Posted on 07/20/2003 7:25:07 PM PDT by Pikamax
Cracks appear in BBC ranks as executives face staff revolt
Journalists fear they may be tarnished by Kelly furore
Matt Wells, media correspondent Monday July 21, 2003 The Guardian
Senior BBC executives seemed isolated from their own staff last night when the corporation implicitly accused David Kelly of failing to be entirely open when he appeared before MPs last week. Andrew Gilligan, the journalist at the centre of the row, said he did not misquote Dr Kelly in his original report. Executives believe privately that the scientist, who committed suicide on Thursday, held reservations about Downing Street's involvement in the notorious September dossier which he did not air to the foreign affairs select committee.
But journalists, editors and presenters contacted by the Guardian yesterday questioned - on condition of anonymity - the credibility of this stance. They expressed doubt about the positions of Gilligan and Richard Sambrook, the director of news, who has given unswerving support to the reporter since he learned that Dr Kelly was his source. A few even talk darkly of revolt. Support for Gilligan, outside the increasingly fraught confines of the Today programme where he is defence and diplomatic correspondent, is slipping away.
"It's one thing if the top brass choose to go to the wall for Gilligan. It's quite another if they expect us to do it too," one insider said.
In an attempt to shore up Gilligan, the BBC put out a statement on his behalf that insisted he did not exaggerate Dr Kelly's claims. "I want to make it clear that I did not misquote or misrepresent Dr David Kelly. Entirely separately from my meeting with him, Dr Kelly expressed very similar concerns about Downing Street interpretation of intelligence in the dossier and the unreliability of the 45-minute point to Newsnight. These reports have never been questioned by Downing Street."
But the statement came too late to paper over the cracks that were appearing between BBC executives and staff.
The change in mood could not have been more stark. Until 9.30am on Friday, when Thames Valley police announced the disappearance of Dr Kelly, the BBC had occupied a large expanse of sure ground. Its determination not to reveal its source was seen as a principled stand that contrasted favourably with the cynical and shadowy Whitehall moves to push Dr Kelly unwillingly into the spotlight. Last night, however, the sure ground was rapidly shrinking.
A cloud of gloom descended over the organisation when it admitted that Dr Kelly was Gilligan's source. One well-known BBC name said of the BBC's announcement yesterday: "It's a bombshell. Like many others here, I had the impression that the source was not Kelly. My worry is that we may have misdescribed him right at the start, when we called him a senior credible intelligence source. Is that really what David Kelly was? All I can say is that I hope Andrew Gilligan has got very good shorthand."
Through the past weeks, BBC news staff have been mostly been impressed with the support provided by the director general Greg Dyke and Mr Sambrook.
But some experienced and discreet BBC journalists have always been uneasy that the corporation had been forced into battle over Gilligan. "We have always treated him with a health warning," said an editor working on one influential news programme."
Many hoped that Gilligan had another source, other than Dr Kelly, for the key claim that Downing Street "sexed up" the September dossier. "We were all willing to support him, but we were desperately worried that Kelly - as it has turned out - was indeed the source."
The BBC's confirmation that Dr Kelly provided the information upon which Gilligan based his story has rocked many at the BBC. "Now that it's been revealed that Kelly was the main source, we think Gilligan should resign, and - reluctantly - Sambrook too," said one journalist.
Another said: "The BBC statement is a disaster. On the face of it, based on the evidence to hand, Gilligan sexed up his story. The only other explanation is that David Kelly wasn't being truthful to the committee, but I tend to think now that Gilligan did what he accused Campbell of. And our boss backed him. If that's true, they have tarnished each and every one of us. Until they prove otherwise they have lost my confidence. They should go."
One well-known BBC presenter said Gilligan was damaged by his bruising reaction to the select committee's claim on Friday that he had changed his story - Gilligan claimed to have been set up in front of a "hanging jury".
This was "lurid language", totally inappropriate for the circumstances, the presenter said. "The Today programme is tarnished."
There is no doubt that the thrust of Gilligan's original story on May 29 was true - the suggestion of unease among those involved in drawing up the dossier was supported by a piece on the 10 o'clock news by Gavin Hewitt the same evening, and two Newsnight stories by Susan Watts in the following few days. Crucially, Hewitt and Watts did not use the "sexing up" phrase, relying on more subtle language. Hewitt said, in a reference to a source that has now been identified as Dr Kelly: "I've spoken to one of those consulted on the dossier... His judgment: some spin from No 10 did come into play."
The important question - which remains unanswered - is whether Dr Kelly was rowing back from the Gilligan report earlier in the day, or whether Gilligan himself "sexed up" the quotes.
BBC executives have staked their reputation on the defence of the Gilligan story. If Gilligan falls, the positions of them all are in doubt: Mr Sambrook has been the public face of the BBC's defence; his deputy, Mark Damazer, has been intricately involved in the drawing up of the BBC's defence; and Kevin Marsh, the respected and experienced Today editor, was responsible for airing the story in the first place.
Gilligan himself is said to be distraught and "in a panic", aware that the mood has changed.
One BBC news executive said in defence of Mr Sambrook: "Richard has known from day one who the source was and everything that was said about the nature of the source.
"The top people aren't in a big flap about this. But we can't come out and say Kelly misled the committee because the man's a national hero. That's the hook the BBC finds itself on."
But BBC journalists believe this is a position that is indefensible. One said: "If that's the case, they have to prove to Lord Hutton that Kelly misled the committee. Who will any right-minded person believe? A man, seen as hero who has taken his own life, or a journalist who appears shifty and evasive?"
The BBC is the quintessential example of left wing bias in the major media.
I hope they fu**ing implode.
In 92 languages !!
_______ or a journalist?"
Yes!!! I think Kelly was exactly as you have described him, but I suspect he didn't even distort that much. During the hearings, however, he suddenly saw that his rather guarded words had been taken and twisted out of all recognizeable shape by the BBC, and that he was going to be the fall guy.
The BBC and the press in general have much more responsibility for Kelly's death than even the peculiar combination of conservative and extreme left-wing opposition involved in the hearings. The BBC set him up.
For what? For being a leaker? If so, the Kelly was an eggshell skull type, as it were.
Trouble in the hen house. That's a pretty strong statement there.
I don't trust Gilligan as far as I can throw him
But hey, if he loses his job at the BBC .. I hear there's still an opening at the NYT's
The BBC has blood on their hands. The journalists have been hounding Tony Blair about his having blood on his hands, they should go after the BBC as well.
You bet the BBC needs to be held accountable on this
IMO, using unnamed sources is not very principled.
If an accusation doesn't have a named source , then there is a greater chance than not, that the information obtained from the unnamed source is -- 180 degrees wrong.
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.