalism has been the loser. Few have come out and praised Lord Hutton, and even if they have they’ve said at least something about his ‘unworldliness’, or being a bit Northern Irish for the subtleties of London affairs, or ‘hackings’ to that effect.

Rounding up, I’d start with Johann Hari, admirably honest in admitting the Gilligan debacle but terrier-like in defending the basic beast that is the BBC. He’s also (unintentionally) funny. His antipathy to privatisation of the Beeb is fuelled by his dislike of Murdoch and what he calls ‘the late unlamented Conrad Black’- whose death is news to me (nothing like being first with a good news story, eh, Johann?). Johann’s one who believes that ‘the basic case for public service broadcasting needs urgently to be restated’ and that ‘The BBC is necessary because, unlike all other media outlets, it is accountable to us, the viewing public’. I might agree with the first point- in my own modest way- but how on earth does he believe the second? Would that be in the ‘Have Your Say’ bit on the BBC website, which has been regularly the source of angst for the good people of this site (including me)? Or was he thinking of ‘Points of View’, with cuddly Terry Wogan, or icy Anne Robinson, or Angela Rippon (see, I have been thinking about this for a while)?

He considers ‘It is essential for democracy that a range of media sources not owned by rich people is entrenched in Britain’s de facto constitution’. Is that a description of the Beeb’s position? Even roughly? [nb, I think this ‘even roughly?’ remark was a mistake. What I think is that it’s questionable whether the BBC truly represents ‘a range of media sources’, and whether people like, for instance, Dyke, Wark and Paxman can be considered ‘not rich’ and not representing therefore vested interests.] ‘Rich people’ would obviously be those who earn a lot more than Greg Dyke earned- something way over £400,000 ($700, 000+) per annum then. To be fair to Hari’s point Greg Dyke must be excused because he only acted like he owned the BBC. And he wasn’t untouchable, on last week’s evidence, but neither was Lord Black, on recent evidence. In fact, Black’s a classic example of where private wealth does not render people untouchable, as his almighty litigation hangover will testify- watch out for Lord Black’s accellerated ageing process on a TV screen near you soon, though not fast enough for Johann- and it’s not as if Murdoch hasn’t had to face a shareholder’s inquisition over the Murdoch succession in the last year. It really did take a man to die for harsh scrutiny to happen at the Beeb.

To refer to other commentators, firstly I will declare that I really have no time at all for Max Hastings. However (moving on), Norm Geras has been his usual guarded self, which often seems to lead to firm and dramatic conclusions- and he gives us Martin Kettle and Mark Steyn as his favoured commenters on Hutton, the Beeb et al. I would add Melanie Phillips, who’s been stalwart and rapier-like on Hutton and the Beeb. I particularly liked her one sentence summary of the current fog of disbelief over WMD- but that’s unrelated, that’s just me. It’s a brilliant piece of ordered thinking expressed in quick-smart writing, so good you have to pinch yourself to appreciate it fully. BTW, I’ll also ignore Rod Liddel, which is the best policy for us all I feel- right, left or BiasedBBC.

. Not, not the British troops, that would require an alternative universe, but BBC militants who are threatening to (heaven forbid!) resign from their posts over the Hutton Report and fallout. What interest he might have in protests supporting them I can’t imagine, but he might just want to maintain something of a media cushion against the multiplying pin-pricks of his own guilty verdict, so he was on hand for the ‘London Free Press’ with his rent-a-gob-for-free-no-oil-required-honest act to say:

“The report is exactly the whitewash and the establishment cover-up that we predicted, with a cherry on top”- which is Galloway-speak for ‘jolly good report- damn you’. Tim Blair presents this snippet as part of a useful item summarising affairs at the BBC.

– while we’re ‘managing’ disastrous news, don’t ignore Galloway! According to a widely cirulating report from Le Monde, which has found echoes in such luminaries as The Washington Times, and ABC in America, a number of French public figures have been named by ‘independent newspaper Al-Mada’ in Iraq, quoting IGC sources and Hussein regime documentation, among a long list of people who received the proceeds of barrels of oil from Saddam. The BBC a few days ago reported this scandal via the protestation of innocence of one former French Minister- Charles Pasqua- while the other names on the list are referred to as ‘foreigners’ (presumably ‘foreigners to Iraq’). But wait, not so fast- not only are there hundreds of important names to investigate, as I read the Le Monde article I come across this very newsworthy passage, semi-translated by Google:

‘George Gallaway, former Labour deputy with the Communes, appears in good place in the list. Its name is mentioned in six contracts and the newspaper publishes a letter of the SOMO on December 31, 1999, signed by Saddam Zbin, cousin of Saddam Hussein which managed this company and in which it asks for the ministry for oil of grant contracts to him. Apparently, this British member of Parliament was particularly well treated.’

Now, Pasqua’s name might be newsworthy- in France (though not as newsworthy as Chirac, see Washington Times)- but Galloway is trying to launch his own ‘electoral coalition’ in the UK. He’s also still an MP. His new party is called R.E.S.P.E.C.T., and don’t you think the BBC should allow us a peek at these allegations to see if he deserves any? Maybe they’re frightened of adding to the laughter in court ….“I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned a barrel of oil, bought or sold a barrel of oil… “.

