|
« Oldest hatred revisited
Main |
January 28, 2004
The Hutton earthquake
I haven't yet read Lord Hutton's report. But having watched his statement on TV, and then watched the exchanges in the House of Commons, two things become immediately apparent. The first is that the BBC has been eviscerated and will not recover. The second is that the Tory leader Michael Howard has shown that he is unfit to lead his country. Lord Hutton's conclusions should surprise no-one who actually read the evidence presented to his inquiry, as opposed to the grossly prejudiced and misleading press reports of that evidence. It was always obvious -- as I wrote in the Spectator last year -- that the evidence completely exonerated Tony Blair from the central charge of dishonesty. Lord Hutton has now cleared the government and the intelligence services of all the charges made against them, with the one exception that the Ministry of Defence was at fault over its procedures in not sufficiently warning Dr Kelly when his name was finally revealed. But Hutton has thrown the whole book at the BBC, for making one of the gravest allegations that can be made against a Prime Minister -- that he took his country to war on a lie -- on the basis of an utter falsehood. The BBC never checked whether the story was true and never retracted the lie but compounded the offence by insisting that it was true. The report leaves absolutely shredded the reputations of Andrew Gilligan, the BBC's senior mangement and its Board of Governors. This devastating indictment goes much farther than the BBC had feared. The implications are huge. For the BBC's domestic and international reputation rests above all on trust. What marks it out from all other broadcasting organisations is that people trust implicitly that its journalism is impartial, authoritative and true. The Hutton report vapourises that reputation. Why should anyone trust anything BBC journalists say ever again after this? So what now for the corporation? Those who have long been gunning for it and want to see it privatised, on the basis that it is the state subsidy which has created a mindest which has corrupted its journalism, have had their case immeasurably strengthened. Personally, I remain deeply torn. I have long thought and written that the BBC is astonishingly biased over a wide range of issues, assuming as it does that left-wing opinion constitutes the politically neutral centre ground. And I accept that a major factor in creating this mindset is its cocooned status. But its public service remit -- which it has betrayed for so long, not least by increasingly chasing ratings in competition with commercial broadcasters -- enables it to provide a service which others cannot deliver. Speech radio, for example, or dedicated foreign correspondents are extraordinarily expensive and without the licence fee would undoubtedly be drastically reduced. What's happened at the BBC is a bit like what's happened in our schools and universities -- a pervasive corruption of the culture and the erosion of its founding values. I don't want to destroy public service broadcasting any more than I want to destroy our schools and universities. But how can one change the culture and restore it to its founding values? How does one cleanse the Augean stables? The resignation of the Chairman of Governors and Director-General would be a necessary start, but nowhere near enough to deal with the mindset which has so poisoned its ethos. And the criticism made elsewhere that it is wrong for the governors simultaneously to be defenders of the BBC and its regulators -- although correct -- opens up the possibility of putting the BBC under the control of the meddlesome, bureaucratic monstrosity that is Ofcom, which would destroy it. If the BBC is in dire trouble, the Conservative party's recent smirk now deserves to be wiped off its face. Michael Howard's performance in the Commons was simply jaw-dropping. Having previously repeatedly accused the Prime Minister of lying about the naming of Dr Kelly -- a conclusion emphatically rejected by Hutton -- he not only failed to apologise but dug himself further into the hole by claiming that the naming strategy had not been covert but overt, on the basis that the government's statement revealing that an unnamed civil servant had come forward was bound to lead to his being named. Such sophistry didn't stop there; Howard also wrenched other remarks by Hutton out of context in order to arrive at a conclusion diametrically opposite to Hutton's own. And as if all that wasn't bad enough, he had the bare-faced cheek to try to move the goal-posts altogether by demanding an inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the decision to go to war on the basis of the missing WMD -- a quite staggering demand, considering the Tories had originally supported the war and the reasons for it to the hilt. Yet now the Tories are apparently leaping on the anti-war bandwagon. This disgraceful performance was quite sickening to watch. I am normally the first to criticise Tony Blair's government, not least for the way I think it has misled the public over a number of issues. But on this occasion, he had it absolutely right when he told the Tory leader in tones of withering contempt: 'Being nasty is not the same as being effective, and opportunism is not the same as leadership'. Right from the time Iain Duncan Smith first started on this line about Blair having lied over Dr Kelly, the Tories have been told over and over again that they were calling this one completely wrong. First, there was no evidence that Blair had lied. Second, by deciding that Blair was the villain of the piece, the Tories were effectively siding with the BBC, when it was obvious to anyone with half a brain that the BBC was entirely in the wrong, that its position was utterly indefensible -- and that in the long run, it is the BBC, not the Labour party, that is actually the Tory party's biggest enemy because of the role it plays week in, week out in subverting the values of this country and the nature of truth itself. But the Tories simply would not listen. They were warned again when Michael Howard came to power. They still would not listen, because they were transfixed by the mantra of 'Blair the liar' which they have elevated to their main plank of opposition. Now they have been well and truly caught out on the wrong side. The roar of derision from the Labour benches that greeted Howard's feeble and glancing nod towards Hutton's demolition of the BBC was well deserved. The BBC is toast. The Tories are beneath contempt. Posted by melanie at January 28, 2004
Comments
Will a Jenin enquiry be up next? No, I suppose not. Posted by: Charles at January 28, 2004 04:31 PM
Hutton did not say that in his report. In fact, he stated that the governors have a duty to protect the independence of the BBC. What he said was that in this case, they failed to recognise that that duty "was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the Government's complaints." These two statements are not the same. Melanie is quite right - the BBC has been criticised deeply in this case. However, I believe she's wrong to say that it's mortally wounded. These were the reports of one person within a huge news organisation. It was an isolated - though grave - error on the part of the governors. No-one would seriously expect that because one reporter made mistakes that clouds the entire organisation. Hutton, further, has not suggested that the BBC acted as they did because of any left-wing "bias". Indeed, he alluded to the fact that, if there was any reason, the failure to investigate properly is because of the trenchant tones in which Campbell complained. I would be interested to know why placing the regulation - as this is all it would be (not its control) - under Ofcom would destroy it. No-one has suggested that, for example, Sky News' independence has been destroyed by Ofcom. Finally, people who believe that the BBC is biased and partisan should examine the excellent job its news website - http://news.bbc.co.uk - is doing in reporting the Hutton inquiry. Once people don't confirm the importance of other news stories by checking whether it's being covered on the BBC, we can start worrying about it. Posted by: BeefQueen at January 28, 2004 04:33 PMThose who wish to examine the biases and prejudices of the BBC, especially as they relate to Israel, should carefully study the detailed charges laid out in full at BBCWatch.com Posted by: Charles at January 28, 2004 04:45 PM"...subverting the values of this country and the nature of truth itself." So true. It's time for Auntie to peddle her charms on the street and for the British public to get, effectively, a huge tax cut in the form of abolition of the license fee. Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at January 28, 2004 04:52 PMCharles: "Those who wish to examine the biases and prejudices of the BBC, especially as they relate to Israel, should carefully study the detailed charges laid out in full at BBCWatch.com." I come back to the point I made a moment ago. Hutton did not suggest that there was any bias affecting the decisions of the BBC in this case. In any event, I respect the judgement of a Law Lord who has composed a 340 page report more than I respect the opinions of a recent Cambridge graduate and a London solicitor. It would also be interesting for BBC Watch to publish the responses of the BBC, if it so confident of its argument. Posted by: BeefQueen at January 28, 2004 04:52 PMTheo: "a huge tax cut." £120 a year for eight TV channels, nine national radio channels, a slew of local radio channels and one of the largest and most popular websites in the world is, I would suggest, rather good value. Especially when compared to £40 a month for Sky. And - before you say anything - remember the Sky news correspondent who was sacked for making up a story. Posted by: BeefQueen at January 28, 2004 04:54 PMThere goes Gavyn Davies - off to enjoy the well-deserved fruits of a career spent in the salt-mines of Goldman Sachs. Buh-bye Gavin. Posted by: Charles at January 28, 2004 04:58 PM"In any event, I respect the judgement of a Law Lord who has composed a 340 page report more than I respect the opinions of a recent Cambridge graduate and a London solicitor." That you would cast such aspersions on the professionalism and character of one of London's leading lawyers, while at the same time dismissing out of hand the multitude of sins laid bare by him, says a lot more about you than it ever does about Trevor Asserson. From the Guardian's website: "Wittingly or not, I am convinced the BBC has become the principal agent for reinfecting British society with the virus of anti-Semitism," Douglas Davis, the London correspondent of the Jerusalem Post, writes in this week's Spectator. I would strongly advise all those who agree even remotely with the above to go to BBCWatch and study carefully its reports Posted by: Charles at January 28, 2004 05:09 PM15 January 2004 WHAT WENT WRONG AT THE BBC: Trevor Asserson Interviewed by Manfred Gerstenfeld
Trevor Asserson, a leading British litigation lawyer, has undertaken three well-documented studies detailing the BBC's systematic bias against Israel. The BBC is increasingly developing from an organization that reports news into an organization that manufactures it. Where Israel is concerned, the BBC is in breach of all or most of the guidelines set forth in its Agreement with the Government to which its material must conform. These guidelines include, inter alia, issues such as fairness, respect for truth, due accuracy, attachment to fundamental democratic principles, not broadcasting their own opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, ensuring that opposing views are not misrepresented, and ensuring that the audience would not be able to gauge reporters' personal views. BBC news reports about Israel are distorted by omission, by inclusion, by only giving partial facts, by who is interviewed, and by the background information or lack of it that is provided. Distorted media reporting creates an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism can thrive. It is no longer appropriate for the BBC to exist in its present form in a free market. The British government should not renew the BBC Charter when it comes due in 2005.
