Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

BBC Reporter in Weapons Probe Resigns

Jan 30, 2004 5:30AM PST

'LONDON - BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan resigned Friday after a judicial inquiry repudiated his reporting that the government "sexed up" intelligence on Iraq'

'Besides Gilligan, the BBC's two top officials ? BBC chairman Gavyn Davies and director general Greg **** ? also have resigned; the BBC apologized to the government after the inquiry.'

They didn't exactly admit their guilt however, they continued to say they were mostly right. Also, they advanced this rather novel idea:

'"Lord Hutton does seem to suggest that is not enough for a broadcaster or a newspaper ... to simply report what a whistleblower or someone like Dr. Kelly says because they are an authoritative source. You have to demonstrate that it's true," **** told BBC radio Friday. "That would change the law in this country."'

What a 'shocking' concept! The story must be true?

Could it be that Bush acted properly also?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=716&e=7&u=/ap/20040130/ap_on_re_eu/britain_weapons_adviser

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
It was a whitewash inquiry
Jan 30, 2004 5:53AM PST

No it does not mean Bush was right at all, so don't look for what isn't there. This inquiry has absolutely nothing to do with Bush or the actions of the United States, it is an entirely British matter concerned entirely with the conduct of the BRITISH government and our leading independent broadcaster. This time your conceited country is NOT centre stage, indeed it does not even have a bit part in the production, so get over it.

Hutton was a political choice. He is intransigent, and incapble of seeing anything in shades of grey which is the way the real world exists. He also dismissed a great deal of evidence as "irrelevant" when it was in fact germaine to the investigation and the sequence of events that occured. Hutton is a supporter of the government and that is the reason Blair chose him to head up the inquiry. There are any number of other equally competent Law Lords could have run the inquiry and the report would have been quite different vis a vis the government's culpability.

As for your scoffing at what was said, that only serves to show your limited ability to understand the implications. If the news media cannot publish anything until it has gathered incontrovertible proof from sources other than the respected experts, then effectively nothing at all can ever be published. This is tantamount to gagging the press, which is something Blair has been aching to do ever since he got elected, while his own party spin machine feeds misinformation with impunity.

I now fully expect your own president to follow Blair's lead as he too has the same ambition of silencing lawful protest and peaceful criticism of elected government. Let's see how loud you scoff then when it happens in your own country, because trust me, that is what is going to happen.

- Collapse -
Gee, I thought Bush was relying on certain British reports.
Jan 30, 2004 6:15AM PST

If you are looking to 'any number of other equally competent Law Lords', why would you expect a different outcome? Are all equally competent, or equally incompetent?

Why are the BBC people resigning if it was a 'whitewash', and how does a 'whitewash' help Blair? That doesn't seem to make sense. Inquiring minds want to know.

- Collapse -
Re:Gee, I thought Bush was relying on certain British reports.
Jan 30, 2004 12:37PM PST

What Bush relied upon is immaterial. The inquiry was into the death of a British weapons expert and the events surrounding and leading up to that, including the roles of the BBC and government. It was not an inquiry into the truth or fabrication of the dossier's content. If the actions of Bush or the US administraion had been relevant to the purpose of the inquiry, they would have been asked to attend and give evidence.

Like I said, Blair as the PM chooses who heads the inquiry, so the selection is political by its very method. He chose the government-sympathetic Hutton because he wanted someone who essential supports the goivernment and will thus not press too hard on the issues which would blacken their name (more than it already is, that is). He knew many of those others who are competent are not particularly enamoured with his style of leadership so would be less supportive of him.

The BBC top people have quit to return stability to the corporation, as the outcome sent them and the rest of the media into a state of shock. Read their resignation statements. A whitewash helps Blair because it gets him off the hook (yet again), since there were many calls for his resignation over the entire Iraqi affair, including from among his own party. As the Guardian wrote, Blair has just stepped back from the very edge of brinksmanship, probably for the last time.

- Collapse -
Welcome to the United Kingdom of liars - that is what this has reduced this country to
Jan 31, 2004 12:46AM PST
This is tantamount to gagging the press, which is something Blair has been aching to do ever since he got elected, while his own party spin machine feeds misinformation with impunity

Your absolutely right Dale.
Now all we have to look forward to is one whole lot of unsubstantiated spin, with nobody with the guts to question what is being said.
Considering that not one weapon of mass destruction has been found, and that was the reason to go to war, there is only one person that should be resigning, and guess who that is.
The inquiry was nothing but a complete farce.
* * * * my personal feelings only * * * *
That judge looked half asleep, and possibly drugged I.M.O. He talked like a person who had his thinking removed. It's a total disgrace.
* * * * * * * *
- Collapse -
Looks like Blair's home free now.
Jan 30, 2004 1:34PM PST

BBC it seems got called onto the carpet for some yellow journalism. Guess that's what happens when you have to draw talent from the local dailys.

