The blood is on the BBC’s hands

The blood is on the BBC’s hands
: So now the BBC has admitted that dead weapons inspector David Kelly was the source for its story accusing the Blair government of “sexing up” Iraq intelligence.

Kelly admitted having unauthorized contact with BBC foreign editor Andrew Gilligan. Kelly denied having been the source for the sexing up story, saying he could not see how what he said became the story the BBC produced. That means either that (1) Kelly lied and he was the source or (2) the BBC lied and stretched this story itself beyond what Kelly said. But Kelly killed himself, so we won’t know from him what happened.

We must know from the BBC what happened. The BBC must launch a Blair-like (that is, Jayson-Blair-like) investigation of Gilligan and his reporting. The BBC’s credibility demands it. The credibilty of the profession demands it.

My fellow journalists should demand it as well. Intead of standing in a press gang and asking Tony Blair about blood on his hands, those reporters should turn to their BBC colleagues and ask about the blood on their hands. A source of theirs killed himself over this story. Why?

The truth is coming out and that truth is:

The Blair government did not sex up this story.

The BBC and Andrew Gilligan are the ones who sexed up this story.

: See also a commentary by Blair-ally Peter Mandelson in the Guardian:

Yet, even now, if you challenge BBC executives on this, they insist in their defence that you do not have smoke without fire, even though the smoke was created by their own correspondent. In their view, if you put a ‘spin doctor’ anywhere near a factual report, you are entitled to assume that the contents will be dodgy, regardless of who testifies to the contrary.

That is simply not good enough. It has led the director-general and the chairman of the governors to stake their reputations on a story that has turned out to be untrue, punted by a journalist who many inside the corporation regard as controversial, whatever they say about him in public.

The fact is that the journalist in question, Andrew Gilligan, persuaded his managers that his one source was a senior intelligence official and few now believe this to be true. Dr Kelly was a scientist, not a spook, and when he told MPs, in his gratuitously bruising encounter with them, that he was not the BBC’s source he should have been properly understood to mean that he was not the source for what Gilligan said about Campbell. Gilligan should have been big enough to admit that he did not have another source for his central claim and that he had stretched what he had been told to suit his own prejudices.

Amen.

Mandelson backs up a few thousand feet to make a broader and very right point about media’s relationship to the world they cover today:

The BBC is not a publicly funded lobby group, and someone in the BBC’s management chain should have stepped in earlier and quietly to end the editorialising over Iraq.

As for the public, they are entitled to expect better from both sides. The viciousness that characterises the relationship between the media and politicians is turning people off politics and corroding our democracy. Everything in Britain is conducted in an overly adversarial way, from our courts to our Parliament, our industrial relations and our select committees. It is good theatre, but does it produce good outcomes? In this case, patently not.

Amen again.

: But now see the Guardian’s own news columns attacking — or at least belittling — Mandelson’s piece, calling it “astonishing” and using loaded words aplenty: “outburst” and “onslaught,” making it look like a hissyfit instead of a serious comment on a serious matter for our very business. Instead, says the Guardian, this was “a smokescreen to protect a Prime Minister now facing the most dangerous time of his six years in Downing Street.” It’s a dangerous time only because media are calling it a dangerous time. Yes, it’s a dangerous time. It’s dangerous time for us in the media.

: Finally, the tables are turning on the BBC.

MP Gerald Kaufman, chairman of the culture, media and sport committee: “The way the BBC have conducted themselves throughout raises the need for consideration of the governance of the BBC and the way the BBC deals with news.

“We wait for the inquiry in terms of what happened leading up to Dr Kelly’s death, but I believe that we do not wait to consider the whole way in which the BBC runs its affairs, runs its journalism and is governed.

“I think there are much, much wider questions which have been highlighted by this tragic episode.”…

Dr Kelly’s local MP, Robert Jackson: “If they (the BBC) had made this statement while Dr Kelly was alive, I believe he would still be alive and I think the chairman of the BBC board of governors should resign over this matter.”…

MP Eric Illsley, a Labour member of the foreign affairs committee: “I think the BBC has got to look at itself long and hard now after Andrew Gilligan’s latest evidence to the foreign affairs committee last Thursday.”

At last.

: MediaGuardian, at least, starts to acknowledge what’s really happening:

The effect of the statement was to immediately shift focus from Tony Blair and onto the BBC with several politicians lining up to call for resignations at the top of the corporation.

Within an hour of the statement, a series of politicians casts further doubt on the report by defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan and questioned whether he had hyped up the conversation with the Iraqi weapons inspector.

