Bad Karma at the Beeb!

[jseal]

BBC Director General Greg Dyke's decision today to step down follows Chairman Gavyn Davies' resignation on Wednesday, shortly after Lord Hutton's report on “the Kelly Affair” was published.

The pair quit after the most serious claims in Andrew Gilligan's BBC's reports were branded "unfounded". Lord Hutton criticized "defective" BBC editorial controls over defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan's broadcasts on the Today program

His report cleared the government of "sexing up" its Iraq weapons dossier with unreliable intelligence.

For a BBC booster such as I, this is a bit of a bad scene. How are the other Pixies who rely on the Beeb dealing with this? Big deal? No big deal?

[Irish]

jseal---It sort of goes with them telling their journalists,not to
refer to Saddam as the former dictator of Iraq,but as the former
President of Iraq.As you said,previously,the emphasis should be
on "former"!It just contributes to the" gigantic" bias of the media!
It's really,no big deal,because you hear what you want to hear!
It's probably a good thing that it came out. Irish

[Steph]

It's big news here, too, jseal.

Key questions still remain about Blair's controversial decision to go to war, given the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Irish, it does not "sort of" go with them telling their journalists to refer to Saddam by a different noun than FOX news might.

It's not bias, Irish. It was bad reporting.

Bias is FOX news reporting that Bush can do no wrong. This case is about an unfounded report.

It's like when the NY Times was hit badly last year by Jayson Blair's lies in reporting. It seems to be a trend lately. Reporters, as politicians, sometimes embellish.

The Times withstood the blow to its reputation, BBC will, too (especially since it looks like the entire board will resign).

[jseal]

Steph,

Woah! The entire board? I hadn't heard that one.

I was under the impression that the scope of the Hutton report was restricted to the issues raised by Mr. Gilligan's reporting, and the rather intransigent stand the Beeb took under Messrs Dyke and Davies in standing behind what has been judged "unfounded".

[Irish]

jseal---Sorry!I,evidentally mistakenly,thought that YOU were asking,others opinions.I didn't realise,that people with differing
opinions,would be critiqueing mine.I guess, I'm not allowed a
differing opinion.It won't happen again!I thought the question was about the Beeb.I didn't even know that Fox had anything to do with it.Please,consider me corrected! Irish

[Steph]

Yes, jseal. Here's a link to a Canadian story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040129.wbbc0129_2/BNStory/International/

Irish, I'm laughing here. Read your sig and relax. jseal was asking about a resignation because of misreporting. Calling Saddam a dictator has NOTHING to do with this thread.

I've studied journalism and some newspapers (again NOT BECAUSE OF BIAS) use Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. before a name. The argument always comes up - do you end up referring to Hitler as Mr. Hitler.

[lakritze]

What Mr.Blair and Mr.Bush and their whole cabintes need after they leave office,(if and when) is a nice long trip down to the ICC for a well deserved war crimes trial. "His report cleared the government of "sexing up" it's iraq weapons dossier with unreliable intelligence." The same thing is going on here with David Kay's admittion that there were no WMD in Iraq but blames our inellegience and not Bush for using the information to go to war.In my opinion,we are witnessing a cover up planned by both governments to pass the buck.

[jseal]

Lakritze,

The allegation that Lord Hutton is involved in a cover up is one which should not be made lightly. While what you have asserted may be true, it would be nice if you provided some details to support your conclusion.

It was the publication of unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations that placed the BBC in this difficult situation, was it not?

[seaker]

Oh jseal, if only it were that simple.
To the vast majority of people in this country 'Hutton' LOOKS like a whitewash. Is he realy saying that Blair, the M.O.D., the cabinet , the J.I.C. and everyone else played no part in this farce.

[seaker]

The B.B.C. made mistakes that is for sure but, there seems to be little dout that some changes were made to the report. Little things like changing the word 'maybe' to 'are' ;and what is worse by a spin doctor.

[jseal]

seaker,

True enough - few things in life are as simple as they seem, but what I think I am hearing is that there CAN BE NO exoneration of the government.