I mean, I could understand some squeamishness in the Telegraph (in the midst of a libel saga, after making similar allegations), but where’s the BBC when you need them? Oh, I forget, in a heap on the floor, exhausted from journalistic ‘crusading’. (Thanks to Glenn Reynolds for the initial links. Oh, and before I go, a mention for Harry’s Place , who noticed this too. Meanwhile, since I made notes of this, Scott Burgess has been on the case, and former French Prime Minister Alan Juppe has created a different kind of stir. It’s all go in the world of corruption!). Update: Stephen Hayes thinks the Telegraph might have been onto something.

Update2: How about rounding off with an Iraqi POV via Healing Iraq?

‘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.

Ah, let’s begin our favourite Then and Now comparisons:

‘In fact last year I was sitting at a dinner party in London next to a charming American woman who asked me what I did. I said I run the BBC. She then informed me she regarded the BBC as a communistic organisation.

That was decision time. Did I get into a detailed argument about publicly funded broadcasting with someone who appeared culturally unable to understand the merits of such a system, or did I just politely get back to eating my dinner.’

Naturally, Greg (once known to some affectionately as ‘Boss Hogg’) didn’t bother with the detailed argument bit, and just tucked in.

I’m sure that lady would be interested to hear that the criticisms of Lord Hutton of BBC Management included- I’m being kind and only using three-

‘failing to investigate…to make an examination…to appreciate’

and would reflect on who might have been culturally disabled.

. Not surprised to hear from the Guardian of Gilligan anger and NUJ militant spin in the face of Hutton’s well aimed punches. I’m also not surprised to hear that Gavyn Davies made an ungracious exit, questioning Hutton’s ‘bald conclusions’ even as he looked up at his red card, or that any number of people, including the Tory Leader, Michael Howard (in his way), will give comfort to the BBC ‘victims’ of Hutton. I am though as convinced as I can be that Hutton did all that he could do in the circumstances, as opposed to the crude balancing act that could have salved the reputations of the BBC journalists involved and saved the blushes of the journalistic establishment. The truth was that all the crucial lacunae (gaps) of logic and action were on the part of Gilligan and the BBC, along with almost all the obvious dishonesty, and, well, Hutton’s a judge, so…

‘In what amounted to a complete demolition of Gilligan’s controversial report. Lord Hutton cast doubt on the “sexing up” claim and rejected as “unfounded” the allegation that the infamous 45-minute claim had been inserted at the request of the government.‘

Meanwhile this from Gilligan also via the Guardian:

‘Andrew Gilligan today came out fighting with a statement issued on his behalf describing Lord Hutton’s report as “grossly one-sided”.‘

Much of this basically via Jeff Jarvis. Also, my own little word to Gilligan- you see, for you this Hutton report was like an exam, with marks for every separate question of fact you might in good faith have been attempting to answer with your reporting, and- you failed. No point pretending that you didn’t when even those sympathetic to you saw in it a ‘demolition’, and anyone who listened to Hutton listened to the force of argument tempered by considered reason. If he didn’t get around to criticising Blair, which to be fair he couldn’t in the context you helped define, that was because your facile errors and insouciance in the face of reality took up all of his concentration. Actually, for Hutton, you became the story- which is I think a good bit more just, in the context, than when that was said of Alastair Campbell.

, 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.

-The 45 minute claim was not absent from the first draft of the Iraq dossier because it was considered unreliable, but because it was intelligence gathered too late to be included.

-It was from what was believed to be a trustworthy source and it was not true that there always had to be a second source for intelligence to be deemed trustworthy. Many of the assumptions that Gilligan made were likewise ignorant.

-The dossier had not been ‘sexed up’, and absolutely not in the way that Gilligan implied.

-Gilligan reported Kelly as saying things that he never actually said:

‘I am satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan that the Government probably knew or suspected that the 45 minutes claim was wrong before that claim was inserted in the dossier. I am further satisfied that Dr Kelly did not say to Mr Gilligan that the reason why the 45 minutes claim was not included in the original draft of the dossier was because it only came from one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was necessarily true.’– Lord Hutton, Chapter 12, 2.i, The Hutton Report.

In other words, Gilligan lied in referring to his source, his only source, and (we learned from Hutton if we didn’t already know) no-one at the BBC cared, or cared much. Why? I would submit because of BBC bias.

I am in agreement with Jeff Jarvis’s position on this:

‘I used to respect and even love the BBC and I didn’t join in with many others going after them at every turn. But the more I saw of Gilligan, as a symptom of the disease, and the more I saw the BBC leadership allow Gilliganitis and its lies and irresponsibility and journalism-by-agenda to spread through its organization unchecked, and the more I heard the head of the BBC attack American journalism, the more I believed that the vaunted BBC was blindly destroying its own credibility and even that of journalism.’. Go and read it all.