Posted on 07/19/2003 7:46:38 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
If Dave Kelly is dead, he is dead because of something that happened in journalism which means that we all have to look to our consciences," said Tom Mangold, a television journalist and friend of the Ministry of Defence scientist at the centre of the "sexed up" dossier row.
But the BBC was adamant yesterday that its conscience was clear.
The Today correspondent Andrew Gilligan admitted that the allegation on May 29 that the Iraq dossier had been "sexed up" came from a single source.
The Government immediately accused the BBC of shoddy journalism. It also criticised the corporation for failing to give it sufficient warning before broadcasting Gilligan's report.
On the latter point, the corporation initially hinted that it might concede. But after an internal inquiry, it now believes that it did act properly as the Today programme telephoned the MoD three times on May 28 to discuss the story that it was planning to run.
The use of a single source, however, is more contentious.
One television news executive said he was "surprised" that the BBC was not more concerned over Mr Gilligan's failure to get his story independently corroborated.
"There's always a temptation for journalists to inflate the importance of a source, while the source often likes to make out he knows more than he does," he said.
Most editors agree there are no hard and fast rules on the use of sources and it all depends on whether the reporter trusts them. In this instance, the BBC points to the fact that Mr Gilligan's source had provided several stories in the past that had all proved correct.
The corporation also insists that the story was subject to an "extremely rigorous [checking] process" before it was aired. BBC-watchers have also been struck by the determination with which Greg Dyke, the director-general, Richard Sambrook, the head of news, and Gavyn Davies, the chairman, have stood by Mr Gilligan in the face of intense political pressure.
A source said: "Richard and Greg would not have done what they've done unless they were absolutely convinced that they were right and [Alastair] Campbell was wrong."
Circumstantial evidence points to Dr Kelly being Mr Gilligan's source. But if he wasn't, why did the BBC not just say so, as No 10 has repeatedly demanded?
"The Government wanted to get into a game of throwing up names and getting us to deny them," said a prominent BBC figure. "That is ludicrous. We took a position - and a principled one - that sources are confidential. It was right to do so."
He added: "The real issue here is not whether the story was right but whether the BBC was right to broadcast it. There is no doubt that we were."
BBC motto: "We never let the truth get in the way of a good story."
Prairie
And their motives are transparent.
ADMITTED? The word CLAIMED would be more appropriate. Unless, of course, the "single source" is none other than himself.
I think it was Benny Hill.
Exactly.
I'll bet CNN says the same thing about their toadyism with the Butcher of Baghdad, too.
Face it: news organizations have NO conscience! To suggest they do is in itself unconscionable.
-Jay
For example, Rudolph Hess, 1942....
Someone may say that it is not good to put all power in one hand, since Adolf Hitler might use his authority arbitrarily and thoughtlessly!To that I can only say: The conscience of a moral personality is a far greater protection against the misuse of an office than is the supervision of parliament or the separation of powers. I know no one who has a stronger conscience, or is more true to his people, than Adolf Hitler.
[snip]
The Führer's highest court is his conscience and his responsibility to his people and to history.
They learned that Truth is what ever you want it to be.
Sounds like they are trying to evade responsibility, all right.
This is reminiscent of, It is the will of Landru--or--He is not of the body.
It sounds weird to use the singular construction "conscience is" with the collective phrase (which is plural in England), "say BBC."
If they weren't guilty they could be saying "Our consciences are clear."
Guilt ultimately belongs to individuals in a group.
The former Nazis loved using the excuse that they were only doing what they were told to do for the good of the nation/group. They insisted that they were not guilty as individuals.
I have had to turn to The Guardian and The Telegraph to get the real story. Headline from todays Sydney Morning Herald: "'Obsessed' BBC blamed for Kelly's Death". You won't find that headline on the 'unbiased' BBC's website.
The BBC is like our NPR and our Disney Channel. Like NPR, they are anti-conservative. And like our Disney Channel, they are promoting interracial unions and a multicultural/multiracial society every chance they get.
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.