It seems reasonable to me for the BBC, or any other news reporting organization to question the government. Lord Aston said many years ago that power tends to corrupt, and insofar as the BBC, the NY Times, or The Straits Times keep their respective governments on the up and up, all the better for us.

But with power comes responsibility, and that responsibility would also properly be applied to the BBC, NY Times, or anyone who would make “a grave allegation and attacked the integrity of the government” . It seems that over the last few years that the editorial process in several of these institutions has become lackadaisical. Look here in America at the rash of invented reporting which has come to light.

I am sure that neither of us wishes to be misled by the BBC any more than by our respective governments.

This is not to say that the newspapers should avoid investigating the powerful. Not at all – just look at what the Economist did with the French ex-Minister of Finance (I think that was his position). An excellent job! He sued the newspaper for defamation after they ran the story, they stuck to their guns, and WHAM He becomes part of a mega-million dollar settlement!

If a newspaper can be right, it can be wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3437315.stm

To their credit, Messrs Dyke and Davies promptly stood down when the judgment went against their organization. I hope the BBC, which I unabashedly tout to all who will listen, will take this as an opportunity to regroup and improve.

[PantyFanatic]

<---- *sits back,.... lights cigarette, smiles and watches* -------^
:rolleyes:

[jseal]

PantyFanatic,

Don't forget to turn your dial to Hong Kong.

[Steph]

* BBC apologises as Dyke quits *
Director general Greg Dyke quits as the BBC apologises "unreservedly" for any errors in the David Kelly affair.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3441181.stm

* Governors: BBC must move forward *
The BBC governors say it is time for the corporation to move forward following Greg Dyke's resignation.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3442023.stm

* Tough time for BBC as Dyke resigns *
BBC political editor Andrew Marr on the Greg Dyke resignation following the Hutton report.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/uk_politics/3441945.stm

[Steph]

The thing is that the NY Times and the BBC have looked within as did the Washington Post when it was discovered that a reporter who won a Pulitzer had fabricated a source.

I've seen more than one person throw the phrase "media bias" around and it does raise my ire.

The media are not looked on highly but walk a mile . . . also, you have to look at the general population. People buy magazines with J Lo in them.

People will throw around media bias with this case but it is highly serious. Why? I'm not even sure. It's the first time I can ever remember the BBC admitting fault. It's the first time the BBC has been in hot water, is it not?

Not a bad record at all.

[Vigil]

The BBC chose the wrong battle to have with our Government that the majority of people here feel are not being as straight as Brits would like.

I think that it was a case of desire to satisfy public demand to show up the spin that clouded their normally rigorous journalistic judgement.

Whether our media will win the war though, is going to be the interesting question.

You would be ill advised to trust politicians above the BBC. Remember that noone owns them which is almost unique I think. So I can live with the odd cock-up.

[jseal]

Originally posted by Vigil
...Remember that noone owns them...

Vigil,

The voting public owns those they elect.

[jseal]

Originally posted by Steph
...Not a bad record at all.

Steph,

Yes, thank heavens.

[jseal]

Steph,

I was in error when I suggested that the culprit was a French Finance Minister. Actually, it was Jean Peyrelevade who resigned his presidency of the French bank Crédit Lyonnais due to The Economist’s exposure of his violation of American banking law in the “Executive Life Affair”. He was, indeed, a party of a mega-million dollar settlement. Interestingly, he was a close associate of Jacques Chirac's. Another of French President Chirac’s associates, the ex-Prime Minister Alain Juppe, has just been convicted of corruption.

http://www.challenges-eco.com/articles/p216/a231389.html

BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan has resigned in the wake of the criticism directed at him in the Hutton report. Mr. Gilligan conceded some of his story was wrong, and apologized for it.

[LixyChick]

Originally posted by Steph
* BBC apologises as Dyke quits *
Ya know................I always say I don't get out much. In essence, what I truly mean is, I don't keep up with as much of the goings on in the world that I should in order to enlighten myself and hold sophiscated conversations with those around me. Not that I know many people in this neck of the woods that would have a clue of this thread's content!!!!.....but I digress....

