If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The BBC's Sexy Lies.
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
THE BBC'S SEXY LIES
(You won't read this take on the truth anywhere else in the UK.)
July 22, 2003 -- Just as President Bush's critics on Capitol Hill and in America's reflexively lefty media have seized on an alleged "smoking gun" of faulty intelligence to undercut his public support, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is coming under similar assault.
The catalyst there is the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, a weapons inspector who was identified as the source of a British Broadcasting Corp. report charging that the Blair government had ordered a public dossier of Saddam Hussein's crimes "sexed up" to bolster the case for war.
Indeed, the prime minister already has found himself being taunted by reporters demanding to know "if you've got blood on your hands."
But though Blair is taking a major political hit, it's the supposedly impartial - and, by the way, taxpayer-funded - BBC that stands before the world as the purveyor of "sexed-up" information.
That is to say, disinformation.
Back in May, BBC defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan reported that "one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was charging that Blair and his aides deliberately deceived the British people by overstating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
BBC officials refused to disclose their source, but said the story was based on "one senior and credible source in the intelligence services."
An understandably outraged Blair ordered an investigation, which quickly focused on Kelly, a microbiologist involved in the search for WMD.
Ordered to testify before a House of Commons panel, he insisted he couldn't have been the source - because he hadn't said anything remotely like what Gilligan reported.
"From [our] conversation, I don't see how he could make the authoritative statement he was making," said Kelly.
But when Kelly - obviously distraught over having been thrust into the limelight - took his own life last week, the BBC confessed that he had, in fact, been the network's source.
Problem is, Kelly was never in the intelligence services. Nor was he "one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier."
And, as he himself insisted just days before his death, he'd never said what the BBC claimed he said.
Indeed, if anyone is guilty of having "sexed up" the information it gave the public, it's the BBC - not Tony Blair.
But that's hardly surprising: From the start, the network was in the forefront of those trying to rouse opposition to war with Iraq and to undermine both Blair and Bush.
Indeed, the BBC was taken to task during the war itself by one of its own front-line correspondents, Paul Adams, who wrote a blistering memo to his bosses blasting the network's coverage, which contended that the U.S.-led coalition was suffering repeated military defeats.
Even before the conflict began, the London Daily Telegraph reported, the BBC was receiving "an unprecedented number of complaints at the alleged anti-war and anti-American tone of its coverage of the Iraqi crisis."
In fact, the BBC's director-general, Greg Dyke, publicly denounced U.S. journalists for their "gung-ho patriotism," adding that he was "shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war."
And yet it's Blair who, outrageously, is being made to bear the brunt of British public outrage.
It's the BBC that needs to be answering questions about its deliberately distorted political reporting.
Because, as Greg Dyke has admitted, "if, over time, we lost the trust of our audiences, there is no point to the BBC."
That, ultimately, is between the BBC and the British taxpayer.
For Americans, the lesson is that "sexing up" the news is not limited to, well, America.
(You won't read this take on the truth anywhere else in the UK.)
July 22, 2003 -- Just as President Bush's critics on Capitol Hill and in America's reflexively lefty media have seized on an alleged "smoking gun" of faulty intelligence to undercut his public support, British Prime Minister Tony Blair is coming under similar assault.
The catalyst there is the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, a weapons inspector who was identified as the source of a British Broadcasting Corp. report charging that the Blair government had ordered a public dossier of Saddam Hussein's crimes "sexed up" to bolster the case for war.
Indeed, the prime minister already has found himself being taunted by reporters demanding to know "if you've got blood on your hands."
But though Blair is taking a major political hit, it's the supposedly impartial - and, by the way, taxpayer-funded - BBC that stands before the world as the purveyor of "sexed-up" information.
That is to say, disinformation.
Back in May, BBC defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan reported that "one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier" on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was charging that Blair and his aides deliberately deceived the British people by overstating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
BBC officials refused to disclose their source, but said the story was based on "one senior and credible source in the intelligence services."