- Collapse -
Dear James, I do not understand your post, i.e. yellow journalism and drawing talent from local dailys...
Jan 31, 2004 1:58AM PST

I am attaching this to your post only for want of somewhere better aside from starting a new thread. I appreciate it is not appropriate to do this and therefore James please forgive.

The Beeb has a number of broadcasting channels ranging from the humourless fact-based ones to the "street cred" "popular" ones.

The Beeb has been and will continue to be respected in this country as an independent and reliable broadcaster despite the Hutton result and perhaps the more so because of it since they will rail against any ensuing overbearing restrictions.

The backlash from the Hutton (whitewash?) report will take a long while to settle here, but you can bet your bottom dollar that the investigative journalism of the Beeb will continue unhindered, either by broadcast, or if not permitted because of any new "guidelines" introduced, then by journlists finding other outlets for their findings (meaning newspapers of course).

Blair might be home free now in terms of his having been exonerated from deceitfulness, but I doubt he is off the hook for having taken the UK to war; this especially so following David Kay's submissions to the Senate (which was broadcast live here but not particularly noted until the following day because of the prominence given to the Hutton Inquiry).

I have always thought and do still think that Tony Blair is an honourable man, notwithstanding that he may be misguided either by received information or as a matter of judgment.

The reason for going to war was sold rather differently to the people of the UK from those of the US and I suspect this is one of those that will run and run.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Tendency toward Sensationalism
Jan 31, 2004 3:08AM PST

...in the dailies is what I refer to. If like here in the US, most reporters start working for a local newspaper or television news channel and then work up to the national ones. I may be wrong, but get the impression that many British dailies are similar to our 7-8pm shows here like Entertainment Tonight, Inside Edition and other television broadcasts that sensationalise the news. It's more an entertainment format than a news reporting format. Moving from one form of giving the day's news into a more conservative manner of presentation I think might be difficult, placing more pressure on the news services to compete for the entertainment value offered by the local dailies. Most of the local daily headlines I've seen on the occassion I've visited their online sites always seem over concerned with foibles and embarassments of public figures on a regular basis, almost like a gossip column. Newspapers that engaged in rumor mongering and gossip columns in the USA traditionally have been called "yellow journalism" although originally it applied mainly to politics, which in this case it still does.

- Collapse -
Thank you James and I agree about dailies and yellow ....
Jan 31, 2004 3:57AM PST

journalism with regard to our newspapers. We understand that they are printing newspapers to sell newspapers to make money and that some are more "sensationalistic" than others. That is why I wanted to emphasise that the "essential BBC" (rather that the popular teenage-style channels) is considered to be "above this sort of thing", which is why this debate will not settle swiftly.

It was noted by a US commentator on our TV that he (i.e. US people) did not understand in the first place how a battle could be going on between our Government and a media outlet funded by Government (taxpayers for licence fee). One of the reasons why the Beeb is highly regarded is that it is not subject to commercial pressures (as are newspapers) and thus one can expect unbiased views.

There are perpetual arguments going back many years between the government of the day and the BBC and this sort of "healthy debate" will not stop whether the Governors remain in place or not. As I said, I doubt this is crunch-time, because even if the Beeb is made toothless by new "guidelines" or regulations when the Charter review comes up in 2006, I'll bet that a few of the journalists know good dentists to get their teeth working again. On this basis, Tony Blair, or whoever is very unlikely ever to be home free on anything.

Sorry, I think I'm on a crusade here. Must go off and design a suitable flag to wave.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Welcome, I always like listening to BBC news here on the local PBS station.
Jan 31, 2004 4:29AM PST

It's good to get a different viewpoint than just the American one.

- Collapse -
In the US, the first question that must be asked is who is doing the reporting.
Jan 31, 2004 10:00AM PST

We can no longer assume 'one can expect unbiased views' from journalists. That is a shame, but the journalists have yielded to the temptation to advance their political views in place of the news. The same has happened to some scientists and others. They may have good motivations, but they have discredited their professions. It really is too bad. Someday they'll need to tell us the truth and will be unable to do so.

- Collapse -
I hope I'm not going off-track here, but as regards in the UK the BBC...
Jan 31, 2004 9:56PM PST

has the reputation, right and requirement and wherewithall (given limited commercial pressures) - call it what you will - to report facts. (Whether it does or not is a matter perhaps for another debate.)

There are few people in the UK who will allow it (the Beeb) to be silenced and the Hutton Inquiry result will only fire (and is firing) further debate - it most certainly has not quelled the debate twixt our Government and the Beeb.