Dr Kelly’s local MP, Tory Robert Jackson, said BBC Chairman Gavyn Davies should go and director general Greg Dyke should “consider his position” while Gerald Kaufman warned that the latest development raised “serious questions” about the future of the BBC as a licence-funded organisation.

Both believe that the confirmation that Dr Kelly was their source clears Alastair Campbell.

“This raises extremely serious questions about the way the BBC is run; its credibility and its future as a public sector, publicly funded organisation,” said Mr Kaufman.

: It is insane, journalistically, that the BBC is owned by the government and run by a license fee. There isn’t a greater conflict of interest. The BBC should be privatized and should compete squarely with the other networks.

: Harry Hatchet sees a Labor plot to get rid of Blair, led by panicky MPs who fear losing their seats to Tories.

Short-sighted, to say the least.

They’ll end up serving the government to the other side (see: Ralph Nader voters).

They’re basing their coup on Iraqi intelligence — and it looks as if their complaint is far more with the BBC and Andrew Gilligan.

And they offer nothing of substance in the alternative:

Iraq is the issue around which the anti-Blair alliance has coalesced but on what basis? Are they presenting an alternative vision of Britain’s role in the world? No. Are they offering us a new foreign policy or another way of dealing with dictators and terrorists? They don’t tell us.

: And the drum beats on. Now the FT concedes that the BBC is under an NYTimesean cloud and has to clear its name (or better yet, fix itself):

The BBC will this week embark on the largest damage limitation exercise, arguably, of its 76-year history.

A team of top executives and in-house lawyers will begin assembling documents, transcripts and tapes relating to the intelligence dossiers on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the corporation’s reliance on David Kelly, the government scientist found dead last week, as its main source for those stories.

Ostensibly, the team is preparing evidence for the judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Mr Kelly’s death. In reality, their work could determine the future regulation, editorial controls and structure of the publicly-funded broadcaster.

“Everybody is completely reeling from this,” according to one insider. “We are putting together a team to look at each stage of what happened.”

The stakes could not be higher.

Uh-huh.

: Amy Langfield finds this gem from the transcript of the grilling of David Kelly:

Mr Anderson: What lessons have you learned from this episode?

Dr Kelly: Never to talk to a journalist again, I think.

The worst among us create a chill that ices the rest of us.

: The tide is starting to turn… and make the Beeb go glub-glub-glub. Says The Times of London:

THE BBC was fighting to save its credibility last night after finally disclosing that David Kelly, the weapons expert who committed suicide last week, was the main source of its claims that Downing Street had

23 responses to “The blood is on the BBC’s hands”

  1. hugh macleod Avatar

    What Americans don’t realise is how politically powerful the BBC is in the UK.
    Blair’s genius in the mid-90s was to fashion the Labour Party into a ‘BBC-friendly’ party… a hybrid of left-wing collective social values with a healthy respect for economic reality.
    Well, it worked for Blair and the BBC rather well for the first 5 years. Blair needed the BBC on board to consolidate his power base with the general public, the BBC needed him to ensure their centrally-planned, monopolistic position was assured in a world of ever-fragmenting media.
    New Labour was an extension of BBC’s values, and the BBC was an extension of New Labour’s values. Their relationship was symbiotic.
    This being the case, for them to fall out like this is incredible. It’s like one Siamese twin killing the other.

  2. Yeah Right Avatar
    Yeah Right

    “Intead of standing in a press gang and asking Tony Blair about blood on his hands, those reporters should turn to their BBC colleagues and ask about the blood on their hands.”
    Fat F***ing Chance!! When was the last time anyone in the media questioned anyone else in the media about their sources, or the motives of their sources, or the motive of the reporter? Doesn’t happen and won’t happen. The folks who are slimed by the media don’t fight back because no one…other media, plaintiffs lawyers, sympathetic parties realize that the dominant media culture doesn’t care about accuracy, they only care about that moments story. Corrections are in a lower corner on a back page weeks/months after the story has gone out of conciousness. I’ll be convinced that the media reports honestly about itself when it does a hidden camera expose ala Dateline NBC/ABC 20-20 on a newsroom or an ambush interview ala 60 Minutes on an editor/executive producer. It might even take a reporters notebook exploding for that matter.

  3. Dr. Weevil Avatar

    Just to clarify, it’s Jayson, not Jason Blair, and I don’t think we want a “Jason-Blair-like” investigation of the BBC, which would involve making stuff up about them. However satisfying that might be, surely what is really needed is an investigation-of-Jayson-Blair-like investigation of the BBC.

