They still got this into the article:
In the US, some TV networks have been criticised for flag-waving and unquestioning coverage of the conflict.
given Kelly's feeling that the BBC went 'way beyond' what he'd told them, could it be said the BBC "sexed up" Kelly's comments?
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."
Financial Times has been critical of Blair. This report looks objective.