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."

[marajade]

And... Their not going to find Blair to be in trouble... its going to be the BBC...

[MEG33]

Great links.

[cyncooper]

How could Gilligan making the whole thing up drive him to suicide?

"Him" being Dr. Kelly, of course.

[debg]

I pulled the following info from a msg board at the Guardian. I think it is interesting background info ( you may not :) )

"Gilligan does seem to be part of the BBC’s changing tract into more sensationalist style of journalism. I dug these out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,986736,00.html They took pains to explain that the corporation's push into original journalism has created a climate where the journalists are encouraged to set the news agenda and not simply follow the daily news diary. "Andrew Gilligan can do that in spades," said one newsroom source, "so he is doing exactly what we are being encouraged to do. Of course, to do that you have to take certain risks, but everyone just hopes he's sure of his grounds because it'll refect so badly on all of us if he isn't." Gilligan belongs to a band of journalists recruited by the former Today programme editor Rod Liddle to report solely for that programme. There are constant frictions between the Today team, who consider themselves something of an elite, and the rest of the BBC newsgathering operation, which has regarded the Today team with suspicion.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,986736,00.html Critics believe that the flagship news programme's mission to make the headlines, rather than just follow them up, has exploded in its face. 'When Rod Liddle, the former editor, joined Today, the emphasis was on breaking our own stories,' said the radio reporter. 'It was all more off-the-agenda, not just the big political interviews of the day. Liddle got Gilligan in to cover defence and Roger Harrabin to cover the environment. He gave their stories a high profile in the programme. There was some very good stuff and also some stuff that didn't deserve the profile it was given. Reporters had a lot more freedom too. They could go off and do features.' The arrival of Kevin Marsh as editor once Liddle opted for a career as a pundit has changed the climate. There are grumbles about increased shift work, and some of the more quirky stories are not given as much airtime, but Marsh still wants big, exclusive stories and has a penchant for investigative work with a strong political angle. His news approach, described by one colleague as 'forensic', is just the kind to sanction the revisiting of a story like the September dossier and its '45-minute' warning."

[NovemberCharlie]

This episode underlines why it is wrong for their to be publicly funded media. The BBC has essentially become an opposition political party.

An odd reversal, isn't it? The usual fear about publicly funded media is that they will become government mouthpieces.

[Destro]

If exonerated, remember it is Blair's own party members that are doing the investigation with a smattering of Tories to try and keep them honest.

[MEG33]

This time I believe Baghdad Broadcast has gone too far..

[Timesink]

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.

Who is this Sky correspondent?

[mware]

That was a guess I made..that the BBC sexed up HIS info and he had no way to prove it.I only say that with more conviction after hearing a truely loathsome BBC investigative reporter speak on Fox yesterday.Pure Bias on my part!

That is how I am reading this story too. Kelly spoke off the record to Gillian about some aspects of the information, and Gillian added to it.

Kelly said when he when before Parliment that he had spoken with him, but stood by the government in regard to WMD.

[MEG33]

I'd love to know Who made up a story!

[wretchard]

Too bad... I guess he let his own politics of being against the war get in the way from doing his job... I have no sympathy for the guy...

Kelly, according to his friend and former BBC correspondent Mangold, was absolutely convinced that Saddam had WMDs. He spoke to the press in a misguided attempt to convince them the threat was real. But the BBC twisted his words in the opposite direction to the extent that he didn't recognize himself as the source.

People with day jobs are helpless against the Men of the Press.

[EllaMinnow]

Here's the story on the Sky News resignation:
(Unfortunately, it's a BBC article.)

Sky journalist resigns over 'fake' report


The disputed footage featured HMS Splendid
Sky News journalist James Forlong has resigned after allegations a report during the Iraq war had been faked.
His resignation came after Sky announced it had suspended Mr Forlong and another journalist and opened an investigation into the claims.

The Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday that a BBC documentary on the war would show Mr Forlong narrating a clip supposedly of a missile launch from a submarine in the Gulf.

But the newspaper claimed the documentary, Fighting the War, which is due to be screened on Sunday, will say Sky used archive footage to mock up a missile launch.

'Public interest'

Sky said in a statement: "(Our) correspondent James Forlong has resigned following an investigation into allegations that a report by him from submarine HMS Splendid in March contained misleading images and information.

"The report was shot and edited completely on location."

The BBC has so far declined to comment on the report or give details of the incident featured in the documentary.

It said the series "reveals how the war was fought but also how it was reported. We believe it is in the public interest to let viewers know the truth."

Sky had suspended Forlong, as well as producer Lucy Chaytor while it investigated the charge.

The disputed footage was part of a pool report made available to other news organizations and was also shown on ITV News.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3078693.stm

[syriacus]

ZThe 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.

I'm not sure why they dragged Rupert Murdoch into this story about Kelly, but I guess such an oblique attempt to make Murdoch look bad is not unexpected.

I felt SkyNews' "Iraqi Freedom" reporting was "odd" at times, too.

The seemed to be much more anti-US than FoxNews ordinarily is.

[Diogenesis]

BBC had motive to murder.

Given that the NYTimes and the Boston Globe (etc.) have demonstated that the media ARE NOT ABOVE REPROACH,
book 'em, Dano.

[MEG33]

Thanks for the info.

[arasina]

I am sticking with my theory that Mr. Kelly was more critical of the intelligence reports than he let on to Parliament and gave Gilligan a roadmap for his reporting.

I'm with you on this. At the least, Kelly gave evasive answers in his testimony.

I thought this was interesting and actually rather humorous: 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.

Just look at what the BBC fears! If they have to reform, they lose power. BBC=Big Baby Criers

[Timesink]

Thanks Red. I was sort of hoping it was going to turn out to be David Chater. I don't recall seeing James Forlong on Fox at all during the war.

[maestro]

Article ping.....FYI.....see posts 68 and 96..............BTTT

[EllaMinnow]

I remember the infuriating Mr.Chater quite well. How nice it would be to see him get his comeuppance!

[Vinnie_Vidi_Vici]

The BBC has put itself above the Government that subsidizes it! I truly hope that they get their legs cut from underneath them and they are forced to "clean house".