Widespread Antipathy Toward Israel "The BBC's coverage of the Middle East is infected by an apparent, widespread antipathy toward Israel," says Trevor Asserson, a leading British litigation lawyer. In the past two years, Asserson has undertaken three well-documented studies detailing the BBC's systematic bias against Israel, that may be found at www.bbcwatch.com. Asserson's methodology can also be used to analyze other media. For his most recent report that appeared in June 2003, "The BBC: The War on Iraq - an Analysis," Asserson and Lee Kern recorded BBC coverage during 3-18 April 2003, from when the war was a few days old until after the war had effectively ended. When comparing BBC news treatment of the coalition forces in Iraq with its coverage of Israeli army operations, the authors concluded that their findings "suggest that the partiality of the BBC's reporting quite possibly infects its coverage of all politically sensitive issues." This is not the first time that Asserson has taken on the BBC. As a young lawyer, he was involved in a suit against the BBC brought by the UK's Social Democratic Party (SDP). At the time, the party had the support of about 35 percent of the electorate, but the BBC rarely gave the SDP coverage to express its opinions. The case was ultimately settled confidentially out of court. "During the negotiations I saw how worried the BBC was by the evidence we brought. They were the accused, and I think they should be so again today." The BBC's Breach of Contract Asserson says: "It has been clear to me and many others for a long time that the BBC has been biased in its approach to Israel. News reports are distorted by omission, by inclusion, by only giving partial facts, by who is interviewed, and by the background information provided or lack of it. I thought that the only way to establish this factually was to do a proper forensic analysis, the way I would do it to prepare bringing either a defamation or a breach of contract case before a court." "I thought the BBC should be analyzed because its significant influence on public opinion is combined with a unique obligation to produce 'impartial' news. The BBC has a contract with the government to which it must keep. I wanted to see to what extent it was breaking its terms. I prepared my reports in the way in which a judge would expect the evidence to be put in a court of law." Under its legally binding Agreement with the Government, the BBC has established guidelines to which its material must conform. Asserson has identified fifteen independent obligations from this discursive document. They include, inter alia, issues such as fairness, respect for truth, due accuracy, attachment to fundamental democratic principles, not broadcasting their own opinions on current affairs or matters of public policy, ensuring that opposing views are not misrepresented, and ensuring that the audience would not be able to gauge reporters' personal views. In his reports, Asserson explains in great detail why all or most of these guidelines are frequently breached where Israel is concerned. Systematic Abuse of Language In order to proceed with his inquiry, Asserson hired an assistant at his own expense to physically record the broadcasted material. He also assembled a number of lawyers and historians to comprise a BBC Watch Committee with whom he consults in the preparation of his reports. "We had to work out an objective and reasonable method to analyze the material, which is the most difficult challenge. We decided which news reports to record, and thereafter transcribed them so that we had a full written text of what was broadcast." Asserson then defined the different types of distortions. These definitions appear in his first report, published in March 2002, entitled "The BBC and the Middle East: A Critical Study," which he wrote together with research assistant Elisheva Mironi. They recorded the bulk of BBC news output on TV, radio, and website for a seven-week period (12 November 2001 to 30 December 2001). For comparison, they simultaneously recorded reports from a variety of other sources. All programs were recorded consistently to avoid any allegation that material had been analyzed on a selective or partial basis. They concluded that the BBC was in frequent breach of the obligations of its charter and broadcasting license. For instance, it often showed partiality in its choice of language. "The BBC refused to label Hamas and Islamic Jihad groups as 'terrorists,' terming them 'militants,' 'hard liners,' or 'radicals' instead. When suicide bombers killed twenty-six Israeli civilians in attacks in Jerusalem and Haifa, the word 'terror' was used by the BBC only when describing Israel's retaliatory attacks on Palestinian targets. "This was a breach of the BBC's own guidelines, which should govern all the BBC's material, including material posted on the Internet. By refusing to attribute the word 'terror' and 'terrorism' appropriately, the BBC breaches its own guidelines on five points, i.e., 'fairness, attachment to fundamental democratic principles, the audience should not be able to gauge reporters' personal views, fair usage of language, as well as not using language inadvertently so as to suggest value judgments, commitment or lack of objectivity.'" Asserson also describes the BBC's abusive use of terms such as 'occupied Palestinian land,' or 'occupied Palestinian territories,' as if the West Bank and Gaza had ever belonged to an autonomous sovereign Palestinian entity. "The neutral and accurate term is 'disputed territories.' The BBC also frequently uses the adjective 'presidential' in connection with Chairman Arafat. This creates a misleading impression as his title is Ra'ees (chairman), which was carefully chosen in the Oslo agreements to avoid language implying statehood." Asserson writes in conclusion on this subject: "Language is the principal medium for broadcast communication. Choice of language is fundamental to achieving an aim of impartiality. Where certain words or phrases have a specific legal or quasi-legal meaning that appears to support one side of a politically controversial debate, a neutral term should be used where available. The BBC's failure to do so must impute its claim to impartiality." Sharon versus Arafat Asserson analyzes two extremely partial portraits of Sharon and Arafat which had appeared on the BBC website but were removed after his first report was published. He writes about the BBC's bias against Sharon: "Vitriolic comment is passed off as fact or as unattributed quotation. For instance, the BBC said: 'Ariel Sharon's mission - his enemies call it a dangerous obsession - is to fight for Israel's security, believing all the while that the end justifies the means.' The tone of the BBC's statements suggests that the security of Israel is an ignoble aim; in fact, it is a foundation stone of UN Resolution 242." Asserson comments: "This unattributed comment implies Sharon uses unbridled violence. In fact, he operates under the glare of considerable international press presence, is answerable to an electorate, shares his cabinet with his political opponents, and is subject to a rule of law that has stripped him of office in the past. It is implausible to suggest that he believes that any means are available to him. "On the other hand, Arafat is described with terms such as heroism, selfless devotion to public duty, hardworking, and having natural leadership talents, while Arafat's close involvement in organizing terrorist attacks is effectively overlooked." Asserson says that the BBC ignores findings of Human Rights Watch "that Arafat has ruled in a dictatorial manner, employing many separate police forces, and carrying out torture of detainees, arbitrary arrest, prolonged arbitrary detention...executions after grossly unfair trials, [and failing] to bring justice to those responsible for vigilant killings" (see www.hrw.org/reports/2001). The report states that when one reads the profiles of Sharon and Arafat together, they betray breaches of several of the aforementioned BBC guidelines as well as additional ones, such as the guidelines that the network should remain attached to fundamental democratic principles and that news programs should be dispassionate. He concludes that the BBC breaks its guidelines here, not only through its abusive use of language but also with its unbalanced reporting. Masking True Facts, Distorting Emphasis From the seven-week period analyzed, Asserson brings seven examples of how the BBC frequently distorts or masks the true facts. He showed, for instance, how when BBC correspondent Kylie Morris reports from Gaza on Israeli retaliatory reactions, he omits the Israeli army's claim that buildings destroyed had been used for attacking Israel. The BBC's behavior on this subject was very different from that of other media sources which Asserson's assistant recorded for comparison. Furthermore, Asserson shows how a factually accurate report can be partial and inaccurate by distorting its emphasis through the selection of material. For example, on 12 December 2001, Palestinians attacked a civilian bus in Emmanuel. Ten Israeli civilians were killed and dozens were badly injured. In retaliation, Israel attacked a Palestinian police station. There were no fatalities or serious casualties. BBC radio broadcasts reported briefly on the Palestinian attack, but went into very little detail about its sophistication and brutality. Despite the absence of serious casualties, the main focus of the BBC's report was Israel's retaliation, which was reported very dramatically, with graphic details describing Israel's bombings that included a live account from Gaza. Asserson concludes that in this case the BBC was in breach of six of its own guidelines, including the guideline that it should offer viewers and listeners an informed account of issues that enables them to develop their own views. The BBC's distortions of the truth concerning Israel take many other forms. When it quoted a study by Human Rights Watch which found that Palestinians severely tortured their prisoners, the BBC chose to conceal that aspect of the report - which was highly critical of the Palestinians - by seeking to deflect the criticism onto Israel and even to blame Israel for Palestinian shortcomings. In another distortion, the BBC website omitted to mention the existence of virulent racist material put out by institutional Arab government-controlled organs. The above is only a small selection, covering only a short period of recording, of the many examples Asserson found. Similar Findings a Few Months Later Asserson then randomly selected the nine weeks from the end of May to the end of July 2002, to see whether the BBC had changed its ways after his first report was published. This period began six weeks after the highly publicized battle in Jenin and three weeks after the end of the siege of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. In Asserson's December 2002 report, "The BBC and the Middle East: An Analysis," he found that while the BBC had addressed some of the complaints in his first report, it had not dealt with most of them. He concluded that the BBC's reporting on the Middle East remained partial, inaccurate, and in frequent breach of its guidelines. In this report, Asserson mentioned receiving many encouraging emails, letters, and phone calls from around the world in response to his first report. However, the BBC, to whom the report was sent, refused to admit a single breach of any of its guidelines, notwithstanding the detailed and careful way the numerous breaches had been particularized in Asserson's first report. In its response, the BBC did not deal with the details of any of the complaints raised, but instead confined itself to a blanket denial. The BBC tried to defend itself by saying that it received a number of similar complaints about its news "from the other side." Asserson remarks: "We do not consider it legitimate to accord equal weight to complaints, regardless of the merit of the arguments and the evidence brought to substantiate them." Using Irrelevant Pictures, Correspondents Giving Their Own Views Asserson's second study found that also in this period Arafat was described as "a hero, an icon, clever and respectable, and having charisma and style." He was once again inaccurately described as president. A brief reference was made to his nepotism and bribery, but none was made to his acts of intimidation, torture, unlawful killings, and manipulation of the court system and the press. Once again Asserson showed the BBC's abuse of language, reporting of only the Palestinian side of the debate, suppression of news stories, failure to explain Israel's mistrust of the Palestinians, and use of pictures not relevant to the spoken story. Furthermore, on several occasions, rather than delivering news, BBC correspondents presented their own views, which display partiality. In this period, the BBC also mentioned an obscure tale that international aid agencies had accused Israel of obstructing their operations to the point that they could no longer fulfill their mandates. Asserson tried to verify the story. Two major NGOs that were mentioned by the BBC in the story - Oxfam and Doctors without Borders - did