  4. Balasubramania's Mania Avatar

    As the BBC comes under pressure from the British government I would think we would rush to defend the BBC or at least to criticize the government. Fair reporting is one thing. Government criticizing the BBC is another. It’s anti-democratic.

  5. Robert Swaim Avatar
    Robert Swaim

    B Mania,
    Criticize the Government but don’t criticize the Media? It is the responsibility of the media to report (not op ed) on issues involving the government, it is the responsibility of the Public, the government and all media sources to critique any media outlet that fails certain tests. Accurate, unbiased, non agenda driven reporting is the issue, the BBC fails these
    tests regularly. And the process of holding the media to the same standards they require of everyone else is Very Democratic.

  6. Orwell46 Avatar
    Orwell46

    Having been a reporter I remember the few times I thought a story of mine might have harmed someone–physically. In a newsroom, discussion of whether someone has been really hurt by a story is close to forbidden. The assumption is that the chips fall where they may.
    I do think that in the days since I reported, a new and lower standard has come into newsrooms. Deviancy has been defined down. In the US newsrooms I worked in (100K to 220K circulations), I don’t think many were cynical enough to use invented quotes to sex up what an anonymous source said. As I remember, anonymous sources were very very rare.
    But from the behavior I see at the NYTimes and the BBC and, I believe, the Boston Globe…that behavior which formerly only deep cynics used…the invention of or massive pumping-up-of quotes from secret sources….is now part of the reporters’ game for many.
    I’m real disappointed, and sort of ashamed to see this behavior going on now…in my generation, on my watch.

  7. c monks Avatar
    c monks

    Are we one-hundred percent certain that Kelly committed suicide because of this? If not, using a line like a source of theirs killed himself over this story sounds pretty “sexed up” itself.

  8. ESP Avatar

    Have I missed something or is there another alternative. The dossier was sexed up, Kelly knew it and was the source for BBC. He lied to the MPs about his involvement and subsequently distraught over his involvement in this whole mess killed himself.
    Of course there may be other players involved, but whether the dossier was sexed up is still an open as far I can see.

  9.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Worse still. Because according to Tom Mangold, himself a journalist and longtime Kelly’s friend, when Kelly met Gilligan (and 2 other journalists who didn’t report anything similar to Gilligan, why? because they didn’t invent anyhting, as opposed to Gilligan, a long-time known liar, see http://www.conquestdesign.com/html/BBC.html), he did it with the best intentions. At least that’s what Mangold wrote as a tribute to his dead friend: “”He told me at the time that he was anxious that reporters who did not fully understand the politics and mechanics of WMD should understand quite clearly what Iraq had been up to and why it might be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find actual weapons.
    “That means delivery systems and warheads all screwed together, filled with biological or chemical agents and ready to go. Rather, he wanted those he briefed – and he briefed several reporters – to comprehend that Iraq had a programme, it was flexible and that it had malicious content.”” (http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1001163,00.html)
    No doubt Gilligan used his ‘source’ to his advantage, and he and his bosses do have blood in their hands.

  10. Anthony Avatar

    The document was not sexed up, no other credible witness to the so-called ‘sexing up’ has come forward.
    Remember when Gilligan suggested the Americans were lying about taking Baghdad airport? “I

  11. Rook Avatar

    Jeff, with most of your posts, you irritate the living crap out of me (which I’m quite sure causes you no end of sleepless nights), but the reason I continue to return to your blog daily is for this very type of post. I found myself having to post a response-well actually it could be better described as a kudo, at my site.

  12. James Griffith Avatar

    Good post. Two comments though:
    “They’ll end up serving the government to the other side (see: Ralph Nader voters).”
    The great irony is that the parallel you are looking for is not Nader voters. Its events 13 years ago, when panicky Tory MPs ditched a leader whohad never lost an election and while they gained in the short term set in train events which would consign their party to the political wilderness and unelect far more of their number than would have been lost in the first place.
    Second point, you should not be too quick to praise Mandelson’s remarks about the UK being overly adversarial, as what he is doing is hijacking this row and using it in a small way to push his own separate agenda about europeanising Britain and doing away with things like meaningful FPTP elections and jury trials.

  13. Watcher Avatar

    Balasubramania’s Mania… considering the fact that the BBC is government funded, I’d like to think the government should have SOME oversight when the BBC’s reporters behave so irresponsibly.
    I don’t see why the BBC deserves to be propped up by the British government… all the other leftist media outlets over there seem to be doing fine on their own. Cut them loose already!

