[A-List] UK state: the BBC

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

One of the more grotesque ironies of the current Hutton whitewash fiasco is
that none other than "Lord" William Rees-Mogg has been fulminating about the
attack upon investigative journalism this represents. In an earlier
incarnation it was Mystic Mogg, as deputy chairman of the BBC governors, who
hung Alasdair Milne out to dry and forced the BBC to capitulate in the libel
case brought by MPs Neil Hamilton and Gerald Howarth over the Panorama
programme, "Maggie's Militant Tendency", which detailed the links of both to
far right organisations like the Monday Club, home to reactionaries like
George Kennedy Young, with whose faction Howarth's mother was aligned.
Financed by "Sir" James Goldsmith, these two went to the libel court and got
an out of court settlement thanks to the courageous pursuit of truth upheld
by Rees-Mogg. The legacy of this capitulation and the subsequent
Birtification of the BBC is this foul spectacle of face-saving and toadying
in which the weakest link in the chain is effectively disowned by those
conveniently wise after the event. Now the pressure for self-censorship is
going to be even more intense, which serves the state interest very nicely
indeed.

-----

BBC bosses set to blame it all on 'off-piste' Gilligan

Matt Wells, media correspondent
Thursday February 5, 2004
The Guardian

Andrew Gilligan's former bosses at the BBC are preparing to blame him for
the mistakes in the Iraq dossier story that led to the death of David Kelly.

At an internal investigation in the aftermath of the Hutton report, they
will characterise him as a "rogue reporter" who "went off piste" during his
infamous 6.07am broadcast on May 29 last year.

Furious at Lord Hutton's claim that editorial procedures were "defective",
they will argue that Gilligan's notes were checked and a script agreed
before he went on air last May, but that the reporter failed to stick to it.

Gilligan, who quit the BBC last Friday, is understood to be frustrated at
being saddled with most of the blame. "If he was a rogue reporter, he would
hardly have lasted four years at the BBC," a friend said.

He will not be part of the internal "process" - the BBC refuses to call it
an investigation or an inquiry - which will seek to establish whether there
were any systemic editorial failures in the run-up to broadcast and the
aftermath.

Many at the BBC believe Lord Hutton's inquiry was defective in this regard,
since he did not call the editor of the Today programme, Kevin Marsh, or the
head of radio news, Stephen Mitchell. Marsh, Mitchell and others at the BBC
are determined to show that they made all the necessary checks before the
Gilligan story was broadcast. "Understandably, people like Kevin and Stephen
want their day in court," said one BBC source.

Despite the claim that managers did not check Gilligan's personal organiser
notes for a month, BBC sources say that Marsh did see a set of notes entered
into the BBC's internal computer system on May 28. These notes were used to
script the following day's 7.32am "two-way" (where a journalist responds to
questions relating to his or her story), and did not contain the assertion
that the government inserted the 45-minute claim into the Iraq dossier
knowing it was wrong.

BBC sources say Gilligan should have had the 7.32am script in front of him
when he made the 6.07am broadcast. "That's the convention," said one Today
programme source. Another BBC source added: "There's this idea that the 6.07
wasn't scripted, but Andrew should have had the 7.32 script in front of him,
and should not have deviated from it."

Marsh and Mitchell are understood to fear losing their jobs at the end of
the BBC inquiry. Part of the desire to blame Gilligan can be attributed to
this concern. "There is something of a dog-eat-dog atmosphere," one source
said.

But more senior figures at the BBC believe that neither Marsh nor Mitchell
will be forced out. "Kevin clearly performed the editorial checks that would
be expected of him. But you can't legislate for a rogue reporter who goes
off piste," one said.

There is a feeling at the BBC that the corporation backed itself into a
corner at the Hutton inquiry by publicly throwing its weight behind
Gilligan. Now, the BBC is struggling to explain which parts of Lord Hutton's
report it accepts. "At some point, we are going to have to say that we don't
agree with all this shit," one of the key players said.

Gilligan has decided not to make any further public statements on the issue
for the time being. He is believed to be resigned to being blamed by his
former bosses.
A friend said: "It would be really, really unfair to Andrew, on top of all
the other unfair things that have happened. Kevin Marsh isn't a bad man, but
obviously they are all trying to protect their careers. But the essential
problem was the failure to recognise what sort of story this was. That was
an editorial failure."

-----

Journalism under threat from Hutton, warns Rees-Mogg
Guardian Online
Ciar Byrne
Thursday January 29, 2004

Investigative journalism is under threat from Lord Hutton's report, Lord
Rees-Mogg, a former vice chairman of the BBC's board of governors has
warned.

His fears were backed by Channel 4 News presenter Jon Snow, NUJ general
secretary Jeremy Dear and the Daily Telegraph's political editor George
Jones.

There should be no further resignations from the BBC's board of governors,
said Lord Rees-Mogg, a former editor of the Times, however he added that the
director general, Greg Dyke, bore greater responsibility for the
corporation's mistakes than Gavyn Davies, who stepped down as chairman last
night.

"I don't think you could carry out investigative journalism if you took Lord
Hutton's view," said Lord Rees-Mogg.

"I think the BBC should not now act in a hurry. The initial apologies have
been made. The BBC needs to review at leisure what's happened, what's gone
wrong and then make a considered statement," he told BBC News 24.

In the daily email sent out by Mr Snow before the Channel 4 News is
broadcast, he wrote: "Whatever mistakes were made, government clashes with
the state broadcaster are dangerous; there are implications for every
journalist."

"This is one of the most worrying and difficult days of my broadcasting
career," he added.

"We could find that the death of David Kelly ends up robbing Britain of the
best public service broadcaster in the world."

"There's a very serious concern about the threat to journalism from the
Hutton report," said Jeremy Dear.

"It was one-sided and selective. It will not only make journalists more
timid, but also make whistleblowers more afraid to come forward," he added.

George Jones, the Daily Telegraph's political editor, said he believed Lord
Hutton was "launching quite a big offensive to try and change the
journalistic landscape, to say that journalists have to be more trusting of
politicians".

"It's going to make investigative journalism far more difficult,
particularly by the BBC. I hope that journalists will not be cowed and will
shine a very sharp searchlight on the workings of government," Jones said.

However, the media ethics charity Presswise backed Lord Hutton's criticisms
of journalism and said his report should act as a "wake-up call" to the
media and should be "taken to heart in newsrooms everywhere".

"It is not just the BBC that must look to its laurels. The temptation to
confuse conjecture with fact, over-egg the pudding, and run with a rumour
rather than risk losing the edge over the competition by double checking all
the facts is common throughout the trade," said the Presswise director, Mike
Jempson.

"It should be a cause of great concern to all journalists that the most
trusted journalistic institution in the world has been found wanting. Rather
than rush to its defence or join in the kicking it has received, newsrooms
everywhere should be considering how they can help to rebuild the compact of
trust that should exist between citizens and journalists," Jempson added.