not have it on their websites, nor did they reply substantively to inquiries by Asserson. "The BBC also failed to respond to a letter seeking further information. We were unable to verify even the existence of the American Near East Relief Agency that was mentioned in one of the BBC pieces. Other comparative news sources did not mention the story at all." Asserson indicated that the story might well have been fabricated and certainly was given undue prominence. What the BBC Ignores "I do not think there has ever been a democratic country that can begin to compare with the decisions that the Israeli Supreme Court has made, under the pressures in which it finds itself. This is a completely positive area about Israel that is totally ignored by the BBC and many others. "On the Palestinian side, matters that have been ignored include major issues such as Palestinian education, which is training people to hate. Another area is several Palestinian movements' aims to eradicate Israel. They are not concerned with territories. What Islamic Jihad and Hamas say is that it is their aim to destroy the whole of the State of Israel. In fact, it is to kill Jews wherever they are." In his second report, Asserson gives much attention to the BBC's multiple omissions of relevant background material. He brings proof that the BBC fails to give adequate prominence to many important topics which would give a negative image of the Palestinians, and adds: "Israeli leaders are often criticized for failing to speak to Arafat. When it is understood that those leaders have credible evidence to believe that Arafat is a corrupt despot who supports groups that wish to destroy Israel, that train children to hate Israel, and that actually attack Israel, the reluctance to talk to Arafat becomes at least comprehensible." Sympathy for the Coalition in Iraq, None for Israel In Iraq: "Coalition troops are described in warm and glowing terms, with sympathy being evoked for them both as individuals and for their military predicament. In contrast, Israeli troops are painted as faceless, ruthless, and brutal killers, with little or no understanding shown for their actions." "The BBC goes to considerable lengths to explain, excuse, and mitigate any civilian deaths at the hands of coalition troops. Israeli troops receive totally different treatment; little sympathy is shown for their situation, and mitigating arguments are brushed aside or scorned, if voiced at all. At times, the reporting of events in Israel amounts to distortion, and at other times to what appears to be discrimination against Israel." Asserson and Kern devote an entire section to what they call "mitigation." "When coalition culpability is conceded, efforts are made to excuse, explain, and even justify the loss of civilian life." On the other hand, "when an Israeli weapon causes civilian death, the BBC is quick to criticize and slow to explain, excuse, or indeed show any significant level of understanding of the military difficulties faced by Israel." The report gives tens of examples of such mitigation as far as coalition forces are concerned, while the "BBC's reporting of Israeli troops, far from seeking to displace blame, goes out of its way to ensure that blame is ascribed." Suicide Bombings, Checkpoints, and Targeted Strikes Concerning the coalition troops in Iraq, "the BBC explains the advisability of using checkpoints....They are presented as a logical and reasonable response to the threat of suicide-bombers and unconventional attacks." On the other hand, "the BBC seeks to garner antipathy for Israeli checkpoints by stressing the inconvenience caused to civilians." The authors conclude: "A tremendous amount of energy goes into humanizing coalition checkpoints, in contrast to Israeli checkpoints which are demonized." Once again, many examples are provided. Asserson and Kern show how widespread is the BBC bias by bringing a substantial number of widely diverse examples. "The British and Americans used targeted strikes against supposed Iraqi leadership targets. These strikes are explained, justified, and mitigated by the BBC. When Israel uses them, it is often criticized...and vilified for any collateral damage that arises." Dehumanizing Iraqis "Saddam's Republican Guard unit is consistently described by the BBC as 'fanatic,' 'fanatically loyal,' or 'diehard fanatics'....Yet the BBC studiously avoids describing the acts of Hamas as 'terrorist,' let alone 'fundamentalist' or 'fanatic.'" A News Manufacturer Says Asserson: "I did not publicize my second report very widely, yet the BBC took it more seriously than the first one, having seen the popularity of the criticism which I had originally leveled in the first report. Now they are paying attention, but only in a negative way. "Richard Sambrook, head of BBC News, admitted that the BBC sometimes makes mistakes. However, he did not agree that any of the issues we had identified were in fact mistakes. He attached to his letter a twenty-one page detailed refutation of every allegation. Despite the BBC's major attempt to deal with our complaints, it refused to meet with us to discuss its response. They are apparently not only biased, but also unable to admit it. "I also sent them my third report, but at the moment they are rather busy with other things, such as the official inquiry about the reliability of their reporting on what the British government knew before going to war against Iraq. Apart from a veiled threat to sue me for defamation, they have not responded to my third report." In light of his own findings and what transpired so far in that inquiry, Asserson says: "My theory is that the BBC is increasingly developing from an organization that reports news into an organization that manufactures it. One sees how it created news in its story that the government had lied in order to persuade the British people to enter the war in Iraq. They had only the very beginnings of a story that they knew would be very exciting. Thus, they wanted to write it. It was part of the BBC's agenda because they were against the war. The moment they found a little bit of evidence to support this view, they created a whole story out of that scrap of evidence. That is something very different from reporting." Bush's Speech Does Not Fit the BBC's Agenda Asserson mentions another example of the BBC creating news instead of reporting it: "On 24 June 2002, President Bush gave a major speech in which he did not mention Arafat. It was a watershed in American policy. He indicated that American policy was going to align with Israel in viewing Arafat as someone they no longer believed could contribute to the peace process. "Other media covered it that way. The BBC did not because it did not fit their agenda. They tried to cover it as a speech which criticized Israelis and Palestinians equally. In this way, they developed a story that was the opposite of the truth. In reality, Bush did not make a balanced attack but a one-sided one. The speech contained twenty-eight paragraphs, of which nineteen were devoted to calls for reform of the Palestinian leadership and institutions. It issued a sustained attack on them, saying inter alia: 'Palestinian leaders are compromised by terror...[have] no authority...power is concentrated in the hands of an unaccountable few...Palestinian people live in economic stagnation made worse by official corruption...the Palestinian people lack effective courts of law and have no means to defend and vindicate their rights...Palestinian authorities are encouraging, not opposing terrorism...the Palestinian Authority has trafficked with terrorists.' "The speech contained only two or three paragraphs which criticized Israeli policy. It appeared on the White House web site under the title 'President Bush calls for New Palestinian Leadership.' Nothing the BBC reported was wrong, but through their manipulations they created news about what they wanted to have happened instead of what actually happened." Such news manufacturing goes even deeper. Asserson recently recorded instances of the BBC reporting occasions that President Bush, the UN, Tony Blair, and Sharon have each criticized Palestinian "terrorists." Yet on each occasion the BBC misreports them as having criticized Palestinian "militants." Asserson says: "This shows both an astonishing disregard for the truth and contempt for their audience." Appointing an Ombudsman "Most people seem to disagree with Israel's decision - now reversed - to cease cooperation with the BBC. Clearly the decision started to backfire because the non-cooperation went on for such a long period. However, I suspect that the decision did raise the attention level of some senior BBC staff regarding the magnitude of the problems with their Middle East coverage. It must have dented the BBC's self-image. "It also appears to have played a part in the decision to appoint former BBC News journalist Malcolm Balen as a kind of internal BBC ombudsman on the Middle East. Of course the Hutton enquiry on the events leading to the death of Iraqi weapons expert David Kelly, that includes the role of the BBC, has also had a major impact. Furthermore, during the Iraq war, British sailors aboard the flagship aircraft carrier Ark Royal refused to listen to the BBC because they felt it was so biased. I think that all of these complaints have troubled the BBC. "The appointment of Balen is a huge step forward that indicates - though the BBC will not admit it publicly - that the BBC is responsive to external pressure. The appointment is unprecedented within the BBC and represents tacit acceptance that the BBC is failing in its coverage of the Middle East. "Balen appears to be well-intentioned. However, there are real flaws in the nature of his appointment. Balen has no specific budget, no clear job description, no automatic access to the governors - who are meant to be the BBC regulators, and no obligation to produce reports, either internally or externally. One is left wondering whether this appointment is really nothing more than a public relations exercise. However, the idea is an excellent one. "With a review of its license due, and the Hutton report about to be issued, there is a rare opportunity to place the BBC under real pressure. During the Hutton enquiry, Gavyn Davies, Chairman of the Governors, and the Regulator of the BBC, denied Tony Blair's allegation of inaccurate reporting before even examining the facts behind the allegation. On being questioned, he defended his position, saying: 'Whatever emerges about the precise details [i.e., the facts], we must not give ground which...suggests that the Governors have buckled to government pressure.' "Effectively, what the Chairman of the Governors is saying is: "I will support the BBC, right or wrong." Such an attitude is wholly inappropriate for a regulator whose very job is to ensure that the BBC does admit errors when they are made. If even the prime minister of Great Britain gets this kind of rebuff, what chance do a few wailing Jews possibly have. It is hard to think of a better argument in favor of an independent and accountable regulator for the BBC." Anti-Israel Feeling is Rife Asserson adds: "In private conversations with senior BBC journalists, we have been told that anti-Israel feeling is rife within the BBC. Israel is considered a hated state. Anybody who has a different view has great difficulty being heard or getting his story out. I would not be surprised if that stretches to the point where some people there think that Israel should not exist, because that is now the position taken by some detractors of Israel. It would, however, be naïve to think that there is a stated, written BBC policy to be anti-Israel. There is no such thing as an unspoken Protocols of the Elders of Palestine in the BBC, whereby senior members of the Board of Governors say: 'Let's be anti-Israel, but don't write that down.' "In the BBC's anti-Israeli atmosphere, the system works informally. It is full of reporters holding left-wing, so-called 'liberal' viewpoints, including very negative ones about Israel. They then recruit people under them who have a similar outlook. In this way, the liberal left-wing system propagates itself. "Our own analysis of its output is consistent with this. There are other proofs as well. The name of a BBC journalist, Ian Haddow, signed in his private capacity, was found on an email petition against Israel. He had added the words, 'save us from Israel,' after his name." The Road to Legitimize Hatred of Jews On the basis of his findings, Asserson claims that the BBC has been demonizing Israel, trying to turn it into a pariah state. That is barely half a step from making it legitimate to hate those who support Israel. It is axiomatic that pretty much all Jews are widely assumed to support Israel. "We have seen this in what has become known as the Wilkie Affair. This Oxford pathology professor said that he did not want to have a Jew in his laboratory who had served in the Israeli army. Richard Ingrams, a columnist of the Observer, took a similar step by saying that he was going to discard any letters from people with Jewish names. "The distorted media reporting also creates an atmosphere in which anti-Semitism can thrive. Tam Dalyell, the British Labour MP who