Al Re...First of all, I was talking about the washington times, a typical murdoch POS...second, you posted an editorial of the washington post, not a story...
I stand corrected.
You may be interested to know that british public opinion agrees with gilligan's comment above, which is that the hutton report is indeed unbalanced.
DUH Of course, Britian like Europe, is dominated by the left wing socialist media, who always blame someone else for their problems. Gilligan clearly admits he made the "sexed up" part of the story up. Then the BBC went on to demand Blair's resignation, or ouster, after Kelly's suicide, blaming Blair for not only sexing up the reports, then falsly accusing the gov. of outing Kelly, when in fact it was all a lie. Do you really think that kind of journalism helps your cause. Instead it will make Blair look like a martyr, akin to Churchill, as a real hero who stood up to even the likes of the BBC, who maliciously slandered him. And by the way, it will do harm to Kerry, who has said that 45 minute claim, was a lie by GW, when in fact, there was credible evidence, from a British source, that is was true.
Lessons from the BBC incident
AMBIENT VOICES By MARIA ISABEL ONGPIN
The controversy between the BBC and the Blair administration is an instructive story of truth and responsibility in journalism, particularly the fair and factual treatment of a sensitive issue.
Far away from here but pertinent enough for all of us to sit up and take notice is the upheaval at the British Broadcasting Corp. and the consequent debate in the United Kingdom. BBC, as it is known, is a British institution heavily subsidized by taxpayers’ money but by tradition an independent entity, ever conspicuously reaffirming by its professional conduct and journalistic detachment that it is not a mouthpiece of the government but rather an overseer that keeps the government honest.
The BBC is also a world institution, particularly in radio. It has a presence in countries of the free world and otherwise -- from Africa to Australia, Europe to Latin America, Southeast Asia, China, Russia -- to whom and from where it broadcasts the news of the world and the news of the local audiences.
Famed for its accuracy, timeliness, clarity and the intelligence with which it handless discussions, debates and interviews, the BBC is a trusted media institution in both its country and sphere of influence as well as in remote rural areas of underdeveloped countries.
I listen to the BBC daily when taking my morning walk. I have never caught it making a mistake regarding Philippine news of which it has in-depth and frequent coverage. And I am constantly amazed at how the BBC people get exclusive and timely interviews from the newsmakers into their news broadcast. During the Edsa I upheaval, when the news or rather rumors had it that the dictator was on his way to the airport to leave and which caused premature celebrations as well as an avalanche of similar reports on local stations, the BBC, which was covering this event in minute detail, never reported this particular development. It was proven right minutes later.
So it is surprising indeed that after a thorough investigation which took place the last few months, the BBC found wrong for announcing in the latter part of last year that British officials, particularly Prime Minister Tony Blair, the government’s media relations officer and defense minister had distorted (“sexed up”) if not falsified intelligence reports regarding Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction for the purpose of deceiving the public into supporting the preemptive war that mainly the United States and Britain had waged on Iraq.
That the BBC had given this as a news item made what would have seemed far-fetched and false in the natural course of events assume the quality of plausibility and probability. The British public, never very keen on the war, reacted with distrust and hostility toward the government, causing the Prime Minister to lose public support as demonstrated by a massive drop in popularity and approval.
While the government denied the BBC allegation, the name of David Kelly, a veteran government weapons consultant, was revealed as the alleged source of the accusation. His subsequent suicide escalated the crisis high enough to prompt the appointment of a senior judge, Lord Hutton, to conduct an investigation into the matter.
Lord Hutton’s report, released a few days ago, said the government and its officials, from Prime Minister on, were not guilty of any tampering or distorting of intelligence dossiers so as to make the public support the government case for war in Iraq.
In a tumultuous debate in the House of Commons after the result of the investigation was made official, the Prime Minister demanded an apology from those who had elaborated on them (the political opposition, segments of the public and particularly the media). The opposition demanded another investigation into the intelligence reports regarding WMDs, but officially accepted the report.
Within 24 hours of the Lord Hutton report, the BBC issued an apology, and its chairman and president resigned.
Commentary on whether the government was innocent of the charges or not, whether the BBC was correct or not, continues. But the official judgment of appointed investigators and judge has been accepted, as shown by the resignations.
BBC, in the aftermath of the crisis brought on by its new report that intelligence dossiers had been influenced and changed, made a valiant stand behind its correspondent who made them as part of an investigative journalistic effort in a radio broadcast. Freedom of the press was its apparent reason, and valid one.
The truth of the report was not quite dealt with, however. BBC’s failure to investigate the issue internally -- Did the reporter exaggerate or fail to obtain more convincing proof? -- has cost it dearly. Lord Hutton concluded that the distortion was the reporter’s work since no basis for his report was discovered.
BBC has said that there will be a revamp of how the news to be broadcast must be verified and monitored for truth and responsibility. British taxpayers deserve no less. And the world that looks to the BBC for news rightfully needs to be reassured that a similar case will not occur again.
As we embark on an election campaign season, this is an instructive story of truth and responsibility in journalism, particularly the fair and factual treatment of a sensitive issue at a time of crisis. It is instructive how the controversy has been handled with the effect of reinforcing the truth and fairness in journalism. We do hope for truth and responsibility from our media in the coming electoral campaign, as in everyday reporting. If this will not be the case, those adversely affected and public opinion should be heard from in protest. We cannot in a democracy ignore such elementary factors as truth and responsibility in the news and much less, settle for the opposite, or we do ourselves harm.
No institution can make the truth a remote subject of its day-to-day operations, much less the media. The cavalier regard for the truth in circumstances like we have here today is one of the reasons we are ill at ease with the way our world rotates from day to day.
If the BBC can learn a lesson, so should the world. |
