Hutton: what do you think?

[OldieMum]

I am getting cynical in my old age, but even I didn't expect Hutton to exonerate everyone in the Government for everything they did over the dossier and David Kelly and to blame the BBC for what they did at every stage. What do other people think? And who leaked it to the Sun?

Gilligan's story became such a huge issue because Alastair Campbell hugely over-reacted. It was Campbell's temper tantrum that turned this into an epic, otherwise the story would just have been an interesting footnote. And to suggest that there's something wrong with this country's leading expert in WMD and Iraq talking to journalists on that issue is ridiculous.

That may be your opinion. I disagree. David Kelly is dead. Gilligan stands by what he says. He says that he made a mistake when he said in a single early morning broadcast that the government 'probably knew' that the 45minute claim was false. He did not repeat this in subsequent broadcasts. I happen to believe that statement to be true. In fact in January Trevor McDonald said he would resign rather than report the government's statment (which has been proven to be untrue) that Saddam could hit British interests within 45 mins with chemical or biological weapons because he did not believe it to be true. If he knew that, then why was the government so keen to push this always dodgy (and now obviously false) claim to the forefront of the dossier?
The rest of Gilligan's report was all true.

Eddm, I was not disagreeing with you but with Donnie. Oh, and Donnie, I think the patronising asides are quite superfluous.

well there must have been something wrong with it for Dr Kelly to take his own life. He broke the terms of the Official Secrets Act in having illicit meetings with Andrew Gilligan. Then, to cap it all, Gilligan lied about what Kelly said to himand broadcast it on national radio ! what an utter bastard.I know who I blame for this man's death.

Gilligan 'made a mistake'? oh, well, that's all right then...!

David Kelly talked to journalists all his career. It was an important part of his job. The MOD had given him training on it! It did not break the official secrets act to do so. He spoke to Gilligan often in his role as defence correspondent of Today and also to Susan Watts in her similar capacity at Newsnight. He also spoke regularly to other journalists. This is entirely normal. He was honest about his deep unease about te way information was being distorted for policitical reasons - ie to make an unjustified case for war. That was a very serious and important thing to say, and I believe that when the country's greatest expert on Iraqui WMD says that, and then we should hear it. That's what a free press in a democracy is all about. The government, unsurprisingly did not like this. They put pressure on Kelly's employers to find him and bully him into retracting his comments. Kelly was frightened and on the verge of losing his career. Then for reasons we will never fully know, he killed himself.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Gilligan did not tell the truth about what Kelly told him. He also did not name him.

aloha - I'm not comparing "the seriousness of sloppy editorial control of a single news report with the sloppy lack of control of preparations to go to war". I was just making a point specifically about how vital it is that claims made by journalists (especially those broadcasting to such a huge audience) must be accurate and checked since the influence they have is immense (and frequently underestimated).
I do agree that there are a lot of issues that have been unanswered about why we went to war, the 45 min claim etc and I think Alaistair Campbell is seriously suspect but I also think that the news media are generally allowed to get away with an awful of generalisations and unsubstantiated claims.

He sats he made a single error in ONE single live broadcast. One that he subsequently corrected many times over.
And I actually don't think even that was wrong - he said the government probably knew the claim was false. I think that was spot on.

But what did Gilligan say that has turned out to be wrong?

Also, Gilligan was reporting that he had been told these things by a very senior person in intelligence who was in a position to know whether they were true or not. That is a news story, and one I, personally, think I have a right to know about.

donnie I am not stupid, and you know as well as I do that those despicable acts of Saddam Hussein's, terrible as they were, were not the reason that Blair took your country to war

out of interest aloha (I'm asking this genuinely not argumentatively) do you agree with Gilligan's latest assertion that
"reporters should be given a "margin for error" when it came to issues of public interest"

I find that AS concerning as the govt hiding or quashing things we should know about. It implies that it's OK if he (or others) make mistakes because he's reporting very important matters - I'd argue that's exactly why there should be no "margin for error"

I think that it must be in our collective best interests for stories that have an important public interest element to get into the public domain as quickly as possible, not be delayed while lawyers argue over verification (and I am a lawyer myself, so I know what I'm talking about on this point if no others!).

who decides what's in the public interest though? (obviously not suggested WMD are not in the public interest) in some cases what one person my think if of public interest another may not.

