Shaken BBC prepares to defend its reputation

Financial Times ^ | July 20 2003 | Tim Burt, Media Editor in London

[demlosers]

The BBC will this week embark on the largest damage limitation exercise, arguably, of its 76-year history.

A team of top executives and in-house lawyers will begin assembling documents, transcripts and tapes relating to the intelligence dossiers on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the corporation's reliance on David Kelly, the government scientist found dead last week, as its main source for those stories.

Ostensibly, the team is preparing evidence for the judicial inquiry into the circumstances surrounding Mr Kelly's death. In reality, their work could determine the future regulation, editorial controls and structure of the publicly-funded broadcaster.

"Everybody is completely reeling from this," according to one insider. "We are putting together a team to look at each stage of what happened."

The stakes could not be higher.

At the BBC's central London headquarters, executives led by Greg Dyke, director general, are determined to prevent the affair from escalating into a campaign to reform the BBC.

Britain's publicly-funded broadcaster - which receives £2.66bn a year in licence fee income - fears that a broader shake-up could jeopardise its worldwide reputation and international expansion plans.

The inquiry coincides with intense media scrutiny both at home and abroad. Sky News, the satellite channel controlled by BSkyB - in which Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation holds a controlling stake - last week announced the resignation of a senior correspondent found to have faked a story during the Iraq war.

In the US, some TV networks have been criticised for flag-waving and unquestioning coverage of the conflict.

In Britain on Sunday, Gerald Kaufman, chairman of the House of Commons culture committee, on Sunday called for Ofcom, the new media regulator, to take over regulation of BBC editorial content from the corporation's board of governors.

"The corporation has a great deal to answer for. They started all this," he said. "The first thing they should do is apologise and conduct a rigorous internal inquiry."

Ofcom is already due to begin a review of public service broadcasting next year; it will ask searching questions of the BBC. But the government has no plans to extend Ofcom's remit, to cover BBC accuracy and impartiality.

The challenge for Mr Dyke is to make sure the government does not change its mind. Failure to do so would overshadow BBC preparations for defending its public service charter, due to expire at the end of 2006.

Up to now, the BBC has won acclaim for defending its independence. But Mr Kelly's death dramatically altered the importance of the slanging match with Downing Street.

The row began on May 29, when Andrew Gilligan, defence correspondent for the Today radio programme, quoted "a British official who was involved in the preparation of the [intelligence] dossier" who claimed it was "transformed in the week before it was published, to make it sexier".

Alastair Campbell, Downing Street's communications director, was furious. He accused the BBC of branding Tony Blair a liar and suggesting the prime minister led the country to war on a false premise.

In briefings, media interviews and parliamentary committees meetings, government ministers queued up to attack the BBC. The corporation, in turn, claimed Downing Street was deflecting attention its justification for going to war.

Mr Kelly, whom the ministry of defence named as the likely source for the BBC stories, was caught between the two.

Until on Sunday, the corporation refused to confirm whether the UN weapons inspector was the source for the Gilligan report.

The BBC decision, however, served only to increase the pressure on Mr Kelly. Sunday's admission that he was the principal source for both Mr Gilligan and another BBC report leaves the corporation exposed on several other fronts.

Mr Kelly told members of Parliament that from his contacts with Mr Gilligan "I do not see how he could make the authoritative statement that he was making from the comments that I made".

Mr Gilligan is now on "gardening leave". One official said: "He will not be broadcasting for the moment".

After an emergency meeting of the governors on July 6, Mr Davies said corporation guidelines allowed reporters, in exceptional circumstances, to use single anonymous sources if they were "senior intelligence sources".

Richard Sambrook, director of news, meanwhile, had told the Today programme: "We've always said that we had one senior and credible source in the intelligence services".

Mr Kelly was not a member of the intelligence services.

The head of news - who did not know Mr Kelly's identity at the time - now admits he was wrong to make that statement.

The governors have ordered a review of impartiality rules. And the teams working on Charter renewal are expected to include a detailed case for the independence of BBC news.