said that the Jews control the media, in the 1950s would not have lasted for two days as a socialist member of Parliament. He made some kind of an apology, but there are enough people in the UK who think that this is a perfectly reasonable view to enable him to remain politically unscathed. Today, being an anti-Semite is no longer a reason to be forced to leave your job. There is a direct link between media demonization of Israel and distortion of the truth, and the tolerance for this outlook." Not Renewing the BBC's Charter Asserson thinks that it is no longer appropriate for the BBC to exist in its present form in a free market. "It was started in a period when broadcasting was novel. The mechanism for setting it up and paying for it was very unsophisticated. Many new industries providing basic services to the entire population were organized and funded by the government. "Water, electricity, gas, and public transport are examples. Most of these utilities have been privatized, even though it is comparatively difficult to create real competition for some utilities such as water or gas, since the incumbent will continue to control the huge physical infrastructure along which the product must be delivered. Building competing infrastructures would be prohibitively costly and pointless. "Broadcasting, in contrast, is a perfect candidate for privatization. Competing delivery systems are already in place - terrestrial, satellite, cable, and telephone lines. A host of competing and financially secure content providers are in place, and more are sprouting up all the time. Real competition already exists. Far from needing an incumbent dominant provider like the BBC, the BBC's continued existence is a historical anomaly which distorts and damages an otherwise healthy marketplace." Asserson thus thinks the British government should not renew the BBC Charter, which comes due in 2005. "In the meantime, a number of steps should be taken. One is that a public debate should be started that includes all groups which are upset with the BBC. For instance, people who are anti-Europe say that their story is not told by the BBC because the BBC is so one-sidedly pro-European. "Another is the establishment of a system of control to make sure that its reports on the Middle East - which have a natural tendency to bias - are scrutinized by somebody who would correct it. This system should be imposed within the BBC, and there are precedents for such an approach. "They do not have an independent regulator. If there are complaints, it is the BBC who decides whether they themselves are in breach or not. Only the BBC is invited to give evidence at the hearing, not the complainant who is not even invited to hear the defense before the BBC makes a decision. They are a 'liberal' organization claiming to stand up for human rights, yet they themselves have an appalling procedure for handling complaints, which does not comply with any of the standards of the international justice they defend." A Danger to British Democracy "The British public pays a license fee to the BBC to receive impartial news coverage. The BBC is paid for by the government and all people in England who own a television set, whether they choose to watch the BBC or not. There are further hidden subsidies. The BBC spends considerable airtime advertising its own services. Were a competitor such as Sky to use the same time advertising its output, it would have to forgo £1-2 billion in advertising revenue. The BBC gets this advertising time for free, which gives it a huge advantage in the marketplace, and enables it to make its voice overwhelmingly loud as compared with others. "Now the BBC is even endangering the freedom of British democracy. This unelected, monopolistic, and uncontrolled body, which is at the heart of British society, seemed to be more powerful than the elected government when it appeared to try to topple the latter by apparently inventing news about the decision to enter the Iraq war. Whereas the government is accountable to an electorate, the BBC is accountable to no one. Lord Hutton has not yet delivered his decision following his enquiry. However, the evidence appears to suggest that the BBC invented a story that Blair deliberately misled the House of Commons. It was only because a scientist committed suicide that there was an enquiry which might reveal the truth. "What is insidious is that the BBC enjoys the hallmark of fair play and reasonableness because it was 'approved' by the British government. This cloak of fairness allows it to take a range of partial political stands in its broadcasting in an almost surreptitious way. "Yet, notwithstanding any revelations which might emerge from Hutton's enquiry, the BBC is not really accountable to anybody. Were its charter taken away, it would become just another independent newscasting operation which happens to be filled with Israel-haters and other biased people, jostling for market position with all the other peddlers of particular prejudices. But with its charter in place it remains financially inviolable. "Judicial review is far too blunt a legal weapon for the courts to provide an effective restraint. The BBC is not subject to the forces of the marketplace. Its governors - who are meant to regulate it - seem ready to leap to its defense before even looking at the evidence behind the complaint, even when that complaint is made by the Office of the Prime Minister. Predictably, the complaints of lesser mortals enjoy very scant attention. The one force in the land that could unseat the BBC is the government. But after the Hutton events, it would be a brave government indeed which is prepared to take on the BBC and risk its wrath." Asserson summarizes: "The original contract with the British public was that we would pay for the BBC and it would provide impartial news. The BBC has broken the contract and no longer deserves our unthinking financial support. The main hope for change must therefore come from the British people themselves, who have been misled. This is not impossible. The gloss is coming off the BBC's halo. For example, the Financial Times, quoting my reports, recently wrote that the BBC has been found to be a biased organization. Increasingly, there are groups and public meetings set up to discuss the BBC's various shortcomings." Taking the BBC to Court When asked about the operational conclusions of his work for the Jewish community, Asserson answers: "My reports show that the BBC continuously distorts the Israeli narrative and promotes the Palestinian one, which the reporter wants to get across. There appears to be a subtext in almost every story. The journalist asks himself, as it were, 'How can this story be used to reinforce my world view?' That is what infects BBC reporting on the Middle East, and doubtless on a number of other issues. "It is not fanciful to contemplate that, by portraying Israel in an unfairly negative light, the BBC unwittingly legitimizes - and therefore encourages - aggression not only against Israelis, but also against UK Jewish citizens. That does not necessarily express itself only in violence; academic discrimination is another example. "It is highly likely that the BBC's campaign against Israel has an effect on Jews in the UK. Jews and Israelis are closely associated in the minds of many Western people. There was a 400 percent increase in anti-Semitic incidents in the UK in October 2000, following the start of the Palestinian uprising and its concomitant extremely hostile coverage by the BBC. "One cannot say that this is just a coincidence. Within Western literature, the most famous book is the Bible, which connects Jews closely with Israel in the Western mind. It is also not wrong for people in the West to assume that a Jew will support Israel, which they do with a small percentage of exceptions. For decades, Arab hate literature has not drawn any significant distinction between Israelis and Jews. Criticism of Israel is legitimate. But those who think that such criticism does not affect the standing of Jews outside Israel are fooling themselves." Asserson would like to see legal action brought against the BBC for breaches of its charter, but recognizes that this would require a significant effort by the Anglo Jewish community. While a good case might exist, bringing proceedings represents a significant undertaking for a single individual." "I doubt whether the BBC would want to fight such a case in court if it were brought. It is an extremely hot potato. Apart from local UK politics, the Middle East is the most important news story. It is the only international item of continuous interest. If Iraq occasionally takes priority, Israel is even at the center of that story. If a court found that the BBC is totally biased on this issue, this would cause serious damage to its credibility as a news organization." Conclusion "My studies, along with others, show conclusively that the BBC is not capable of living up to its charter. Accordingly, I think the BBC has lost its legitimacy as a broadcasting body that deserves support through taxation. Other media organizations are beginning to spread the same message. It remains for the British people to take the message on board and to elect a government with a mandate to curb this dangerous behemoth which lies like a cancer at the heart of a free society." * * *
I have to say Michael Howard's rant about WMD was very foolish. Has he not read David Kay's report? I have a lot of respect for him but he made several foolish comments today and I am ashamed of it. Posted by: Poosh at January 28, 2004 05:34 PMIf as you say, beefqueen, the BBC represents, "rather good value", then it will have no difficulty whatsoever competing in the open marketplace and the license fee can go back into the pocket of British taxpayers. But perhaps you don't mean "good value" for them but for a sub-set. Or maybe the general public just don't know what's good for them. And to which aspect of "value" do you refer; price, utility, or opinion? Perhaps there are more? Posted by: Theodopoulos Pherecydes at January 28, 2004 05:45 PMBeefQueen, how do you think al-BBC came to be known as ... well, al-BBC? Do ponder the fact that the crew of HMS Ark Royal, during the Iraq War, jammed all BBC signals and prevented them from reaching the craft because of the bias in its reporting Posted by: Pete Moore at January 28, 2004 06:42 PMPeter, get your terminology straight. It's al-Guardian. For the BBC it's Baghdad Broadcasting Corp. or Pravda-on-the-Thames. Last but not least is Das Independent. Posted by: Susan at January 28, 2004 07:03 PMTime for another Tory leadership election already? Posted by: GrimReaper at January 28, 2004 07:31 PMThank you Charles for explaining to us what this story is really all about. Not Hutton. Not Kelly. Not Blair. Not Gilligan. It's Israel. Suddenly everything makes sense. Posted by: KJN at January 28, 2004 10:17 PMCharles: "That you would cast such aspersions on the professionalism and character of one of London's leading lawyers, while at the same time dismissing out of hand the multitude of sins laid bare by him, says a lot more about you than it ever does about Trevor Asserson." I cast no such aspersions. If he one of London's leading lawyers I'm sure he will be a Law Lord very soon. Then, when he produces his judicial inquiry stating that the BBC is fundamentally biased against the government and, as alleged, Israel, I will treat it with the same respect I have for the Hutton report. Which, I repeat, did not find any bias against the BBC. Theo: "And to which aspect of "value" do you refer; price, utility, or opinion? Perhaps there are more?" I'm afraid - and it must be me being very stupid - that I can't understand a word of that question. If it assists, Theo, here is the definition of value: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=value Melanie also asked me to clarify that her post was indeed written after the Hutton Inquiry was published. Posted by: at January 28, 2004 10:18 PMMelanie's right. Maybe I'm being cheeky when I wonder whether she's torn partly by the fact that she's been given special right-wing protected species status by the Beeb. The power of their patronage is central to their buoyancy among the 'great and good'. It was also interesting that the Tories were not calling for privatisation, but the abolition of the governors- and that only briefly. Maybe they value the foreign policy clout of having the world's biggest and best known media organisation somewhat close to the Government of the day. It's all very well to rail against the BBC, Melanie, and it works for me, but what do you actually propose to do about it, and if you can see the virtues of private enterprise most of the time, and you value freedom, why can't you see the reform of the BBC as opportunity rather than threat or sacrilege? Posted by: Eddie at January 28, 2004 10:30 PMTheo, The only vaugely objective source of information this country has is the BBC, precisely because it (a) does not pander to the lowest common denominator in terms of anti-asylum or hang-em-and-flog-em rants or celebrity obsessed garbage and (b) has (at least) some sort of independence from entrencehed economic and political interests (contra Murdoch or Black). Marketisation would undermine both these qualities and I certainly don't want to see the BBC transformed into another propagandist venture such as "Fox News". Charles, I'm not sure what Israel has to do with anything on this post - it seems to be both a left and right wing obsession to bring it up at every availible opportunity. However, I suggest you read some highlights from this survey conducted by the the Glasgow Media Group. If there is some BBC anti-Israel agenda it is obviously not working. Survey refers to all UK terrestial TV news - but BBC coverage makes up the largest share. Of those surveyed, 82% of people listed TV news as their source of information. 