Scandalous [BBC]

AEI ^ | July 28 - AEI, August 11, 2003 - NR | David Frum

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Scandalous

 

By David Frum

Posted: Monday, July 28, 2003

ARTICLES

National Review  

Publication Date: August 11, 2003

Everybody seems to agree that the suicide of Dr. David Kelly, the British defense analyst, is a prelude to a scandal--but nobody can quite seem to decide whose scandal it is. The Blair government's? The BBC's? That of Kelly himself?

For an American audience, the scandal is especially hard to understand, because it originated in a British media culture that is unlike anything that exists on this continent. There's no American equivalent of the BBC, which created the scandal. The BBC is like CBS, CNN, NPR, Comedy Central, Time magazine, and every local market's top news station all rolled into one gigantic bureaucracy, paid for out of taxes and tilting to the far left.

The scandal was then sustained by the Daily Mail newspaper. There's no equivalent of it either--a right-leaning national tabloid famous for its hatred of the Blair government, its accusatory style, and its very British assumption that every grief or woe that occurs anywhere in the British Isles is the national government's fault and responsibility.

That's the background. Now the foreground:

Last September, the Blair government released a dossier that argued that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction already and was vigorously seeking to obtain more.

On May 29 of this year, BBC correspondent Andrew Gilligan reported on the Today program--a morning radio broadcast that is one of the most important public-affairs shows in Britain--that a British intelligence official "involved in the preparation of the dossier" was accusing Prime Minister Tony Blair's chief communications aide, Alistair Campbell, of "sexing up" the dossier. Campbell promptly denounced the report as a lie--and launched an internal investigation of the charge.

As the investigation proceeded, suspicion alighted on Dr. Kelly. Kelly was an occasional adviser to the British Ministry of Defense and a former U.N. arms inspector in Iraq.

This discovery was very damaging to the BBC's case, for three reasons: 1) Kelly was not a British intelligence official, as the broadcaster had suggested; 2) Kelly's involvement in the preparation of the dossier had been only very glancing--he was in no position to know what Campbell had done or not done; 3) while Kelly was an expert on biological weapons, he was in no position to know Iraq's overall military capabilities. Moreover, in private conversations with the government, Kelly insisted that he had never impugned Campbell's handling of the dossier. So Campbell took his case public.

The Blair government released a new document detailing Kelly's refutation of the Gilligan report. On background, government briefers provided details that soon identified Kelly to the media. Kelly was hauled before a House of Commons committee. There he denied that he had ever questioned the accuracy of the dossier: "I had no doubt that the veracity of it was absolute."

At the same time, though, Kelly revealed some uncomfortable truths about himself. He acknowledged that he had spoken to Gilligan and probably other BBC reporters. Most observers of his testimony became convinced that Kelly had indeed criticized the dossier to the press, without knowing what he was talking about. This revelation must have been deeply humiliating to a man who by all accounts prided himself on his professionalism. Two days after he concluded his testimony, Kelly killed himself.

The BBC then confirmed that Kelly was the sole source of Gilligan's story--and Kelly's family and the Daily Mail accused the government of hounding Kelly to death: "Proud of Yourselves?" asked the Daily Mail's headline over photographs of Prime Minister Blair and defense secretary Geoffrey Hoon.

But what exactly is it that the Blair government is supposed to have done wrong here? Dr. Kelly's family and antiwar newspapers like the Guardian are insisting that the Blair government somehow betrayed Kelly by failing to protect his privacy and by "bullying" him before a House of Commons committee. Even by the standards of Britain's culture of entitlement, this is some stretch.

Dr. Kelly believed that the Blair government falsified the case for war. Instead of forthrightly declaring his beliefs to the public, he whispered them anonymously to a reporter. Then, when the reporter "sexed up" (to borrow a phrase) the anonymous allegations by presenting Dr. Kelly as a much more important person than he really was, Kelly kept quiet. His silence was a form of complicity in Gilligan's untrue story--and in all the damage that the story did to the credibility of the Blair government and public confidence in the Iraq war.