All that could be undermined by a damning verdict from the judicial inquiry. But the new BBC team, which will be led by a non-news executive, intends to prevent that outcome.

"We would be surprised if this was allowed to contaminate the broader future of the BBC," according to one BBC director. "But we are leaving nothing to chance."

[George W. Bush]

They mention the 2.66 billion pounds of license-fee income. My understanding is that they force this tax on all Britons to pay for BBC broadcasting.

It is impossible to have independent media under such a system. It would be like America forcing us to pay a fee for CNN, no matter what they broadcast or how much we opposed them.

BBC is anti-free-speech by definition. At the very least, Brits should be able to direct their fee toward Sky if they don't like the BBC.

[George W. Bush]

We are obliged in the UK to buy its drivel, or face a £1000 fine!!

So how much in pounds and in dollars do you have to spend on the BBC license fee? This would be comparable to Americans being forced to pay for the Left-liberal PBS and NPR broadcast systems (which exist at the margins in a capitalist America)?

[Anybody seen Ivan lately? I've missed his posts from the Brit papers.]

[OldFriend]

Some people think that in order to bash the BBC they have to defend Kelly. NOT TRUE.........

[OldFriend]

We can only assume that Blair is going to take off the gloves. Hopefully, it will be more than denying funding.

[aristeides]

Financial Times has been critical of Blair. This report looks objective.

[cyncooper]

I did a quick internet search on Gilligan and found that he has been reporting from the Middle East for years--certainly time enough to have a LOT of contacts. He also has a reputation for going after the government and making lots of accusations. Could he be their Scott Ritter? I also do not buy this Dr. Kelly is such a gentle man who is so shy and unaccustomed to grilling.

Twigs, your observation is why I've said it is more likely Kelly did tell Gilligan more or less what he reported (at least gave Gilligan the springboard, and perhaps the reporter "sexed it up" even more, but the talking points were given). Kelly would know what type of agenda Gilligan operated from, yet that is who is chose to meet secretly with.

[hoyaloya]

Help me out here. What is the big ruccus about the government leaking his name? If Bob works at the CIA and is secretly meeting with the Dallas Morning News, revealing, say, how to duplicate the best missile technology we have and is caught or voluntarily reveals himself . . . under what logic should he expect to get to live in anonimous bliss thereafter?

I would certainly hope a spy's name and picture would get plastered everywhere . . . making their and their family's futures very unpleasant. What about rapists, or murderers, or blue collar criminals? Should they get to live in anonimity lest they be embarrassed?

Yes, Mr. Kelly is a little different. He is a whistleblower . . . arguably. The only problem is he said he wasn't a whistleblower and that he didn't say what they said he said. To argue that he was this poor little soul being manipulated by the big bad government is to say that Bob should be able to disclose whatever he wants to the Dallas Morning News, so long as he properly contextualizes his information as "whistlblower material."

Ahh. If only the Rosenbergs had thought of that defense - I can see it now. Ethel claiming "the United States has represented to the world that its xyz bomb is composed of some granules of hyperixide. That is a lie and fabrication - meant to enrich the pockets of the hyperixide miners. In truth, xyz bomb is made by combining 27 granules of hyperixide with 53 granules of itherixide . . . in a 7" chromium ethide tube." The NYT and BBC would be all over that one.

[John_11_25]

I paid my licence fee while living in London, and complained every time I do so.

However this is much bigger than that, if we do not have a free media away from government stong arming, then we are going backwards and not forward into the Future, not unlike Horwells 1984.

[hoyaloya]

I repeat - what is the big deal about leaking his name? As you hold yourself out as versed in this matter, my question seems rather simple and easy to answer.

Without an answer from you . . . I hardly think we want anonymous bureaucrats making challenges in the media regarding classified information. If there wasn't a price to be paid, the very notion of civil service comes unwound. Imagine - an unappointed and unamed bureaucrat doesn't like a policy decision and makes claims about classified materials.