And so..............I have been reading this thread from it's concept.....trying to understand the gist of the woe it seemed to want to explain. I scrolled down the pages, reading everything and digesting it all and comprehending what I could, in hopes that it would ALL make sense in the end (I don't read the newspaper....but that's another story)......till I got to the first part of Steph's contribution in her reply.......of which I highlighted above......and I started to laugh and thought to myself........."talk about choosing yours words"!!!!!

Now I'm wondering......what does this say about me? Or better yet......maybe dyke is just another misconstrued American slang like..."fag".......and, in that case............nevermind.....let the headlines speak for themselves!

Hey guys.........in my long winded way, I just wanted to say........TY for enlightenment! :D

[Vigil]

Originally posted by LixyChick

Hey guys.........in my long winded way, I just wanted to say........TY for enlightenment! :D [/B]

I wonder if its worse being Mrs. Dyke?

The BBC is a globally venerated institution that has brought the world such classics as The Goons and Monty Pyton through to the Office which won the comedy prizes at the recent Golden Globes.

They began as a public broadcasting service and have remained so because in the UK you have to have a license for TV - it's about $275 a year (you get a $10 discount if you are blind which I've always found a rather bad joke). Anyway they are able to be completely independent and defend this to the very end even when they have governors who are known to be politically sympathetic as was the case recently. Sympathetic that is to Mr. Blair's camp which is why this battle between the two parties re-inforces the BBC's principled stand.

One reporter was recently found to have been unable to justify a part of a story that the BBC ran at six in the morning on a quality but low audience radio station. The governors backed their journalist against the government but the subsequent report into our leading expert in WMD's death found that the reporter's story was unfounded.

It is interesting why our leading guy on WMD should be talking to an investigative journalist without authorisation and unfounded is not quite the same as saying that what was alleged was untrue.

The suicide of Dr. Kelly the expert had all the hallmarks of a tragedy born out of the bullying, arrogant and self interested government that many have seen Mr. Blair's clique to be.

However unsatisfactory the findings of the enquiry, the BBC's Chairman, Chief Executive and Reporter have all resigned. I can't remember the last time a politician had this nobility - but there you go.

[jseal]

Oh, I don’t know. If memory serves me, Messrs Dyke, Davies and Gilligan have now joined a substantial group of people who have stepped down for one reason or another.

The list below may jog a few memories. These reasons for these resignations of politicians range from nakedly political, through health, financial, sex, and legal.

Australia:
1966: Sir Robert Menzies
1997: Senator Cheryl Kernot
2002: Pauline Hanson
England:
1963: John Profumo
1973: Lord Lambton
1972: Sir Nicholas Fairbairn
1986: Michael Heseltine
1990: Margaret Thatcher
1990: Geoffrey Howe
1993: Norman Lamont
1998: Trade and Industry Secretary Peter Mandelson
1998: Trade Paymaster General, Geoffrey Robinson
France:
1969: Charles de Gaulle
Russia:
1999: Boris Yeltsin
United States:
1973: Spiro Agnew
1974: Richard M. Nixon
1998: Newt Gingrich

[Vigil]

Some of the above did jump, Jseal, I grant you. But most were pushed.

How dull life would have been without the above list.

Peter Mandelson has resigned twice already, and looks like he's coming back again. I think that he's a fascinating man, charming, intelligent, articulate, acutley honed politcal skills, but he just seems to be fated to mess it up. He could be our first gay prime minister if we were another country.

[jseal]

Vigil,

Let us hope that there will be no more blood letting at the BBC over this unfortunate incident. I hate to see the BBC beat up so.

As you suggested he could be PM, Peter Mandelson is probably off-topic. At leisure though, please send me some information. I’ve not heard of him, as the US news organizations seldom identify foreigners of less stature than head of government. Tory? Labor? Liberal Democrat – oh sorry, you did say he could be PM.

[jseal]

Gentlefolk,

I don’t know how many of you read The Economist, but for those who do, Bagehot has a pretty good essay on this subject. It is on page 56 of the February 7th issue, titled "St. Gregory of the Beeb".