Author Topic: BBC battles to save its reputation (Read 454 times)

Gunthr · « **on:** July 21, 2003, 08:19:07 AM »

Here

No black helicopters. And no "senior intelligence officer" source as had previously been reported by BBC for their reporting that WMD info had been sexed up by Blair. That is yellow journalism.

Dowding · « **Reply #1 on:** July 21, 2003, 08:34:08 AM »

Kelly was Gilligan's source. Government demands the identity of source, an apology on behalf of spin doctor Campbell and threatens BBC charter status. BBC refuses. Government outs Kelly as source. BBC refuses to confirm. Kelly put in front of committee and publically humiliated. Kelly commits suicide. BBC confims Kelly was source.

Neither the government nor the BBC come out of this smelling of roses.

Gunthr · « **Reply #2 on:** July 21, 2003, 08:57:27 AM »

I hold BBC's feet to the fire because it was the BBC who claimed that they had a very credible senior intelligence officer as a source, when all they had was Kelly, who was obviously not even a low ranking intelligence officer. It appears that BBC lied to its readership all over the world in order to stick a political knife into Blair. I can't blame the government for defending itself.

I think its an illustration that this whole feeding frenzy questioning the veracity of the intelligence used by Blair and Bush going into Iraq is just politics ...

LePaul · « **Reply #3 on:** July 21, 2003, 09:01:20 AM »

BBC? Reputation? Their own miliatry vessels no longer listen to them...they got tired of the spin and outright false reporting.

Dowding · « **Reply #4 on:** July 21, 2003, 09:11:32 AM »

The BBC doesn't have any naval vessels.

Quote

I hold BBC's feet to the fire because it was the BBC who claimed that they had a very credible senior intelligence officer as a source, when all they had was Kelly, who was obviously not even a low ranking intelligence officer.

Kelly isn't an intelligence officer and he wasn't the only source for the story.

"Andrew Gilligan described his source as a British official who was involved in the preparation of the government's first intelligence dossier on Iraq's weapons.

He said the source told him the dossier had been transformed to make it sexier, at the behest of Downing Street.

Mr Gilligan has now issued a statement insisting that he did not misquote or misrepresent Dr Kelly, and pointing out that the weapons scientist had expressed similar concerns about Downing Street's interpretation of intelligence to the BBC's Newsnight.

Newsnight's report was prepared by Susan Watts and transmitted four days after Mr Gilligan's. Her source too, it now turns out, was Dr Kelly.

She described him as a senior official intimately involved in pulling together the dossier. He told her, she said, that the dossier's insistence that there was an imminent threat from Iraq was a Downing Street interpretation of the available intelligence.

And he said there'd been an argument between the intelligence services and Number 10 over the claim that Iraq could make weapons of mass destruction ready within 45 minutes. The statement had been taken out of all proportion.

Dr Kelly was not an intelligence source - but then neither of the original reports had described him as one. "

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2003, 09:26:36 AM »

Give me the BBC over the current British Government any day - try to stop reading so many Murdoch controlled newspapers - it's really not good for you.

Btw over 70% of people in the UK currently polled no longer trust Mr Blair and his Government, over 50% feel he should resign now.

_Schadenfreude_ · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2003, 09:28:00 AM »

Dowding did you see the programme where it was put forward that there are actually two other sources - one of them from within No10?

Dowding · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2003, 09:46:11 AM »

I wouldn't trust opinion polls.

Didn't see the programme, but have seen others. There were other sources that corroborated what Kelly said - off the record statements made by a 'senior official' was my understanding. Hopefully the truth will out.

Nashwan · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2003, 09:53:53 AM »

Quote

And no "senior intelligence officer" source as had previously been reported by BBC for their reporting that WMD info had been sexed up by Blair.

As Dowding said, Kelly was the source.

It's not difficult to see why Kelly would try to downplay the information he gave to the BBC when all the government's spin doctors were trying to hang him out to dry.

And don't trust any Murdoch papers in this story. Not only is Murdoch closely allied with Blair, but the BBC charter is up for renewal next year, and Murdoch is hoping to benefit.

Gunthr · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2003, 10:42:20 AM »

Dowding, the following is cut from the article I linked to above:

Quote

Mr Sambrook said on June 26 that the story was based on “one senior and credible source in the intelligence services”.

Mr. Sambrook is the Director of News at BBC.

Mini D · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2003, 10:52:29 AM »

Wow... a news agency that would embelish to match popular oppinion in order to sell more copies? Who would have thunk it.

MiniD