An understandably outraged Blair ordered an investigation, which quickly focused on Kelly, a microbiologist involved in the search for WMD.
Ordered to testify before a House of Commons panel, he insisted he couldn't have been the source - because he hadn't said anything remotely like what Gilligan reported.
"From [our] conversation, I don't see how he could make the authoritative statement he was making," said Kelly.
But when Kelly - obviously distraught over having been thrust into the limelight - took his own life last week, the BBC confessed that he had, in fact, been the network's source.
Problem is, Kelly was never in the intelligence services. Nor was he "one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up the dossier."
And, as he himself insisted just days before his death, he'd never said what the BBC claimed he said.
Indeed, if anyone is guilty of having "sexed up" the information it gave the public, it's the BBC - not Tony Blair.
But that's hardly surprising: From the start, the network was in the forefront of those trying to rouse opposition to war with Iraq and to undermine both Blair and Bush.
Indeed, the BBC was taken to task during the war itself by one of its own front-line correspondents, Paul Adams, who wrote a blistering memo to his bosses blasting the network's coverage, which contended that the U.S.-led coalition was suffering repeated military defeats.
Even before the conflict began, the London Daily Telegraph reported, the BBC was receiving "an unprecedented number of complaints at the alleged anti-war and anti-American tone of its coverage of the Iraqi crisis."
In fact, the BBC's director-general, Greg Dyke, publicly denounced U.S. journalists for their "gung-ho patriotism," adding that he was "shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war."
And yet it's Blair who, outrageously, is being made to bear the brunt of British public outrage.
It's the BBC that needs to be answering questions about its deliberately distorted political reporting.
Because, as Greg Dyke has admitted, "if, over time, we lost the trust of our audiences, there is no point to the BBC."
That, ultimately, is between the BBC and the British taxpayer.
For Americans, the lesson is that "sexing up" the news is not limited to, well, America.
0
Comments
You have a Specialist called Dr Kelly....He makes and informed and unpressured decision to go and speak to someone he knows works for a broadcasting corporation, he knows that this person works on a political programme, he knows what he is doing but he believes that he can speak freely without having to let on that it was he who gave the interview.
Some of what he said is used in a programme made which is investigationg the truth of a 45 minute claim made by the government.
The Government try to force the broadcasting company to share the name of their source.
The Broadcasting Company refuses to do so.
The Government hound the Scientist and drag him to an inquiry.
The scientist does not deny speaking to the reporter but does remember using specific words
The Government once again pressure the broadcaster to release the name of their source.
The scientist cannot take the pressure and kills himself.
SO! WHO IS TO BLAME? Really, and I mean no disrespect...perhaps Dr kelly should have thought about the pressure he may have been under before he spoke to a well known journalist! Its not the BBC thats to blame at all...its the people that pressured both Dr Kelly and the BBC!!
Continue to delude yourself if you want. It won't make the truth go away: the BBC is not anti-war, anti-American or anti-government. Live with the fact that the BBC uncovered an ugly story about Americans supporting terrorists instead of trying to accuse the finest news corporation in the world of being anti-anything. :rolleyes:
I'll refer you again to the article I posted yesterday with regard to the BBC and the war on Iraq. Have a good read and then do a bit of thinking.
So let's keep on keeping the media and the politicians in check. That way, maybe we the people will get the facts and exercise our power based on knowledge instead of scare tactics from either side.
bows:D
1
Why did the BBC gamble its hard-won reputation for impartial broadcasting with a war against Downing Street over one sensational story by a controversial journalist?
2
How soon did BBC director-general Greg Dyke and chairman Gavyn Davies know the identity of the source for defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan’s claim an MI6 dossier was “sexed up”.
3
Why did BBC news chief Richard Sambrook claim after Gilligan’s report sparked uproar that it came from a “senior and credible source in the intelligence services”?
4
Why did the BBC reject repeated Downing Street attempts to put the story right?