I have said before whimsically that it is inevitable that we in the UK have one inquiry or another going on. Now that Lord Hutton has reported, it will be interesting to see what forms the basis of the next one. (There are cries both for and against several issues at the moment.)

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
My posts relate to our UK BBC, but in the US, I thought that...
Jan 31, 2004 10:34PM PST

newspapers in the US such as the Washington Post prided themselves on their integrity (as I am sure do many others). Given the discussion on Yellow Journalism and the above, are you suggesting a 1984 scenario with no respite? I find it difficult to believe that you do not accept that "the truth will out", or perhaps I am just mis-reading your post.

Please enlighten me.

Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Lincoln said "You can fool some of the people all the time."
Feb 1, 2004 11:28PM PST

For those who are not paying attention, it is easy to be taken in by biased reporting. I cannot comment on the Washington Post since I do not read it, but I can point to 'journalists' like Peter Jennings or Eleanor Cliff who present themselves as objective reporters although they are highly partisan in favor of the Democrat Party. Similarly, the New York Times is highly biased in its reporting.

- Collapse -
However you view the BBC
Feb 1, 2004 5:27AM PST

You have to admire its *****. Think of it, they are operating under Royal Charter, meaning they are our official "State TV service" though not quite in the sense of some countries' interpretation of that. They also rely on taxpayer's money via the licence fee for funding, so they are not financially independent.

So if they misbehave, they could be subject to revenge from Parliament when the Charter comes up for review, or they next ask for a licence fee increase to meet rising costs. Yet for all that, they took on the government, and not for the first time in their existence either.

To me that does show integrity, and courage, of the kind your own US media would appreciate - dependent on the state for their existence, yet refusing to be silenced when they believe something must come out. And such confrontation is set to continue.

I saw a couple nights ago a documentary put out by the BBC about the Iraq conflict, which showed soldiers' own private film footage and interview's with ex-commanders of the Irtaqi forces, such as the mistake made by the US maintenance division which led to Jessica Lynch being captured, and the error of judgement made by Kuday Hussain in ordering elite forces to move north of Baghdad when he was told you were already at the southern edge of the city.

That is not going to please the government, but again the BBC has put the right of the nation to know the truth ahead of political compliance. This battle of wills is not over, the Hutton Inquiry was only the opening shots of what will prove to be a long entrenched war between state control and the corporation's independence.

- Collapse -
As you can see from the replies so far, anyone you name someone will call bias
Feb 2, 2004 4:27AM PST

In the past, and still, there has been a lot of discussion about the liberal bias of the media. And I think probably that in general there was at least some leaning to the liberal side in the major media. That does not override the fact that almost any media loves a good stink, so will stir muck thoroughly to make a sensational story. And unfortunately the major news organizations, espcially in television, seem to becoming more sensationalism minded the last couple of decades.

Now many are yelling all the time the media is conservative controlled. Well, there is some on both sides. The sad truth is the US is becoming more polarized and everything including news reflects it.

There is no doubt something like Fox News is conservative. A lot of talk radio is probably conservative to various degrees. The old three major networks are probably still more liberal minded than conservative. A lot of print media is still liberal, but conservatives have their own.

There is almost no point in expecting anyone to not slant the reporting. Straight facts, even straight guess, don't malign anyone enough to get a response. Everyone is waiting for opportunities to paint the other side a extremist of one kind of the other. The sad part it, they so often are.

Of course, all that is just my opinion, no links, no "facts", no proofs. And some here will tell you I only attack liberals and always agree with the right. Oh well.

roger

- Collapse -
(NT) OPPS, above was suppose to be reply to Mclazon question about Jennings.
Feb 2, 2004 4:29AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Re Lincoln said... We get Peter Jennings here in the UK - raises questions...
Feb 2, 2004 2:10AM PST

Peter Jennings arrives on our TV in the middle of the night (courtesy CNN I think), and I guess not too many people here see his program (I don't think we get Eleanor Cliff- erm - who?).

Forgive me for asking a possibly inane question, but when you say "biased reporting", do you mean as to facts or as to how this will affect US presidential voting.

Peter Jennings is not new to our TV screens, and I kinda thought (from the UK) that he was a respected purveyor of facts. And that is why I am asking my question.

Thank you
Regards
Mo

- Collapse -
Sorry, he is well known here for his bias.
Feb 2, 2004 3:10AM PST

He always focuses on news which is detrimental to the administration and paints as dismal a picture as he possibly can. Thus, other sources may be reporting positive events, but Jennings will find a negative slant or story.

His bias comes out very clearly at times. For example, when the GOP under Newt Gingrich made substantial gains in a Clinton midterm election, Peter was visibly upset and verbally lamenting the turn of events.