80% of viewers did not know where the Palestinian refugees had come from and how they had become refugees. Of 3,536 lines of news bulletin text, only 17 explained the history of the conflict. The key issue of water is barely mentioned. 71% of viewers did not know that it was the Israelis who were occupying the territories. 9% of viewers knew that it was the Israelis who were occupying and that the settlers were Israeli. 11% of viewers believed that the Palestinians were occupying the territories and that the settlers were Palestinian. Palestinian bombings were frequently presented as "starting" a sequence of events which involved an Israeli "response". Words such as "murder", "atrocity", "lynching" and "savage cold-blooded killing" were used only to describe Israeli deaths. Only 30% of viewers believed that more Palestinians had died than Israelis. Posted by: guy chambers at January 28, 2004 11:22 PM "The BBC is toast." This is no cause for celebration. Thames Television lost its franchise because of a single investigative programme, "Death on the Rock". If we lose the BBC, again because of a single error compounded by stubbornness, who will be left to question anything the government does? The Daily Mail? The Sun? Posted by: KJN at January 28, 2004 11:39 PM"Michael Howard has shown that he is unfit to lead his country." The cry of Labour MPs in the bars of the Palace of Westminster, upon hearing that the Tories had chosen Michael Howard as their leader was "Five more years, five more years, five more years!" Welcome aboard, Melanie. What took you so long? Posted by: KJN at January 29, 2004 12:04 AMMelanie I refer anyone who missed, or those that may have forgotten, your post of the 12th January entitled "Those principled Tories" and my own little suggestion appended to that thread; then put it in the context of today's Hutton Report. What a pity Michael Howard (or his advisors) did not take take note, particularly in light of his disgraceful performance in the Westminster Gas Works today after Blair's statement. Oh Dearie me. When will they ever learn? KJN "Welcome aboard, Melanie, what took you so long?" And I thought you were a regular on this blog. Keep up Keith! Methinks Melanie was here first, both in print and with ideas. I could refer you back to other posts expressing similar sentiments, but delve back yourself, the exercise will do you good. BeefQueen You sound a little nervous Beef; don't worry, I'm sure your buddies from the militant gay cabal will remain firmly ensconced in the Doughnut and Portman Place; it would take more than the Hutton Earthquake to shift their asses, I'm afraid. Frank Pulley, Tony Blair has not been cleared of the central charge;it is an established fact that he misled the British people.That this fact was adjudged by Lord Hutton to be outside of his remit is beside the point. Anonomous poster, I think you're right in that the Hutton report is meaningless in the grand scale of things. We were lead into to war on false pretences. Saddam posed no immidiate threat to UK citizens. This is not to say that there were logical arguments to have supported the war - either from those who genuniely belived that it would bring peace, democracy and human rights to Iraq or from the neo-cons who saw the war as an excuse to try to break up OPEC or to destroy any opposition to US hegeomony. This is not relevant, however. We trust governments to make a coherant, strong case for such a serious decision. A case which no sane individual in the UK now believes. Hutton was a PR enterprise by New Labour. Let's have a real enquiry into the reasons given by Blair and his evangelical clique as to why we went to war. Thanks to the Net I followed the evidence given to the Hutton Enquiry. The conclusions presented yesterday do not flow from the evidence, but from a predisposition to protect the government in national security matters. The BBC was in the wrong, but the manner in which Lord Gilbert yesterday on Radio 4 alluded to a relationship between Richard Sambrook and Susan Watts skirting with libel, suggests the regime pusued a typical smear agenda. Lord Hutton goes into retirement thoroughly discredited with the public having pursued one last service to THe State: no doubt he realised that he would no longer be viewed as an impartial judge and so resigned. Posted by: Romulus at January 29, 2004 06:24 AM"The BBC is toast. The Tories are beneath contempt." So Melanie it is back to voting New Labour and appearing on SkyTV for you then ! Posted by: Jason at January 29, 2004 06:27 AMJason After the political pantomime of the last few months I'd be surprised if Melanie voted at all. And last time she slated the Beeb a small burst of offers followed - from the Beeb! Perhaps they have changed their wicked ways, already? I might have believed that if I hadn't watched Newsnight last night. Paxo was back at the crease, trying to recoup some ground after the worst day in the history of the Corporation. Or probably the best day, if you believe in an objective BBC. At least Tojo Davies has thrown himself on his sword. Will the Dyke burst next? Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 29, 2004 06:57 AMFrank Pulley: "BeefQueen You sound a little nervous Beef; don't worry, I'm sure your buddies from the militant gay cabal will remain firmly ensconced in the Doughnut and Portman Place; it would take more than the Hutton Earthquake to shift their asses, I'm afraid." Frank, I wasn't aware I sounded nervous at all. More confused by what point exactly Theo was trying to make. And thanks for the kind words - if only I were a member of the militant gay cabal! Posted by: BeefQueen at January 29, 2004 09:35 AMActually Frank it makes me wonder if Mrs Gavin Davis should not resign as PA to Gordon Brown MP; and whether ACL Blair's man Greg Dyke should not walk the plank. After all then the world can behold the spectacle of a British Government appointing another chairman and CE at the State Broadcasting Corporation.......maybe Silvio Berlusconi can advise ? Or Rupert Bare ? Posted by: Jason at January 29, 2004 09:53 AMJason I hope you mean Rupert Bear and that you are not resurrecting the bare Rupert of infamous Oz underground paper that triggered off the late 60s avalanche of filth and licenciousness that has since engulfed us. Or did you mean Rupert Murdoch in the nuddy (Lord help - us and his latest concubine). Or was it just a slip of the keyboard with no hidden meaning whatsoever? Forgive my paranoia, if it was the latter, it seems to be contagious. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 29, 2004 10:25 AMBeef Glad you didn't react to my banter like Guy Chambers, isn't he touchy? Nice to confirm that you have a sense of humour, I thought so from previous posts. All my gay informants of yesteryear were imbued with self-deprecating wit; after all, we were each part of much maligned minorities. 'Grin and Bear It' (or even bare it Jason) was our common motto. And you can't get more common that that! Anyway it was what most of them did when they were cruisin' and cottagin'. But to return to the theme of this thread Lord Hutton has made it a very gay day for me in the real sense of that little word and a pretty damn ungay one in Portland Place and it's outposts at Shepherds Bush. And always remember, a Bill from the Hill was worth two from the Bush. (For the uninitiated there was just a tad of rivalry between the Constabulary at Shepherds Bush and Notting Hill - as B&Q is aware, I'm sure). Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 29, 2004 10:51 AMLet's get back to what this was supposed to be all about. The death of Dr. Kelly: According to Hutton Dr. Kelly was not badly treated by the Government or the civil service machine. He was authorised to speak to journalists to facilitate a greater understanding of the governments position. He was misquoted by a journalist(it's happened before!) so he committed suicide). This is utterly ridiculous. I believe that Lord Hutton has given considerable credence to the conspiracy theories. See Melanies previous posting on the opinions of the patholigists who wrote to the Guardian. Posted by: Kevin at January 29, 2004 10:55 AMFrank: "Glad you didn't react to my banter like Guy Chambers, isn't he touchy? Nice to confirm that you have a sense of humour, I thought so from previous posts. All my gay informants of yesteryear were imbued with self-deprecating wit; after all, we were each part of much maligned minorities. " To be quite honest, there's no other way that your comments can be taken. They're so ridiculous that they do indeed border on comedy. Just one point: don't ever compare myself and yourself: that I would take as a grievous insult, and my sense of humour would rapidly wane! Posted by: BeefQueen at January 29, 2004 11:01 AMI agree with Romulus. The BBC was in the wrong, but Hutton was a stitch-up. I followed the enquiry too, and it was an eye-opener to see Geoff Hoon tell lies, and later be contradicted by his own Permanent Secretary; and to learn about the "guessing game" cynically played with the press, and authorised at the highest level, in order to release Dr Kelly's name; and, above all, to learn about how No 10's press office operates: as a bunch of bullies and thugs, whose thought processes, helpfully recorded in Alastair Campbell's diary, belong to the gutter. Unfortunately, however, the BBC has lost the plot. Hutton is now the point of reference. If the pitiful spectacle of Wednesday's Newsnight is anything to go by, the Corporation will pay lip-service to Hutton, but go on defending itself. This is suicidal. The only way for the Corporation to survive is for the entire Board of Governors, the Director General, and everyone else who had responsibility for its stubborn refusal to deal with criticism, to resign now. I want our broadcasting to be better than that in, say, Italy, or Egypt. All British Governments hate the BBC because it is independent, and wealthy enough to fund investigative journalism. That is what is at stake. Posted by: KJN at January 29, 2004 11:14 AMKevin It isn't beyond the bounds of possibility, but you would need Fred Forsythe to write the script for it. If Dr Kelly kept a rendezvous in the woods, it could have been with any one of a number of agencies with whom he had contact. Any one of them could have rigged it to look like suicide and there are sophisticated drugs that can induce a heart attack. But seriously, it would have to be a very convoluted post mortem conspiracy to cover it up. And who would have benefitted from his death, other than his dependants, but I'm sure you wouldn't direct suspicion their way. Motive? Iraqi secret police revenge, perhaps? I dunno. Seems pretty unlikely to me, notwithstanding the perfectly justified comments of the three doctors who raided the issue. Lord Hutton seemed satisfied with the autopsy and his findings pretty much accorded with what I inferred from the entirety of the evidence, and I read it all. Regardless of whether the parameters of the enquiry were sufficiently wide (and how wide would they have had to have been to satisfy the peaceniks who would probably have liked to include WWs 1 & 2?) Huttons deliberations were impeccable and predictable for anyone who knows anything about judicial imperatives. I would like to see another government and another Prime Minister; I think Campbell is an obnoxious prat; but fairness prompts me to agree with Hutton's findings down to the last dot and notation. Now watch the media try to rubbish Hutton the way they have tried to shred Blair and Hoon. They will win in the end, this is just a set-back for them. What is your particular conspiracy theory Kevin, or is it just a nasty taste in the mouth? Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 29, 2004 11:30 AMFrank I do not have a ready made conspiracy theory which would explain the death of Dr. Kelly. However If I were sitting on a coroners jury. I would not be happy beyond reasonable doubt that he took his own life. All that I have read about Dr. Kelly suggests that he was too grounded to consider suicide. With regards to his mauling at the hands of the the Parliamentary select committee although unpleasant, it would in no way have been a life altering event. Speaking as an ex civil servant myself I can confidently say that overhelmingly the civil service treats posturing politicans as complete prats and treats their utterances with utter contempt. Dr. Kelly would have worked in a culture which accepted the occasional intrusion of these parliamentary placemen into their lives with complete indifference.
