Category Archives: Uncategorized

. 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.

: BBC2’s programme on North Korea (screened last night) was an informative, distressing, at times chilling, study of some of what goes on in that wretched country.

Near the end, the programme turned to discussing the possibility that anything might be done about it. “In the other hermetically-sealed land”, was how the voice-over introduced a view of Washington, where, we were told, action would not be taken because, “North Korea has no oil”. Not all the brief analysis of why the U.S. appears less ready to invade North Korea than Iraq was down at this visceral anti-american level, but that these lines were spoken prompts some reflections.

The programme-makers doubtless had to imply some interest in North Korea’s version of events to be let in to film. (Honourably for them, I doubt they’ll be allowed back now this has been screened.) Were the above lines performing a similar function in BBC-land, a necessary genuflection to the BBC’s view of the U.S.? The speculation seems a more-than-fair riposte to the ‘other hermetically-sealed land’ quip.

Of course, had the BBC not already established a very solid anti-Bush record, they might never have been allowed in to film in the first place. The most enlightening (and disturbing) data came from escapees and defectors interviewed outside the country, but what we saw inside – the unanimity of remarks and the patent fear and desire to cut discussion short engendered by the slightest controversial question – also told its tale. So I leave it to the reader to determine whether the tendency of this post is to criticise BBC bias or to grant that it can sometimes serve the greater good.

Meanwhile, though the horrors the witnesses told of may not alter anyone’s view of the rights and wrongs either of BBC bias or of the many other things that we or the BBC complain about here in the west, they certainly put them in perspective.

. 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?

On the morning thing, they had David Attenborough, they showed 2 minutes of one of his excellent nature shows and then cut back to the sofa. “Will we ever see programmes like that again?” asked Bill Turnbull.

Of course, now that they have been exposed for what they are, all documentaries and period drama will be pulled from our screen. It’s an inevitable concequence, isn’t it?

Oh, and did you see when Greg Dyke came out of broadcasting house to give his speech, I do believe the door hit his ass on the way out. Nice touch.

Rich

Everything you need to know about the BBC on one page.

…within hours of director general Greg Dyke’s resignation on Thursday, there were unprecedented scenes of spontaneous support and raw emotion from BBC employees outside Television Centre.”

Passing drivers… honked their horns in a cacophony of support.

“It’s an unprecedented show of determination and support, for the BBC and its values,” said Jeremy Dear of the National Union of Journalists…”

Values? What values?

Regards, John Perry

I’m glad, I really am, that Mr Dyke’s last gloomy hours in post were cheered by the knowledge that his colleagues held him in affection. He was one of them.

That was the problem.

Here is a righteous summing up of the Hutton verdict and its causes and consequences from Oliver Kamm.

‘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.