Now the same antiwar British media that (wrongly) attacked the Blair government for broadcasting untruths is savagely attacking it for catching the media in an untruth. The media that falsely presented themselves as the champions of truth are now the champions of the right to lie anonymously.

The Blair government had no obligation to protect the confidentiality of anybody involved in the Kelly/Gilligan story. As a consultant to the Ministry of Defense, it was Dr. Kelly who owed a duty of secrecy to the government, not the other way around.

If Dr. Kelly's own mental state was too fragile to bear the glare of publicity triggered by the pseudo-scandal he himself set in motion, that is very sad. But journalists who hurl the most appalling abuse at officials of the government are not well placed to act pious when that abuse redounds upon their sources. How can it be acceptable journalistic practice to call a prime minister a liar--and then call him a bully when he seeks to prove that he is not? How can it be acceptable to charge a government with falsifying the case for war--and then to wax indignant when the actual falsifers are exposed?

If there's a scandal here, it is not Blair's. If there is blood on anybody's hands, it is on those of the BBC--and its abettors elsewhere.

David Frum is a resident fellow at AEI.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Thanks to the British bloggers at:

* http://www.biased-bbc.blogspot.com/

for keeping an eye on this taxpayer-funded, unelected, unaccountable, far too powerful, number one answer to the question: "Why do they hate us?"

8 Unapologetically Pro-Coalition News Links and Articles

[DB]

If you own a TV there, you have to pay a tax every year to the BBC for the privilege regardless if you watch the BBC or not...

If you get caught with a TV and you haven’t paid the tax your in big trouble…

And they call that freedom...

[propertius]

I think this is a little unfair on Kelly. Yes he talked to Gilligan, which he admitted to the enquiry. But he also told the investigation "I do not believe I could be the source." This clearly suggests that Gilligan grossly distorted what Kelly told him, making it so unrecognizable that Kelly assumed the BBC had another source. Gilligan probably made up the Campbell 45 minutes, sexing up his story even more. Kelly was foolish but not a traitor. The BBC has behaved in a disgusting manner. Gilligan must go and, under British law, could, I believe, even face criminal charges. The whole corporation must then undergo a massive overhaul...

[razorback-bert]

its very British assumption that every grief or woe that occurs anywhere in the British Isles is the national government's fault and responsibility.

When you live in a socialist country it is.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

You know BBC's out of control when the British Navy bans BBC on their own ships.

Right now these unelected, unaccountable BBC reporters are inciting fear among the military families and the troops on the ground in Iraq by hyping negative news and neglecting to report the progress, the gratitude of the Iraqis, the justness of this war. So is western media, but BBC is especially powerful.

Our civilized press misrepresenting both our honorable troops and their work on the ground daily - month after month - sitting in judgement of those risking their lives for their country during wartime (and their families!) - Watergate pales in comparison to the scandal that is the Western press today.

Amazing so many Brits still grow up to be courageous, honorable defenders of the faith, in spite of the dishonorable BBC indoctrination.

8 Orwell's Warning - The BBC is blind to its own biases  - Opinion Journal ^ | 8/06/03 | MICHAEL GONZALEZ

My favorite media quotes:

''The press has become the greatest power within the western countries,
more powerful than the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary.
One would then ask: By what law has it been elected
and to whom is it responsible?''  -  Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse." - Mark Twain 

"The time is long overdue to stop taking the media, as well as the U.N., so seriously." - Thomas Sowell, The media and the war, April 10, 2003 http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030410.shtml 

[DB]

The Internet is a positive development on this front!

No one has control of it.

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Gilligan must go and, under British law, could, I believe, even face criminal charges.

Is this true? Tell me more, please. I've been wondering what "news" is so important (barring national disasters or other immediate physical risks) - what byline, 24/7 deadline, prize - can excuse a mainstream reporter's use of unverified facts and unreliable sources to create a 'scandalous' banner headlined article that smears someone unjustly or endangers our troops, or our war efforts.