I think allowing for a margin of error in news reporting is just a practical necessity, frankly. Obviously the reporter should make every effort to ensure what they are saying is true, OR a true reflection of that they have been told. The two are not the same thing, of course, and I feel these two things have been conflated by Campbell quite mendaciously. For example, if reporting the claims of another person, it may be quite impossible to guarantee that person is telling the truth, but if that person is normally reliable, in a position to know the truth and is saying something of vital public interest, then what they say is clearly worth reporting. But nobody can ever say they will never make a mistake in their working life. And as dinosaur points out, if you had to wait to have everything picked over before lawyers before it was broadcast you would just about be hearing about the Profumo affair!

Wasn't Gilligan's original report live (or did I dream that?). I've been interviewed live- and although he's a professional surely its easy to be less "tight" on words than ideal when reporting live.

I still don't really see how his report was wrong- agree with everything aloha says.

The BBC apology made my skin crawl. I can't believe the govt think they have actually won on this either. I actually suspect that the whole affair will prove to be more damaging than if they had come in for more criticism.

Anyone see QT last night?

I think so - because wasn't he supposed to be in his pyjamas at home?

I find myself agreeing with Martin Bell on this one. The BBC have been far too sackcloth and ashes. The should have stuck their necks out a bit more and not gone for all the unreserved apologies - just making it worse for themselves.
Some apology yeah, but they must know they aren't all to blame. Dyke knows it anyway

hmmm interesting all this.
some random points

I work in Broadcast Journalism dino and no, it's not realistic for every piece of journalism to be vetted before it's broadcast. HOWEVER if any of my reporters were to get hold of such a potentially explosive story it would be discussed by them, the programme producer, me and others before we decided how to handle it. I was a bit surprised that Gilligan was just allowed on air in a live situation to make those remarks BUT he was an experienced journo working on a respected programme and I guess it was just assumed that he'd done his homework.

My personal view is that he had got hold of the bones of a good story, that Kelly probably HAD steered him in the right direction and that it was worth opening up the discussion about the vailidity of the 45 minute claim. (Remember Campbell HAD asked for the 45 minute claim to be 'strengthened' from 'may' to 'can' - effectively asking the 'experts' to make the public more likely to back Blair than they might have been given unvarnished views. Surely that's spin at the very least.

Where AG went wrong in hindsight was (in that one broadcast) to broadly accuse the government of deliberately misleading us. Again speaking personally I think they did but since he/the BBC couldn't prove it he probably needed to take a less accusatory stance and keep working on the story until someone else stood up what Kelly was (probably) saying. He also needed to keep better notes but hey hindsight is a great teacher

squirmyworm - that kind of sums up some of what I was trying to say. I fully appreciate everyone makes mistakes but this was a highly serious accusation to make and for AG to mistakely say something like that is totally incompentent.

I say again though that I don't think dyke should have resigned and I find it bizarre but what about AGs producer and the head of news?

I watched QT, Jimjams. Margaret Becket got it in the neck, didn't she?

Losing Dyke from the BBC is a tragedy. He's been the best DG the Beeb has ever had. It makes me really angry that he should have to go, basically because of a report that hadn't been sufficiently thought out and (let's face it) because Campbell had it in for the BBC. How anyone whose personal diary contains the pathetic and vindictive comment about how his actions would f* Gilligan can get off scott free..??)
There was some talk yesterday on the tv about where the Today editor fitted in to all this but nothing since. Also the Head of News. I would say more questions need to be asked of the former than the latter since I know that through my own experience other programmes DO have pretty effective editorial processes in place, although to be fair to Today, almost without exception they are dealing with tricky subjects and even trickier people. I just hope that whatever 'guidelines' come into place they won't end up gagging those who try to bring things we probably all ought to have a squint at into public view - responsibly of course