Hutton Inquiry: BBC To Get Trashed?

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by MikeH
Hutton totally sidestepped what should have been the focus of the report. Brilliant smokescreen. Government has had an inquiry, none of the real questions addressed, and been found innoccent.

Welcome to British politics!

Sadly you have hit the nail on the head here.

[Solly]

Oh I see, now the MikeH's of this world now are criticising the inquiry/report, just because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

I said the BBC were more at fault eight months ago, and I stick by that. It's shame you don't even allow yourself to see past your Blair-hatred to change your opinions when your knowledge of the facts change. Instead you now seek the criticise the inquiry for being biased.

[East Street Trader]

Agathon, I don't think the plagiarised schoolboy stuff was in THIS dossier. That one came along rather later in the Iraq/WMD fiasco.

And as for only a moron believing the intelligence which was included, well I doubt you have been up close to many government ministers to think that is any sort of a point.

I have just sat through Lord Hutton's summary of his report. It was lengthy but the man writes and speaks well so I found it no hardship to do so.

The issues which he decided he was called upon to address seem to me to be the right issues and I found the evidence he cited to support his conclusions compelling.

[curtsibling]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
Oh I see, now the MikeH's of this world now are criticising the inquiry/report, just because it doesn't say what you want it to say.

I said the BBC were more at fault eight months ago, and I stick by that. It's shame you don't even allow yourself to see past your Blair-hatred to change your opinions when your knowledge of the facts change. Instead you now seek the criticise the inquiry for being biased.

I believe MikeH has every right to an opinion as you have.

This is allegedly a free hemisphere.
(apart from the self-appointed defenders of decency and authority worship)

The people conducting the inquiry are totally at the beck and call of any pressure or leverage the PM wishes to deploy.

Do you really think Blair is going to sit and let people in his grasp dismantle his reign?

Some reality, please!

If this Dr Kelly can be silenced (and whatever you draw from that word)
for his dissenting view, a Lord in the pay of the government is certainly pliable.

[Evil Knevil]

Despite everything else you've got to admire the BBC for it's objective reporting after the enquiry. A ticker with "Hutton slams BBC" certainly shows your brass balls.

[East Street Trader]

Yes.

And, for the record, Hutton makes no finding of political bias.

His central criticism focuses on the fact that once the government had challenged the allegation that they had published material knowing that it was false the board of governors subsequently relied upon management as to whether that allegation did indeed have any basis. He says that might be OK in some cases but not this one. And he goes on to say that an examination, by the board, of the reporter's notes would have led them to his own conclusion, namely that this contention cannot be supported from the material Gilligan had obtained.

There is a secondary criticism of the material getting itself published in the first place without anyone having bothered to check exactly what Gilligan was intending to say. He approaches this point from the perspective of a lawyer. It has been publishing routine for many years for a lawyer to be employed to read material which defames (or may defame). He does not point out that under our law defamation does not run against the government (because they are big boys who have press offices and the like perfectly able, in ordinary circumstances, to look after their interests on matters of reputation). But he prefaces his conclusions by pointing out that there is a particular significance in publishing serious allegations impugning good faith. And concludes that it is incumbent on the management of the BBC to have systems in place which give express consideration to the exact words used when such allegations are to be made. So he thinks it naff that Gilligan was left free to say anything he pleased.

It is hard to argue with that.

Especially as Gilligan was such a sloppy guy.

[MikeH]

I don't hate Blair. He's the best leader we've had in my lifetime (not saying much). I just disagree with some of his policies/actions/spin.

[DanS]

I think BBC deserves a slamming and the problems seem systemic to me. Good journalism is sometimes more boring than "sexed up" journalism, so I can understand why the BBC would sex up their news stories. Also, good journalism is a lot tougher to do than sexing up a story.

[Solly]

I can see your point about disagreeing about policies; everyone disagrees at some point.

Wrt actions, I don' see what you are getting at here.

And as for "spin", I don't exactly see your problem. All individuals and every political party likes to make their policies and actions sound better than they are. It doesn't take much to see through them. I rather think this whole "spin" accusation is again fed by the BBC with their hard left slant.

Public funding for the BBC should be abolished. Unless it starts to address its inherent biases (and it can start by reinstating Kilroy-Silk), I shall trust it no longer. Maybe it should stay away from politics for a while and focus on the things it actually does best: sport and soaps.

[MikeH]

I'm happy to keep public funding of the BBC purely because it keeps the quality of the broadcasters up as they have to compete with the BBC. What they do best is drama and comedy. Sky totally wipes the floor with them in sports coverage but the BBC do wipe the floor with the other terrestrial channels.

And the BBC only has a hard left bias if you are looking from a hard right perspective. The Guardian has a proper liberal/left perspective the BBC is center (which is to the left of both main political parties).

I do check stories on the web but I don't watch BBC news any more. Channel 4 news is the best. That and Newsround.

That's not to say that it doesn't need a damn good kick in the butt and to reform some of what it does.

[MikeH]

Kilroy shouldn't be reinstated because his program was rubbish.

[duke o' york]

Hear hear.

[East Street Trader]

I am thoroughly disenchanted with all the media.

I have not yet recovered from the BBC including coverage of Mrs Mellor (I think it was her) and her two teenage daughters leaving their front door apparently setting out to do some shopping.

This was "newsworthy" on the basis that these three women were at that time coming to terms with their husband/father's affaire being all over the the press.

I have absolutely no desire to intrude on such people and the thought of them coming out of their front door to face seried ranks of cameramen and reporters is horrid.

I have little sympathy for Dr Kelly but at the point in Hutton's report where Kelly was described as having been thrown to the wolves there is no doubt that the phrase was well used.

For years after Watergate we all thought that we owed a debt to the journalists who showed such persistence in their efforts to investigate. But I long ago concluded they actually did nobody any favours.

Only in local papers reporting on flower shows do you now see simple reportage of facts. In every other branch of the media there is a desire to report from some angle or other which makes governmental desire to impart spin seem like the work of rank amateurs.

[lord of the mark]

the chair of the BBC is about to resign.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Jamski


Good point. I can't remember one inquiry that didn't produce the WANTED result.

-Jam

The Strangeways and BSE inquiries.

Strangeways was highly critical of the prisons policies and proposed wide reforms. The government huffed and puffed, sat on it for a couple of years, then ignored it.