  14. James R. Rummel Avatar

    “What Americans don’t realise is how politically powerful the BBC is in the UK.”
    It is? Gee, ANOTHER reason why I’m glad that I don’t live in the UK.
    What other reasons are there? I’m not allowed to defend myself against violent attack even if I don’t use a gun, the food, the weather, the crime.
    What do miss out on by not living in the UK? The art and the history.
    Art’s pretty enough, but I’m really interested in history. Looks like the scale is firmly pegged at “Glad I’m Not There”.
    James

  15. HH Avatar

    The US mainstream press is doing everything they possibly can to bury this story and this new Milbank article bringing up the same charge that got the BBC in trouble in the first place is further proof of that.

  16. Ryan Avatar

    You got it all wrong….
    Gilligan said many different things to different people. That he wasn’t the source, that he probably was, that he didn’t say those things, that he might have done.
    It seems likely he killed himself because he had come under government pressure to lie aboput what he said to the beeb. It’s far from an open-and-shut case. So, not ‘amen’.
    The BBC is only culpable if it attributed words to him that he did not say. The government is culpable regardless for irresponsibly throwing Dr Kelly into the limelight.
    And Mandy is full of crap – how is it ‘editorialising’ to report what a covil servant says?

  17. lshannon Avatar
    lshannon

    HH
    You are so right. I read the Milbank article late Saturday night then woke up to watch the Sunday morning shows. I found it MOST telling that Mara Liasson mentioned the 45 minute issue on Fox News Sunday, she said it may become a problem for Bush, then on CNN’s Wolf Blitzer Sunday show Wolf showed the film footage where Bush made the statement on the 45 minute issue. Then Wolf ask Sen. Rockafeller(D) about it. He said something like it would further damage Bush’s crediblity. I did not see the other 3 Sunday shows but would not be suprised to find out someone mentioned the issue on the show.
    How strange (yeah right) 3 sources pick up on the 45 minute issue all within 8 hours of each other. It lopks like the Dems are trying to make this an issue for Bush. Is this the next chapter of the “Bush Lied” therefore Bush is not credible therefore he should not be President.
    Time will tell if I am guessing right.

  18. Dave F Avatar

    There’s not a lot I can add to all this except to point out how disturbing it is that the BBC has chosen to name Dr Kelly only now rhat he is dead

  19. Billy Hank Avatar
    Billy Hank

    Uh, Ryan. Actually it looks like you got it all wrong. I think you meant to say Kelly instead of Gilligan in your post. Otherwise, your post is nonsensical.
    Your culpability issue about the government’s “irresponsibly throwing Dr. Kelly into the limelight.” is minor one at best. If the questioning was that harsh, Dr. Kelly could well have committed suicide after that encounter. His suicide came only after Gilligan’s testimony that failed to corroborate his own. He must have realized then that there was no way he could clear his name as the source of a story that the BBC wanted to use to bring down the Blair government.
    I’m a lot more interested in the answers to come from the BBC. If this story gets any traction at all with the public, the piranha blood lust of the press pack will be triggered. Gilligan will resemble nothing more than a chubby and dazed tapir struggling to cross the river while its living flesh is stripped away.

  20. lshannon Avatar
    lshannon

    Billy,
    The story has gotten “TRACTION”! I just read stories in the Sun and the Guardian and both are going after the Beeb! Ain’t Poetic Justice Grand!

  21. lshanon Avatar
    lshanon

    I’ve been wondering, Wasn’t it the Beeb who questioned the Governments use of intel on only ONE source? Now the Beeb is the one using ONE source and his name was David Kelly.

  22. Anthony Avatar
    Anthony

    Forget the political influence the Beeb have in the UK. What is more worrying is the political influence they extend to the rest of the world. Even the Iraqis are complaining about their bias.

    "The liveliest moments of the news conference occurred when some council members disputed questions from the news media. The Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani criticized a BBC correspondent for suggesting that the interim government would have limited powers and therefore little legitimacy among the Iraqis."
    New York Times

    When I want to give money to a political party I’ll donate, I don’t see why I should be forced to do so by the licence fee just because I own a cathode ray tube.

  23. HH Avatar

    Rockefeller was asked on Fox News why he didn’t object to what Bush said right away since he had read the NIE… Rockefeller claimed to have had questions but obviously did not come out and object. Checkmate.