Posted on 04/23/2005 4:15:23 PM PDT by Cableguy
Are you coming on to me?
Mandelson fires warning at BBC over 'dirty tricks'
By Matt Born
(Filed: 09/02/2005)
It was the kind of comment that on paper looks innocent enough, but coming from the lips of Peter Mandelson in an interview with the BBC Today programme, it bears the unmistakeable glint of unsheathed steel.
"I think we all know where that led before," he replied evenly as the presenter Caroline Quinn pressed him on whether Alastair Campbell was orchestrating a dirty tricks campaign.
That Mr Mandelson was referring to the devastating row with Today over the "sexed-up" Iraq weapons dossier that led to the resignations of the BBC's chairman and director general was not in any doubt.
Less clear though, was what his veiled threat might mean, or how the BBC would respond. Was Mr Mandelson simply sticking up for an old friend he felt was being traduced? Or was it a deliberate shot across the BBC's bows as the election phoney war gathers pace?
Conspiracy theorists have not had to strain hard to discern sinister hands at work. Mr Mandelson's interjection on Today coincided with revelations that the EU commissioner had written to Michael Grade, the BBC chairman, accusing the Today presenter John Humphrys of anti-European bias.
Then, hours later on Monday, Mr Campbell's expletive-rich assessment of BBC journalists was sent, apparently inadvertently, to Newsnight.
But this time at least, suspicions of an orchestrated campaign to cow the BBC appear to be wide of the mark.
Though the timing of the leaking of Mr Mandelson's letter to Mr Grade remains open to question, the letter itself was written some months ago - the EU commissioner's unsolicited contribution to an inquiry by the BBC governors into the corporation's reporting on Europe.
As for Mr Campbell, even BBC executives believe it was a genuine mistake that the e-mail ended up in the Newsnight inbox, and was not an attempt to intimidate them. "I think [Campbell] was pretty mortified when he realised what he'd done. But he accepted perfectly that we would use it. Hutton had no bearing on our decision-making. It was simply a really good story about a colourful character."
The BBC was anxious "not to stir things up" yesterday. Suggestions that the corporation had leaked the full e-mail correspondence to the press in order to embarrass Mr Campbell were hotly denied.
"It was absolutely not revenge by the BBC," said a Newsnight source.
Which just leaves Mr Mandelson's remark to Caroline Quinn. "I was a little surprised by what he said," Humphrys told The Daily Telegraph. "It did sound remarkably like a threat. But that may just be the way he speaks; he can sound threatening even when he's being friendly.
"And it's unlikely they would want to repeat the exercise of [Hutton]."
It just shows that the Beeb isn't creative enough. At least they could have produced some sort of 1960s memo on MS Word!
Perhaps they intended to use the footage on some form of a Python revival?
"You're a plant"
"I am not."
"Well then, what's that BBC press badge all about?"
"What press badge?"
"That press badge on your jacket!"
"Oh that? That's me Mum's arts and crafts style broache. It's Norwegian..."
If that is the case, then the British Arts and Sciences Broadcasting Network should be created and the BBC should be allowed to die.
Government in a free and democratic society has no business financing a news network.
Err, Mandleson's a leftie. You're barrage of random articles are not really doing you any favours. Did you just put 'BBC' into Google?
Is this activity prosecutable in the UK?
We report. You decide.
There is a distinction between a "public" and a "private" person. Private persons have some protection from slander and exposure. A public person is someone who enters the public arena voluntarily like a politician, author, or entertainer for example. A politician is the least protected of all, or so it seems, as any lie, fabricated or manipulated incident can be untruthfully reported without consequences. Only if the information was procured illegally is anything prosecutable. For instance if an official US government document was forged and the information on it was false, the crime would be forgery not slander. Without a forged document the false information would not be a criminal or civil violation.
The same false information released regarding a private person would be prosecutable civilly.
American news media regularly engineer incidents or confrontations designed to discredit the target or generate an illegal response. This is a standard lefty tactic here and is always protected under "freedom of the press".
It's the Broadcasting Act that mandates impartial coverage during elections (by broadcast media only, no such requirement is made of print media). I'm not sure that this stunt, whatever the ins and outs, will be covered by that particular act as this doesn't relate to anything that has actually been broadcast.
Sorry, not a public school type, old boy!
heh
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.