BBC Chairman to Quit over Hutton [David Kelly Investigation]

BBC ^ | 1/28/04 | BBC Staff

[livius]

BBC chairman Gavyn Davies is to resign in the wake of Lord Hutton's criticisms of the corporation's reports.

BBC political editor Andrew Marr said Mr Davies would tell the corporation's governors of his decision when they met at 1700 GMT.

It comes after Lord Hutton said the claim in BBC reports that the government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq's weapons was "unfounded".

And he criticised "defective" BBC editorial processes over defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan's broadcasts of the claims on the Today programme.

Lord Hutton also said he was satisfied Dr Kelly had killed himself after being named as the suspected source of the BBC's controversial weapons dossier story. Prime Minister Tony Blair said the report showed "the allegation that I or anybody else lied to the House or deliberately misled the country by falsifying intelligence of weapons of mass destruction is itself the real lie".

"I simply ask that those that have made it and repeated it over all these months now withdraw it fully, openly and clearly," he said. [Excerpt]

[livius]

Anybody who finds this on the US evening news - please post! (This will probably be followed by a loooong silence.)

[lainde]

bttt

[Neophyte]

Not only the Chairman Gavyn "Mao" Davies should resign, but the whole bunch of damn B(ritish)B(ullsh*t)C(entre) liars... but somehow I don't hold my breath.

[Grampa Dave]

"Al Gore's invention, the Internet, will help illuminate the dank corners where liberal lies are heaped."

The only good thing to come from the Goron, even if he didn't invent it.

[tjwmason]

Even in disgrace, this Brit at least is trying to do the honorable thing by resigning.

The Director General (Greg Dyke) has also resigned now, and the Governors have issued a full apology to the Government, which the Prime Minister has accepted.

[tjwmason]

They were investigated because they are paid by the government. Better that the Brits should cut off their funding then that we should follow their example.

Not quite, there is a licence fee payable by each household with a television, a de facto hypothecated tax. I support the basic system, it worked wonderfully for many years after the foundation of the B.B.C. The problem has been that the corporation is now staffed by left-wing journalists who allow bias to pervade their reports; don't throw the baby out with the bath-water, and don't diss television without the incessant bother of adverts until you've tried it.

Secondly, I cannot conceive of anyother media organisation which would allow its staff to report itself as has been happening recently. The B.B.C. News reporters have been knifing the corporation more generally and almost as veciferously as anybody. The B.B.C. does posses independence, all that it needs is for the independence to be balanced.

[the Real fifi]

Perhaps decades ago before there were commerical broadcasters that system of funding made sense. It doesn't now. Any more than public funding of NPR and PBS does. The inevitable consequence of that kind of funding is arrogance and unaccountability and leftist claptrap.

[tjwmason]

Perhaps decades ago before there were commerical broadcasters that system of funding made sense. It doesn't now. Any more than public funding of NPR and PBS does. The inevitable consequence of that kind of funding is arrogance and unaccountability and leftist claptrap.

Given that the output of the B.B.C. is, in terms of quality generally a million times better than the British commercial broadcasters, and than the American ones too (or at least most of what we get sent over the pond), I heartily disagree.

There may be some inevitable tendancy towards leftism in any large secure corporation; however, revamping the B.B.C. Governors' role of supervision, close monitoring of output by the B.B.C., perhaps making the Governors responsible to a Select Committee or Parliament, all would serve to minimise that effect on its output.

I have no experience of N.P.R. or P.B.S., but from what I read here, Freepers are just as vexed with A.B.C., N.B.C. and C.B.S. It would seem that commercial boradcasters are just as able of leftist bias. Finally, I would point out that this was an argument between the B.B.C. and a leftist government.

[the Real fifi]

And I will remind you that the BBC coverage was so laughably biased that the UK servicemen threw the BBC crew off their ship and tuned into Fox.

Gilligan, at the heart of this mess, was broadcasting the Coalition was failing in its advance at the very moment Fox's Kelly was on a tank in the heart of Baghdad.

It is so vehemently anti-Semitic that it broadcast a program in which the speaker called for the murder of emigrees to Israel from the UN, punished a comedian who made fun of jihadis, and just hired someone from Al-Jazeera .

[the Real fifi]

P.S. Andrewsullivan.com has long had a Beeb watch, noting its outrageously biased reporting.

[tjwmason]

And I will remind you that the BBC coverage was so laughably biased that the UK servicemen threw the BBC crew off their ship and tuned into Fox.

When did I claim that the B.B.C. News was unbiased?

What we need to do is to turn the board of governors into a supervisory board which is independent of the day-to-day work; as hinted at by the leader of the Conservative Party (or would you turn him into a leftist too).

My point is that the structure of the B.B.C. permits high-quality broadcasting. I am wondering how many commercial broadcasters would run the B.B.C. Proms, which are acknowledged as the world's greatest music festival. I am wondering how many commercial broadcasters would produce channels such as B.B.C.4, and B.B.C. Radio3 & 4, because none of the British commercial ones get even close.

You are attacking one element of the B.B.C., i.e., slack control of newsbias, and then you use that to attempt to destroy the whole system. The B.B.C. carries 120 hours of national radio every day; and I am guessing around 100 hours of television; you are talking about one tiny part of that. The answer is to remedy the problem, not turn the whole thing commercial, and let it still stay left-wing.

[the Real fifi]

I believe that the programing you mention could certainly sustain itself as a commercial cable venture. We have hundreds of cable channels here, many with high quality material and they are able to make a go of it.

The idea that you can have "unbiased" news with careful mangament by government appointed monitor is not one I share.

Here, so many dodges are involved with PBS and NPR, the producers of the most popular shows are raking off millions by selling the commercial rights to the shows after the public networks underwrite the productions.

If fine British producers like Brian Lapping can make a go of it without being on the public dole, so can the others.

[capydick]

Honor still means something in the UK. It's a shame that over here its something that get's twisted and spun into a watered down interpretation of the different players involved.

Depends upon what the definition of the word "is" is for example. Definitely no honor in that statement.

[the Real fifi]

Thanks for giving me the best laugh of the day.
Clinton was dishonorable, but perhaps less so than say Galloway.

[capydick]

My pleasure........