It would take some research to point you to a specific link because he is on TV rather than in print. However, local radio frequently discusses Jennings' bias on the previous night's show.

- Collapse -
Dear Kiddpeat - Thank you. I now know to watch with open eyes. Regards, Mo.
Feb 2, 2004 3:48AM PST

.

- Collapse -
NT - Beware of Conservative Spin...
Feb 2, 2004 4:16AM PST
- Collapse -
Hook, Line, and Sinker...
Feb 2, 2004 4:15AM PST
It would take some research to point you to a specific link because he is on TV rather than in print. However, local radio frequently discusses Jennings' bias on the previous night's show. - Kiddpeat

Let me guess where you're getting your radio commentary. Your "local" radio station is owned most likely by Clear Channel and it is a Conservative and "unbiased" talk program such as Rush Limbaugh or similar. Even though you would need some research to paint Peter Jennings as a biased news journalist, I won't have any trouble finding links that show that Conservative talk radio and any station owned and operated by Clear Channel are biased...
- Collapse -
You shouldn't stick your hook in your mouth. It is an ABC radio station, which
Feb 2, 2004 4:51AM PST

has operated in Chicago for many years. At least you are not suggesting that there is no bias in the media, or did you mean that bias only exists on the 'conservative' side? Here's the link. Go at it to your hearts content.

http://www.wlsam.com/

BTW, the program I am listening to is 'Don Wade & Roma'. Also, the station has some hosts that I sometimes think really work for the DNC.

- Collapse -
Good old Peter Jennings.....
Feb 2, 2004 4:02AM PST

Wasn't he the one on the evening of 9/11 who introduced the President for his address that evening with:

"Like him or not, he is the only president we have."

Some unbiased reporter, huh?

Bo

- Collapse -
Can't find it, but did find some other interesting quotes.
Feb 2, 2004 9:09AM PST
http://www.mediaresearch.org/notablequotables/bestof/2003/best1-3.asp#baghdad

?If she had lived, Mary Jo Kopechne would be 62 years old. Through his tireless
work as a legislator, Edward Kennedy would have brought comfort to her in her old
age.?

? Charles Pierce in a January 5 Boston Globe Magazine article. Kopechne
drowned while trapped in Kennedy?s submerged car off Chappaquiddick
Island in July 1969, an accident Kennedy did not report for several hours.


More Quotes...
- Collapse -
Did Jennings break his neck? (humor)
Feb 2, 2004 9:28AM PST
http://lowendmac.com/lite/02/0103.html

Doesn't it just hurt your neck to look at this
picture? The more you look at that picture, the
more your head wants to tilt over, instinctively
trying to get his attention so you can snap your
head up straight as if to say, "See? Just
straighten your neck. It's that easy."

PICTURE
- Collapse -
Kind of looks like a puppy. BTW, who keeps trying to shut down discussions?
Feb 2, 2004 2:41PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Huh?
Feb 3, 2004 11:51AM PST

How are people trying to shutdown discussions? Are you speaking of SE or something else?

- Collapse -
I keep seeing 'No further replies to this post will be accepted'
Feb 3, 2004 1:43PM PST

which doesn't stop anything, but it looks odd when someone has just asked a question.

- Collapse -
Maybe they'll get that out of the software one day. We can hope. (nt)
Feb 3, 2004 3:44PM PST

.

- Collapse -
Tabloids and Broadsheets
Jan 31, 2004 10:24AM PST

What you refer to as yellow journalism certainly describes our tabloid dailies. They are short format (half page size of NYT) and supply news in brief and lots of sport coverage. They essentially target the worker class who only have a half hour meal break and low level education available to read them.

The yellowest of all is the Daily Sport. This is no more than a dozen pages of faked news and sports, then the rest is sex line ads and boob pics. The guy who owns it started out one day a week with the Sunday Sport, then it went to twice a week, and now it comes out every day. He obviously knows where the British working class mind lives - in the gutter, because it has made him one of the UK's 200 richest people. If you visit the site, it is ADULT only and looks more like a porn site than a newspaper!

The other dailies we have are the quality broadsheets, in long format. These are such as the Guardian and The Times, and they are not sensational. They supply good in depth investigative coverage - ex. The Times had great analysis in Gulf 1 of all the issues and reported around the subject a great deal. Those are more akin to the BBC, and represent what is good in British journalism.

At local level, papers tend to be short format and news in brief as they add in local affairs to the national news, so space is at a premium. They also rely on selling lots of ad space to pay the overhead. However, at least in my city, the reportage quality tends to be factual with little sensationalism, probably because most towns have only one or two locals so they generally aren't competing for sales.