Furthermore their have been so many questions raised concerning the pathologists reports (blood loss etc) that I am just not convinced that it was suicide. I believe Huttons report serves to highlight the inadequacy of those who argue that it was suicide. Will the coroners report ever now be published? Lord Hutton drew on selected information from this report which has not been published in full. Posted by: Kevin at January 29, 2004 12:01 PM"But seriously, it would have to be a very convoluted post mortem conspiracy to cover it up"
As for "Rupert Bare" - I meant the Americano-Australian rich kid who inherited his father's papers and had a bust of Lenin at Oxford, before he had a bust of Samantha Fox in his paper....hence the "Bare" Posted by: Jason at January 29, 2004 12:47 PMLord Hutton has today ordered an inquiry into how his long-awaited report into the death of Dr David Kelly was leaked to The Sun. Don't tell me...it was the BBC.... Although the BBC is biased in some respects, this was not meant to be an inquiry into the BBC's bias. Hutton's conclusions leave many questions, including: Intelligence concerns -- Lord Hutton did not address evidence that the Ministry of Defence failed to relay to the joint intelligence committee concerns expressed by senior members of the defence intelligence staff about the content of the dossier. That failure was criticised by parliament's intelligence and security committee but Lord Hutton said: "I consider that it is unnecessary for me to express an opinion on it." The 45 minute claim -- Lord Hutton did not comment on the government's apparent failure to distinguish between long range and battlefield weapons when it said Saddam Hussein could launch chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes. That claim referred to battlefield weapons only. Lord Hutton said only: "A consideration of this distinction does not fall within my terms of reference." Lord Hutton failed to resolve contradictions between evidence set out by Mr Campbell and Geoff Hoon. Mr Campbell claimed in his diary that Mr Hoon, the defence secretary, had said Mr Kelly could be offered a "plea bargain" - a suggestion the weapons expert might be offered some form of deal if he co-operated with the government. Mr Hoon denied any deal had been contemplated. Lord Hutton said it was "not necessary for me to resolve some differences and areas of uncertainty arising in the evidence of Mr Campbell and Mr Hoon." The naming of Kelly -- Lord Hutton said there was no covert strategy to make public Mr Kelly's name. But in a late submission to the inquiry lawyers acting for the Kelly family said "the government made a conscious decision to cause Dr Kelly's identity to be revealed . . in order to assist it in its battle with the BBC". Other questions: Why did he not cover these points? These questions will not disappear because of the appearance of the Hutton Report but pressure will increase over time for more answers. If Blair has nine lives, he is fast running out of them... The BBC is respected and admired the world over, and for good reason. Dyke's resignation is a sad loss. Blair and Hutton? F*** them both. Posted by: Josh at January 29, 2004 02:48 PMFrank, Frank, Frank...you really are a pain; it's repeatedly you who brings up the issue of homosexuality on every thread on this site, even where it bears absolutely no relevance to the topic under discussion. You're obsessed, man! I would imagine that most of the posters here, not just the gay ones, are heartily sick of you and your ropey old jokes. Posted by: joe at January 29, 2004 03:29 PMJoe, You're right. Poor Frank. I actually feel a little sorry for him...his 'gay' comments are the written equivalent of one of those bores one occasionally meets at parties who tell one funny joke all evening and keep going on and on and on repeating it or refering to it (and laughing loudly at it) until even those with the patience of a saint start to think 'what a wuss'. As it's a 'generational' thing, I guess we should try to be kind to him as he's essentially harmless Posted by: David at January 29, 2004 04:23 PMSome more comments about the one-sided report by Lord Hutton: - former editor and war expert Max Hastings said the intelligence on Iraqi weapons was "rubbish". "Will nobody in Whitehall or the SIS pay the price? Hutton's report does a great disservice to the British people. "It fails to set its story in the context of the BBC's huge virtues and the Government's sore vices. "We're faced with the wretched spectacle of the BBC chairman resigning while Alistair Campbell crows from the summit of his dunghill. " Meanwhile, Opposition Conservative lawmaker and writer Boris Johnson."It is just flipping unbelievable." "Blair is a mixture of Harry Houdini and a greased piglet. He is barely human in his elusiveness. Nailing Blair is like trying to pin jelly to a wall." In an NOP poll for London's Evening Standard newspaper, 56 per cent said it was unfair the BBC had received most of the blame. Meanwhile, 49 per cent branded Hutton's report a"whitewash". Just the latest in a long line of reports by distinguished judges that rarely say anything critical about the government of the day. Posted by: David at January 29, 2004 05:12 PMJason Ahhh. I missed that particular Rupert, thank you for clueing me in. And Mr Dyke seems to have walked the plank at your behest - well done! As for the rest of you losers above stop whingeing. You got your enquiry, accept the result. As Melanie said from day one - the evidence demanded tbe only set of conclusions possible and Lord Hutton delineated them yesterday. Bravo! Lord H Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 29, 2004 05:27 PMFrank, "You got your enquiry, accept the result" Oh No! Blair et al chose and set narrow the terms for the inquiry and got the result THEY wanted. This is far from the end of this story. As Germaine Greer said today (I'm sure you love Ms Greer, eh Frank?) "What a surpise! A pointless inquiry that did not get to the point". Posted by: David at January 29, 2004 05:37 PMScarlett is the first spook to head the JIC. It has always been run by a Civil Servant from the FCO; to have someone from SIS in the chair for a Committee which takes the feed from MI%, DIS, GCHQ, SIS etc is wrong, and it is clearly why Jones of DIS had his concerns ignored by Scarlett and why Kelly expressed frustration to Gilligan and Watts. I doubt the Head of the CIA would take over as head of the NSC in the White House ! Posted by: Romulus at January 29, 2004 05:40 PMIt's ironic that Ms. Phillips refers to an article of her in The Spectator. That magazine takes a diametrically opposed view of the Hutton report, calling it "the great whitewash." This from their lead article: "the [BBC's] story was not merely fundamentally correct as it stood on 29 May, but has since been endlessly corroborated. The story was this: a senior member of the intelligence community had deep misgivings about the way in which the government was using the information he and his colleagues had gathered — and that, what’s more, it was Alastair Campbell or his office that was primarily responsible for ‘sexing up’ the September dossier which so wilfully exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq. "We should concede here — as the BBC conceded — that the wording of one of Andrew Gilligan’s 18 interviews on 29 May went a shade too far. The allegation that the government knew that the claim that Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction could be deployed in 45 minutes was false and could not be corroborated. You and I might suspect that it’s true, but we can’t prove it — and so Andrew Gilligan should not have made the allegation." And this from an article, also in the current issue of The Spectator, by Peter Oborne: "It is very hard to make sense of his conclusions. Hutton was presented with abundant evidence that Downing Street ‘sexed up’ last September’s dossier — Blair’s aides materially changed its meaning and strength in the last few weeks before publication. Yet he rejects the claim that Tony Blair and his little coterie exercised improper influence. There is a problem of logic here. "The difficulty is simple enough to state. Tony Blair ordered British troops to invade Iraq for one reason only: Saddam Hussein’s possession of so-called weapons of mass destruction and his ability to deploy them. In his famous speech to Parliament on the eve of war, the Prime Minister insisted that they presented an urgent threat to British interests. "These WMD have not turned up. It now looks unlikely that they ever will. Last week David Kay left his post as head of the Iraq Survey Group declaring: ‘I don’t think they existed.’ Colin Powell now admits they may never be found. Virtually nobody, with the baffled exception of Tony Blair and Jack Straw, thinks they are still out there. "In other words, it looks as though the invasion of Iraq took place for no reason. The British people were misled — though not necessarily lied to— about the reasons for a war in which British soldiers died...We have since learnt that this intelligence material was in all probability false. Iraq can only go down as one of the greatest failures of intelligence gathering in history, on the scale of the failure to warn of the Iranian revolution 25 years ago — perhaps greater. "There are three possible explanations for this tragic dereliction. The first is that the WMD did exist, but have not yet been found. Most intelligent judges now rule out that possibility. The second is that they never existed at all and that the intelligence services made an enormous blunder. The third is that intelligence services on both sides of the Atlantic yielded to political pressure. The most likely answer is that a combination of the last I really don't know what to believe. Posted by: Joanne at January 29, 2004 07:51 PM"Oh No! Blair et al chose and set narrow the terms for the inquiry and got the result THEY wanted." I'm curious - can anyone tell me whether David, Germaine Greer, Rod Liddle et al were saying Hutton was going to be a whitewash before the report was released/leaked? There is - clearly - no evidence Blair knowingly lied. There is - just as clearly - evidence that the BBC allowed likely lies to go unchecked if that served the political aims that, as everyone knows, are shared by the vast majority of BBC journalists, and whose furtherance is facilitated by the BBC's poll tax. Posted by: Adam at January 29, 2004 07:56 PMI haven't yet read all of the comments responding to Melanie's "Diary" but like her, I am hugely critical of the BBC: not just for the Dr Kelly episode but for the style of their reporting for as long as I can remember. I have long contended that the BBC, because of it's position as a public service, has no buiness editorialising it news broadcasts. It should merely report: and ensure that the reporting is not tainted by any innuendo or emphasis. If the BBC wishes to behave like a national newspaper, then it cannot continue to be funded by public money. I am not even sure if the proscription shouldn't be extended to its political discussion programmes since they seem to be unable to present such programmes without a clear bias. We all know what to expect if we read the "Guardian" or the "Telegraph" but as Melanie points out, the minds of a majority have been cemented in the concept that the BBC represents impartiality. It just isn't so. As for Michael Howard's performance - it certainly wasn't that of a political leader but then I've long since despaired of the Conservative Party. A long as they remain a party of consensus rather than conviction, they will not longer get my vote. Charles you might be interested in this opinion piece. Signal-to-noise check. 'As for the rest of you losers above stop whingeing. You got your enquiry, accept the result',writes Frank. Perhaps Peter Oborne in today's 'The Spectator' best sums up the inherent contradiction in the way in which Lord Hutton castigated the BBC for what was fundamentally defensible in its reporting and failed to even criticize in the mildest terms the reprehensible behaviour and tactics of Blair et al: "Gilligan’s story remains fundamentally defensible, though by no means accurate in every respect. Yet Hutton came down scathingly on the BBC, setting impossibly high thresholds for checking information. Investigative journalism is a very difficult task. The practitioner meets obstruction all along the way. Hutton showed no sign of grasping this, and was unforgiving of the lapses by journalists. By contrast, he showed no concern of any kind that Downing Street and the intelligence services made serious claims before the outbreak of the Iraq war, which have since turned out to be false. It was an unbalanced report. It will do great harm to Lord Hutton’s previously unblemished reputation and it amounts to a disaster for British public life".
The remit of the inquiry was "The events leading up to the death of Kelly". Why the suicide of a man who apparently lied either to a journalist, or subsequently to a Commons committtee, necessitated such an extensive judicial inquiry will probably be wondered at in the distant future. As a definitive answer as to WHY he comitted suicide is, by definition, impossible, I can't be alone in wondering what Hutton's conclusions have to do with Kelly at all; no-one could possibly say that Gilligan's Today piece, or the subsequent lack of editorial control and investigation LED to Kelly's death, so what on earth is the whole report about? Posted by: ade at January 30, 2004 01:09 AMTantris I like the 'juvenile' compliment; the other peaceniks usually level the 'senile' insult. This whole thread is dripping with sour grape juice. It's fun reading it. And on it's own TV channels tonight: the BBC whingeing about triumphalism of Blair and Campbell, followed shortly after by Greg Dyke being legged up on to a table to claim a victory and acclaim out of humiliating defeat, hypocritical or what? But one thing I will grant you peaceniks; both Tojo Davies and Greg the broken Dyke will be more dangerous outside the tent piddling in, than inside the tent piddling out. When lefties fall out, there is always blood (and pee) on the carpet. They used to use icepicks, now they just scratch each other's eyes out. Frank, Lib Dem Lord Mark Bonham Carter, a former BBC Governor, remarked many years ago that the BBC Chairman and Governors should come from a DIVERSE range of the political spectrum. The BBC cynically distorts news for it's own agenda; witness it's total distortion of Diane Sawyer's interview with Jessica Lynch, and it's snide ridiculing of said US soldier, who rubbished the BBC's claims of a staged rescue in TIME magazine. The Beeb didn't mention that. Then we have Orla Guerin, who states in the Evening Standard an extremely partisan view of the Israel/Palestine conflict. Then there is the contrast between Kilroy and Tom Paulin. Anti-Semitism is the only form of racism allowed by the BBC. Alistair Campbell, though I do not like him much, was spot on when he said: The Media does the vast majority of the manipulating, and if it gets found out, it NEVER accepts responsibility for it's actions, always blaming someone else. The BBC is even more insular than the commercial media, and it seems to regard itself as higher than God. Posted by: Venger at January 30, 2004 04:37 AMWhat's happened at the BBC is a bit like what's happened in our schools and universities -- a pervasive corruption of the culture and the erosion of its founding values So true and well worthy of further investigation- indeed a book. A challenge for those who believe in left or right wing conspriracy theories (and there seem to be a lot of those clueless whiners here): PROVE THEM, Oh and finding one person who in a professional capacity supports them does not constitute proof, I repeat: finding one person who in a professional capacity supports them does not constitute proof. Posted by: Evert Visser at January 30, 2004 09:09 AMEvert, "A challenge for those who believe in left or right wing conspriracy theories (and there seem to be a lot of those clueless whiners here): PROVE THEM" And, your substantive contribution to the debate is...what, exactly?...or are you just a 'clueless whiner' whining about other 'clueless whiners'? ;-) Posted by: David at January 30, 2004 09:50 AMFrank Pulley: "And on it's (sic) own TV channels tonight: the BBC whingeing (sic) about triumphalism of Blair and Campbell, followed shortly after by Greg Dyke being legged up on to a table to claim a victory and acclaim out of humiliating defeat, hypocritical or what?" You must have been watching a different TV channel from me, then, Frank. I've seen no "whinging" about Blair and Campbell's triumphalism (though, clearly, their triumphalism is extremely distasteful). And would you expect them to not cover Dyke's resignation and the reaction in which it was received? Get real.
Lord Hutton has now announced that there will be an inquiry into the leaking of parts of the advance embargoed copy of the report that went one day before official publication to the BBC, the Government and the Kelly family. The leak (to The Sun) enabled pro-Government spin to start via the pages of The Sun in advance of the official release of the report. Any guesses anyone as to who might have authorised and done the leak? Now let's see: could it be: 1) the Kelly family; 2) the BBC or 3) the Govt???? When we have had another inquiry and know the culprits, can we expect THEM to resign for breaking their signed undertakings not to disclose in advance the contents of the report? Or will the culture of spin, manipulation and blame-avoidance continue to be one step ahead of actually being held responsible for anything. It is incredible to see those on the right now in a strange coallition with New Labour supporters actually now unwittingly supporting the culture of spin and manipulation that is clearly far from dead. For all its faults, it is interesting to see how quickly the BBC has taken action - two resignations and almost faultless and un-biased coverage of the events of the last two days. Quite an example to New Labour in fact. Posted by: David at January 30, 2004 10:17 AM"Alistair Campbell, though I do not like him much, was spot on when he said: The Media does the vast majority of the manipulating, and if it gets found out, it NEVER accepts responsibility for it's actions, always blaming someone else." But Venger...the media and the Government are mirror images of eachother in terms of their wish to massage public opinion for their own ends. Don't you see that? And, in the Hutton report, the blame went - despite the facts - all in ONE direction and, look how quickly the BBC has responded with two resignations. When did a politician last act so quickly to take the blame and resign? This whole episode could yet backfire on Blair et al in spectacular fashion and, at the least, further erodes trust in the British establishment and increases cynicism about both the media and the Government. Posted by: David at January 30, 2004 11:54 AMArmed with the report of Lord Hutton the Blair Government had the Chairman and Director General of the BBC removed; protesting staff spilled into the street in protest.
Was Silvio Berlusconi in London to advise Blair on how to organise a future BBC ? Was Rupert around to offer advice on how to appoint a new management ? Looks really good for Blair...now he can appoint Peter Mandelson to negotiate the new Royal Charter......or will he go for Gleichschaltung ? Posted by: Romulus at January 30, 2004 12:26 PMSo my old friend Trevor Asserson thinks the BBC should be acceptable to Israeli audiences ? If that were so they can pay for it.......it is a little too obsessive going on about Israel and the BBC......it has lots of faults, but if it is a Shron-approved BBC he wants they should pull out completely and stop covering the country - take their feed from Al-Jazeera or some local outlet. There are issues within the BBC which need to be solved, but it is not the Israeli Broadcasting Corporation....it is British.....and is not there to pander to the wishes of any government, British or alien. Posted by: Romulus at January 30, 2004 12:30 PM"I'm curious - can anyone tell me whether David, Germaine Greer, Rod Liddle et al were saying Hutton was going to be a whitewash before the report was released/leaked?"
