Reporting Hutton
I’m a bit bewildered by the reporting of the Hutton Inquiry. From what I’ve read of the transcript itself, all three BBC journalists who had contact with David Kelly have presented strong evidence to indicate that their reports all came from the same source, singing the same song, modified only very slightly to coincide with the source’s own professional pedantry. The general media, however, have proclaimed that Kelly denied that he said that Alastair Campbell exaggerated claims to suit the pro-War case, and that, as a result, the BBC were lying. But Kelly did say it was Downing Street’s Press Office, which is synonymous with Campbell, as he admits himself. So where’s the discrepancy?
And Susan Watts’ refusal to give in to her bosses pressure to reveal her source does not show that the BBC is divided. It shows that the bosses were under intense political pressure and so keen to repair the slightest crack, as demonstrated in the email to Gilligan saying he lacked judgement in the language he used. ITN’s evening news read out this isolated, private email to Gilligan twice within a minute, and played down Kelly’s substantive point that the government exaggerated - yes, sexed up - claims of Iraq’s [non-existent] WMDs.
So is it any surprise that broadcasters were refused permission to show the inquiry? The general public now has to rely for its knowledge on news corporations with an anti-Public Service agenda to advance. Polly Toynbee is right to say such close analysis of journalistic methods is absurd, although it’s being seized upon with relish by the right-wing press who themselves don’t give two hoots for accuracy or integrity.
But it still bewilders me: the BBC was essentially pro-War.
Other Splinters posts of interest:
- The Hutton Inquiry: no need to bother now
- Kelly Mourns Giuliani
- New Pilger film
- Close textual analysis
- So …