The museum looting, trumpeted as it was around the world just after our troops entered Baghdad to flowers and cheers - should have cost at least one journalist a job, imho. Parroting another journalists work is no excuse.

[DB]

The BBC claims it has audio tapes of the interview supporting their position.

I haven't heard anymore on that front.

[propertius]

Talking to a British lawyer, who admittedly said it would be hard to pin down, my understanding is they could get him on two counts: involuntary manslaughter, first of all. If Gilligan exaggerated what Kelly said to such an extent that it can be shown it drove the man to suicide and if that exaggeration can be shown to be wilful with the intention of causing distress they can get him on that count. It's all to do with a Gaslight style case where a husband drove his wife literally crazy over a period of years by making the house seem haunted that she killed herself.
The second case that could be brought is something to do with an offshoot clause of the Official Secrets Act that prohibits reckless endangerment of national security. Publishing falsehoods about why Britain went to war could, I am told, fall in that category.

Anyway... keeping my fingers crossed.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Now the same antiwar British media that (wrongly) attacked the Blair government for broadcasting untruths is savagely attacking it for catching the media in an untruth. The media that falsely presented themselves as the champions of truth are now the champions of the right to lie anonymously.

I recommend that the British try a system based on the U.S. Constitution:

- everyone is equally entitled before the law to speak, or print, his own opinion--right or wrong.

- no one is required to pay for the publication of anyone else's opinion.

- no one is even required to pay any attention to anyone else's opinion.

I even think we should try it here in the U.S. But hey, that's just me . . .

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse." - Mark Twain 

I'm afraid that reference to "the media," in the mouth of Mark Twain, looks like an anachronism.

The term would not have included radio, TV, or movies in Twain's time. And that leaves me to wonder why anyone would then have used any other term than "the press" or "the newspapers". Or, as I would still say, "journalism."

[mewzilla]

The BBC claims it has audio tapes of the interview supporting their position.

I'm sure they do. Now.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

The BBC claims it has audio tapes of the interview supporting their position.

I haven't heard anymore on that front.

If the BBC has audio tapes which clarify that they are in the right in this case, why then it's just a shame that they don't have the ability to bring that audio tape to the public. Maybe they could post it on a web site . . .

</sarcasm>

[DB]

The BBC article claiming they have the tapes is around here somewhere... I read it here...

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

Official Secrets Act that prohibits reckless endangerment of national security.

I think we could make a case against the American news media by simply downloading the over a hundred CENTCOM security and humanitarian reports....toss 'em on the judge's desk and say, "Judge, do you know how much progress our troops have made with the help of the Iraqi people daily since Baghdad Liberation Day? No. Nor does the rest of the world - which gave nations that previously promised troops and $$$ support an excuse to pull out, gave the Democrats an excuse to attack the CIC during wartime, undermined the will of the misinformed American people, endangered our troops, gave comfort to our enemies."

Case closed.

Thanks for the info. Our press is as 'free' as our educational institutions.

[bernie_g]

The tapes mentioned are apparently those of another BBC reporter, whose report on their flagship Newsnight programme made many of the same charges, but crucially, didn't directly accuse Downing St communications director Alistair Campbell of 'sexing up' the dossier as Gilligan did. So the BBC can presumably prove that Kelly said that the dossier was sexed-up, if not in those exact words, but not that he said Alistair Campbell was responsible for doing so. Campbell is more or less Blair's Karl Rove, so that's important at least in the context of UK politics.

Overview as of this morning, here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/12/uk.hutton/index.html

[anglian]

.

Dr. Kelly believed that the Blair government falsified the case for war. Instead of forthrightly declaring his beliefs to the public, he whispered them anonymously to a reporter. Then, when the reporter "sexed up" (to borrow a phrase) the anonymous allegations by presenting Dr. Kelly as a much more important person than he really was. Idon't think this is true.--by presenting Dr. Kelly as a much more important person than he really was.--I think what the reporter 'sexed up' was - (Kelly believed that the Blair government falsified the case for war.)