Did anyone know that Lord Hutton was the kind of judge who publishes conclusions without reference to the evidence presented during the Inquiry ? I am tempted to ask that his cases in Northern Ireland be reviewed for miscarriages of justice. I tend to agree (for once) with Lord Rees-Mogg: "Brian Hutton, nice man. Poor judge" Posted by: Romulus at January 30, 2004 12:33 PM"Looks really good for Blair..." Temporarily, yes. Though the 'place in history' that he so touchingly yearns for will be denied him when future historians look back and see his legacy for what is really is: -- wasted opportunities to improve Britain based on an inherited good economic base; -- an intensification of the corrosive culture of spin and cynicism in British politics based on gaining/keeping power above all else. -- one tough decision since 1997 - to take Britain into war in Iraq. Meanwhile, the education, health and law and order systems have become infested with meaningless targets in a parody of the Emperor Has No Clothes. What a legacy!!! (Please compare with Margaret Thatcher and weep). Posted by: David at January 30, 2004 01:15 PMDavid said, 'But Venger...the media and the Government are mirror images of each other in terms of their wish to massage public opinion for their own ends. Don't you see that?' True, but not right. The Government has to massage public opinion for their own ends- getting elected. The media doesn't, and in any case the BBC has benefitted greatly from the kudos of being the instrument of choice for the GOvernment's dissemination of its viewpoint. The Today Programme is a classic example. That's why it's pathetic for people like Greg Dyke, when they are presented with the wonderful opportunity to report about the world, to play at being politicians. Posted by: eddie at January 30, 2004 01:28 PMIt is unfortunate but true beyond dispute that the Steinberg "What's happened at the BBC is a bit like what's happened in our schools and universities -- a pervasive corruption of the culture and the erosion of its founding values" It's called the Gramscian blueprint for bringing about a cultural revolution and creating a new leftist cultural hegemony - already in it's tertiary stage, and like syphilis is causing general dementia. I take it you don't live in Britain? A man of your perspicacity would have worked it out by now if you did. The removal of two champagne lefties at the head of the BBC is a mere hiccough in the inexorable process - a planned tactical withdrawal. The grunts will still be there beavering away in Broadcasting House and the Wood Lane Doughnut for a new socialist world order in which the BBC will be the major organ of propaganda. Don't be fooled by this little spat between the Beeb on the one hand and Blair and his cronies on the other. It's a domestic spat that will blow over. Will the last person to realise what's happening put the lights out before you leave please. I suggest that you head for the USA which will be the last remaining raft of freedom and reason, despite it's many bewildering madnesses. For God's sake don't go to Brussels. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 30, 2004 02:27 PM"I suggest that you head for the USA which will be the last remaining raft of freedom and reason, despite it's many bewildering madnesses. For God's sake don't go to Brussels". LOL... I suspect you'd see Gramscian conspirators where ever you were, Frank...Brussels, Baltimore, Brisbane....Bognor... It is hilarious reading some of these comments today and then buying (for the first time in 10 years!) a copy of the Daily Mail and reading the vigorous attacks by its Editorial and some of its star columnists against the Government & Hutton and its defence of the BBC. What is happening ???;-) It seems that some Daily Mail readers and columnists (Melanie?) have not yet woken up to what is really happening, so blinded are they by constantly complaining of BBC bias...and that by continuing in this vein they are actually being 'useul idiots' for Blair et al. Posted by: David at January 30, 2004 03:03 PMNo David, I suspect the die have not fallen as we anticipated and the manin-the-middle, Kelly, has been lumped with the BBC and castigated while the Goverment which coughed up its emails and subterranean slime before its acolytes went into the headmaster's study to lie merrily, got off scot-free. I think it offends against British sense of natural justice and the BBC looks like it has been flayed and the other bully of the little man, Kelly, is doing the flaying using its permit from Headmaster Hutton. It stinks frankly. Posted by: Romulus at January 30, 2004 04:13 PMNicely said, Melanie. One of the most frustrating things about my stay in the UK was that no party could effectively represent the aspirations of the responsible, law-abiding and hard-working citizen. It should be the Tories but they've become effete and paranoid. And all the while, the country drifts toward mediocrity. Posted by: chip at January 30, 2004 04:50 PMDavid Noticed your notional cities all began with B. Just alliteration - or a Freudian slip perhaps? LOL. Posted by: Frank Pulley at January 30, 2004 05:07 PMFrank, you noticed that ? It does show you care ! Posted by: Romulus at January 31, 2004 03:42 PMMelanie you can read The Hutton report - £70 on Amazon Posted by: Romulus at February 1, 2004 10:52 AMRomulus, "I think it offends against British sense of natural justice and the BBC looks like it has been flayed and the other bully of the little man, Kelly, is doing the flaying using its permit from Headmaster Hutton. It stinks frankly". I totally agree. My post - written in haste and consquently not that well expressed - referred to the irony of reading some media pundits (who hate the Beeb AND Tony + chronies) acting virtually as 'useful idiots' on behalf of Blair et al by siding with such a clearly one-sided report in their haste to kick the Beeb. Campbell and Blair will have the grins wiped off their faces as they see that the public's trust in New Labour will plumb even greater depths as a result of this sorry episode.... Posted by: David at February 1, 2004 04:19 PM"Noticed your notional cities all began with B. Just alliteration - or a Freudian slip perhaps? LOL". Oh...we're on speaking terms again, are we??;-) Sorry Frank just a gentle parody of your conviction that the Gramscians are under the bed everywhere (from Brussels to Brisbane and jno doubt to Bogor)...the 'B's being just in response to your 'B' for 'Brussels'...I think Freud was inaccurate and wildly overated in my of his hypotheses...and am suprised you yourself quote him, Frank...LOL Posted by: David at February 1, 2004 04:26 PMThe Kilroy-Silk episode illustrates how restricted the bbc now feels I stopped having respect for, and listening to, the BBC when I heard their broadcast on 9/11. While we were all recoiling in horror and disbelief, Robin Lustig was saying things like, "Can you see them jumping?,"—it all sounded like a tabloid expose. Shameful! The BBC deserves EVERYTHING that it is getting and then some. Lili Posted by: Lilith at February 2, 2004 01:57 AMLili, THat's it - send in the Cavalry!! Really, come on (I know it's hard) - see it in proportion and in context. The great irony in this is that the BBC is populated by people with exactly the same mindset as those in Government! Liberal-leftists: in order words, the British establishment. THis has always been the case. The BBC has always represented the views of the prevailing establishment. It also reflects the public's mindset to an extent: particularly nowadays in terms of a general cynicism about politicians, their motives etc. The politicians themselves deserve this because they are not straight with the voters about how to deal with real issues. The whole mediapoliocracy (for want of a better word) encompassing broadcasters, print media and government and its agenices are all in the same out-of-touch-with-reality hermetically-sealed bubble...that truth is far more alarming than the current spat between the Beeb and the Government... Plato got it about right when he said that the only leaders that should be elected should be the ones that don't want to lead - because they are the only ones who can be trusted to put the people first and themselves second. Sadly, there is no sign that any of today's political leaders are in any sense platonic... Posted by: David at February 2, 2004 10:02 AMIf you recall you could always tell Mysterons because they threw no shadow and did not appear on photographs (I hope NASA and ESA remember this).......anyway you can always tell a New Labour drone because they have absolutely no sense of humour or joie de vivre. Posted by: Romulus at February 2, 2004 01:11 PMI don’t think that Melanie Phillips is in a strong position to criticise the journalistic ethics of the BBC or anyone else for that matter. Let me explain why. The first article of hers that I read was published in the Sunday Times in September 2001. At that time I had no idea of her political views, her faith or prejudices. As I read this article about the partition of Palestine it was clear to me that the author either knew very little about the subject or was deliberately distorting the historical record. I wrote to her pointing out some of her factual inaccuracies: for example Jerusalem did not have a majority Jewish population at the time of partition and neither did it form part of Israel in the partition plan. I thought she might publish a correction. She did not even acknowledge receipt. But most telling of all, is that she has continued to repeat these distortions after I had pointed out the errors that she had made, meaning that she is knowingly relying on deliberate falsehoods in order to make her political case. Of course, since then I have come to realise that there is almost no distortion which is too great for her to make, no smear too base for her to use, almost no level to which she would be unwilling to stoop if she feels it helps her vision of the cause. This is the woman who – on the very day a family watches their son die in hospital, a homicide victim - accuses them of seeking to make political capital from his death, because they lead a campaign to see his killers brought to justice. It is tempting to suggest that as Melanie Phillips has written about Tom Hurndall a number of times, in her usual slack-brained, paid-by-the-word manner, it is she who seems to be making capital (real take it down to Tesco and spend it capital) from his killing. For her to criticise other journalists for their supposed low ethical standards is a bit rich to say the least. And look at what she actually writes about the BBC: “Hutton has thrown the whole book at the BBC, for making one of the gravest allegations that can be made against a Prime Minister -- that he took his country to war on a lie -- on the basis of an utter falsehood. The BBC never checked whether the story was true and never retracted the lie ….” None of that is true. Not of that is an accurate reflection of what Hutton actually concluded. The BBC mainly accurately reported what had been told to its journalist by a senior and credible source. In the first of eighteen broadcasts that day Gilligan did use a form of words which made an untrue allegation – he said they probably had known the 45 minutes claim was untrue. It was corrected in subsequent broadcasts and he apologised almost immediately afterwards for using those words. And the government? Immediately after Gilligan’s report Downing Street issued a statement (it’s in the Hutton Report if Melanie Phillips wants to check, although I note she hasn't bothered to read it) that said: “ …Not one word of the dossier was not entirely the work of the intelligence agencies”. Now that was not strictly true was it? In fact, the evidence given by government witnesses to the enquiry made clear that this was not at all true. Amongst other things the government has substituted the words “could be ready” with “are deployable”, thereby clearly strengthening, or if you prefer “sexing up”, the document. So the BBC sought to report what it had been told, albeit rather clumsily and the government – even by it’s own testimony – lied. Why am I not in the least surprised that Melanie Phillips celebrates the triumph of the liars over those who sought to report the facts? Melanie is entirely right about Hutton - the Gilligan report was essentially WRONG! It has become rather fashionable to |