5
Who leaked Dr Kelly’s name to The Times — before it was confirmed by a senior Ministry of Defence spokeswoman?
6
Was Dr Kelly threatened with action for breaching the Official Secrets Act by talking to Gilligan and was he told his pension was at risk only months before he was due to retire?
7
Did Dr Kelly give one story about his relations with Gilligan to the Foreign Affairs Committee of MPs and another in secret to the Intelligence and Security Committee?
8
Did Gilligan make notes of his conversation with Dr Kelly during their lunch in London on May 22 and will they be subjected to tests?
9
What clues were available on Dr Kelly’s home computer about his state of mind before he took his own life?
10
Why did the BBC not apologise to Dr Kelly’s family for failing to confirm he was their main source when he was still alive and able to defend himself?
Gilligan was only controversial after this issue. Also there were two other journalists Susan Watts for Newsnight and Gavin Hewitt for the Ten O'Clock News who were on to this story. If you know anything about the BBC you'll know that these three individuals all work in different parts of the BBC operation - Gilligan works for Today at either the BBC Radio HQ just off Oxford Street or at the BBC's Westminster studios. Hewitt and Watts both work at TV Centre but Hewitt works in the main newsroom as part of the Ten O'Clock News reporting team while Watts works for BBC current affairs in her capacity as a Newsnight reporter. Therefore the likelihood of three BBC journalists collaborating on a story like this is remote, the only thing they had in common was their source - Dr David Kelly. Also Alastair Campbell's name wasn't mentioned until Gilligan's interview with the Mail on Sunday where he was talking in a personal capacity not on behalf of the BBC.
They would have had no right to know a journalists source because a source is supposed to be confidential. The only people who would have known the source would have been Gilligan and possibly the editor of Today.
Because maybe another source that Gilligan used to confirm the claims of Kelly worked for MI6? It was well known that the security services were unhappy with the way the government treated their intelligence and there probably would have been quite a few employees of MI6 who were prepared to leak information to the press.
Because Downing Street has no right to interfere in the BBC's newsgathering operations.
Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, most probably with the knowledge and consent of Downing Street.
Most probably he was - again on the actions of Geoff Hoon and Downing Street, this question is not for the BBC to answer.
I don't know but it's not an impossibility when you look at the vague nature of his answers to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Most probably he did and in the present circumstances they will probably have been seen by BBC management and the BBC continues to express their confidence in their story which means they must be convincing enough to stand up to scrutiny.
I don't know but I dare say we'll find out in due course.
Because the whole point was that Gilligan promised to protect Kelly's anonymity on his insistence, if anything they should apologise for confirming he was the source after his death. As I have said before the BBC should have stuck with its plausible "journalists don't reveal their sources" line even after Dr Kelly's death all this has done is distract attention from the people who should be getting the blame - the government.
Why do you readily accept claims by both the Bush and Blair governments even when they refuse to reveal sources and yet think inside sources who unmask government lies to the media should be revealed? Do you naturally just accept what leaders say is the truth without requiring proof and thorough scrutiny?
If so, then you obviously dont care how much damage any administration does to our country and its integrity in the world so long as they are right wing and make nice emotional speeches.
They have been in touch with Dr Kellys family and *at the request of the family* they didn't acknowledge that Dr Kelly was the principle source.
I have read in at least a couple places that many of the families of the victims have never been satisfied with the cover story about "foreign terrorists" and "the administration knew nothing" etc. All that is being investigated at the moment from what ive heard are merely secondary issues that relate to events which were only made possible by 9/11 itself.
Open that can of worms and youll see the true face of evil behind the lies and spin that theyve be filling your mind with these past couple of years.
Also Saudi Arabia is sending out news stories like crazy about capturing all of these terrorists...this week by coincidence.
An unbiased insight?
Nice article on the subject
Also PNJ I've copied an article from Brian Reade's column in the Daily Mirror today - please read it as it explains why the BBC aren't in the wrong.
I know I am.