PDA

View Full Version : BBC taking responsibility for "sexed up" BS, heads roll


Greg
January 29th, 2004, 06:12 PM
One only wishes the US media would be as proper. . .and oh, to all of you who were cheering Andrew Gilligan and the BBC for what amounts to irresponsible journalism and lies of the kind that prompted a scientist to commit suicide--what do you have to say now?

Second BBC Exec Resigns Over Iraq Story

By BETH GARDINER
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 29, 2004; 6:22 PM

LONDON - A second top official of the BBC stepped down Thursday as the badly rattled broadcaster struggled to respond to harsh criticism from a judge who repudiated its report that the government "sexed up" intelligence on Iraq. The BBC apologized for errors it made in the story, which was at the center of a furious, monthslong battle with the government.

Greg Dyke, the BBC's chief executive, resigned after an emergency meeting of the board of governors. Board chairman Gavyn Davies quit Wednesday, hours after the judge, Lord Hutton, announced his findings.

The BBC, whose extensive news and entertainment programming gives it a uniquely powerful place in British life, was shaken by Hutton's assessment Wednesday that its report was "unfounded" and its editorial procedures were "defective."

The senior appeals judge led an inquiry into the suicide in July of David Kelly, a government weapons adviser who was the source of BBC radio correspondent Andrew Gilligan's report that the government exaggerated evidence on Iraqi weapons and included a claim they knew was probably false in a September 2002 dossier summing up intelligence for the public.

Hutton almost completely exonerated the government, saying it had neither mistreated Kelly nor knowingly "sexed up" the dossier and calling the Gilligan report's claims "unfounded."

He said the allegations were "very grave" and faulted BBC editors for failing to review what Gilligan was going to say before he went on the air with the first, and strongest, version of his story.

The reporter broadcast that version without a script, answering an anchor's questions extemporaneously. The BBC later faulted him for "loose use of language."

Richard Ryder, appointed as a temporary replacement for Davies, noted that Hutton had "highlighted serious defects in the corporation's processes and procedures."

"On behalf of the BBC, I have no hesitation in apologizing unreservedly for our errors and to the individuals whose reputations were affected by them," he said, adding that the broadcaster began putting reforms in place before the judge's ruling.

Prime Minister Tony Blair accepted the BBC's apology - which he had long demanded - and said it was time for all involved in the bitter row to move on.

"This for me has always been a very simple matter of an accusation that was a very serious one that was made," he said. "It has now been withdrawn, that is all I ever wanted."

Tenorman
January 30th, 2004, 03:06 PM
I believe that Greg Dyke has only resigned from the BBC so that he can attack the report, without having to remain within the strictures of the BBC Civil Service organisation.

Something stinks to high heaven

Can anyone name another situation when Trades Union members walked out in support of their boss?????

We haven't heard the end of this. And why pick on the BBC - The tabloids in this country seem to be able to print blatant lies and get away with a 1 column inch apology hidden in the births marriages and deaths page, and no-one has to resign

Simon Weil
January 30th, 2004, 05:47 PM
It wasn't a suprise that the BBC was criticised. They deserved to be. What was amazing was the government got off absolutely scot-free. It was said that Hutton was an establishment judge and used to believing the government etc., etc.. And I do know people like that - very, very able people who refuse to believe something is true until it's absolutely nailed down in triplicate as it were. But, still, it's amazing how Hutton let Blair off like that.

I'm not sure it'll help him in the end. My instincts are that, despite this crushing victory - or maybe because of it - people will want him out. Sometimes, in the UK, you can be too successful for your own good and people end up wanting to cut you down to size.

This seems such a travesty that the victory may turn out pyrrhic.

Simon Weil

Claude
January 30th, 2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by Greg
One only wishes the US media would be as proper. . .and oh, to all of you who were cheering Andrew Gilligan and the BBC for what amounts to irresponsible journalism and lies of the kind that prompted a scientist to commit suicide--what do you have to say now?

I wish that the two heads of state/governement which started a war based on lies and/or wrong intelligence and provoked the death of 9000 Iraqi civilans and 500 coalition soldiers would be as responsible as those journalists.

Greg
January 30th, 2004, 09:08 PM
Now Andrew Gilligan's head has rolled, too. Do you think he too stepped down to "criticize" the judge's decision outside the BBC? What a crock.

And Claude, more than 100 TIMES THAT MANY IRAQIS WERE KILLED AND MILLIONS MORE TORTURED, RAPED, BRUTALIZED AND IMPRISONED BY HUSSEIN, a leader who would still be in power if it was up to guys like you. So don't you dare pretend you care about Iraqis. Like the BBC, you just like criticizing the US and UK, and use the deaths of Iraqis and GIs alike as fodder for your argument.

Claude
January 31st, 2004, 03:29 AM
Originally posted by Greg
And Claude, more than 100 TIMES THAT MANY IRAQIS WERE KILLED AND MILLIONS MORE TORTURED, RAPED, BRUTALIZED AND IMPRISONED BY HUSSEIN, a leader who would still be in power if it was up to guys like you.

Didn't Saddam kill, rape and torture in the 80's, when he had the political, financial and technological support of the US and many other western countries (including Europe)? Then he was a useful dictactor for us, and we didn't care that he used WMDs against Iran troups and his own population.

Afterwards the West lost control over him, and the US wanted him out.

Before the Iraq war, Bush and Blair used the WMD threat to get the support of their population for the invasion. After the war, when it was clear that Saddam had no WMDs, the justification of the war suddenly changed to humanitarian reasons. the US and UK governements are now using the suffering of Iraqis to justify the war, while they tolerated it the decades before.

If Bush and Blair really cared about people suffering under a brutal dictorial regime, when don't they invade and free North Korea? They consider the North Korea WMD threat
to be contained, so there is no reason to worry, even if the North Korean population continues to die from hunger and oppression.