What to do? The only means of rebuttal is to challenge the veracity of the accuser or release classified information. It's impossible to do the former if the person is anonymous. The later, well, seems ridiculous. Yet, that's precisely what the left has asked for, repeatedly. I don't recall the left running regular attack pieces attacking Saddam for not releasing information which could have avoided invasion.

If the information is so important that it simply must be released to the public . . . show some guts and put your name behind it. Some weasel talking to the media about classified information . . . willing to talk only if he doesn't face consequences sounds, well, like nothing more than politics. Character means standing up for something, even if it will cost you. Either Mr. Gilligan lied (in which case Mr. Kelly showed little character in not challenging the allegations) or Mr. Kelly lied (in which case it sounds like all Mr. Kelly cared about was making sure he got his $). I've heard Europeans with gumption left Europe decades or centuries ago. This whole mess is one more notch on that argument. Somehow I don't feel too sorry for a bureaucrat trying to influence policy anonymously.

[AndyMeyers]

The media's ability to get away with tall tales and not have to worry about libel and slander laws is because of the Supreme Court Decision "Sullivan v. New York Times", where the court overturn 400 years of English Common Law and ruled that it is permissable to lie, as long as you say it is necessary for the furtherence of "public debate".

The "Actual Malice" requirement of the "Sullivan" decision is so high a legal hurdle that the media is for all intent and purposes immune from a damage award to someone whose reputation and life they have destroyed with lies.

I did not know just how ridiculous the "Sullivan" decision was until I actually took the time and read it. You would be shocked at the legal reasoning which formed the basis of the decision.

Until the "Sullivan" decision is overturned and we get back to a "lie that is damaging is actionable" that had held for many centuries we will continue to have the media smearing conservatives with whom the media disagrees.

[nuconvert]

"executives led by Greg Dyke, director general, are determined to prevent the affair from escalating into a campaign to reform the BBC."

You mean like maybe add a few right wing voices to the staff?

"...fears that a broader shake-up could jeopardise its worldwide reputation..."

Well, its reputation is in the toilet already.

[Wolfstar]

Thanks very much, "Andy," for posting the information about the Sullivan vs. New York Times decision. I didn't know which Supreme Court case was the source of today's ridiculous state of affairs in which the media can do anything they damn well please without fear of legal consequences. I just know it's extreme effect.

You can be a private person today, and have legal protections (such as they are) against libel and slander. But if you're caught up in something the media chooses to focus on tomorrow, and your name gets in the papers or on TV, suddenly you're a "public" person and all your rights as regards libel and slander pretty much go out the window.

I wish it were possible to make every single citizen aware of just how corrupt much of the media is: how they lie routinely, invent sources, make up direct quotes no living person ever uttered, sensationalize information to — what's that phrase the British have been using? — sex up the latest hot tale. How they shine the white-hot light of intense publicity on something, beating the drums over it day after day after day. Then they take phony polls that merely reflect what they've been manipulating the public to believe, and trumpet the polls as some sort of actual trend.

I could go on, but the point is made: If a person thinks the media is in the business of telling the truth, that person is woefully naive.

[George W. Bush]

I paid my licence fee while living in London, and complained every time I do so.

How much in pounds? Dollars?

[Frances_Marion]

Have they given themselves enough rope to hang themselves with, or will they all get away scot free as usual? I'm referring to the BBC and other enemies of the US/ANglo alliance.

[dr_who_2]

After a shakeup in the executive board, it was announced two respected American journalists, Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd, would take over at the BBC news division.

[RobbyS]

Kelly may have pretended to more evidence than he had.

[montag813]

How did the BBC escape Margaret Thatcher's wave of de-nationalization of corporate entities? This is like having ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX owned and controlled by PBS!

[RobbyS]

More like having PBS the size of CBS. There are also commercial channels.

[pau1f0rd]

So how much in pounds and in dollars do you have to spend on the BBC license fee?

£116 ($187) a year. If you don't have a license they send 'inspectors' round to your house who look through your windows and listen for the sound of a TV! It's because they don't have to earn a living that they can be so anti-capitalist

[George W. Bush]

Outrageous. The TV police.

I'll bet PBS drools at the thought of getting something like that here in America.