Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: Hutton delivers damning verdict on BBC

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hutton delivers damning verdict on BBC

    Owen Gibson and Ciar Byrne
    Wednesday January 28, 2004

    Lord Hutton today delivered the worst possible verdict for the BBC, describing its editorial systems as "defective" and declaring that the board of governors led by chairman Gavyn Davies had failed in its duty to act as an independent regulator.
    The judge lambasted BBC management for allowing the Radio 4 Today reporter Andrew Gilligan to broadcast "unfounded", "grave" and "false allegations of fact impugning the integrity of others".

    In a wide-ranging and unequivocal attack on the corporation that also took in the board of governors and BBC journalism, Lord Hutton said editorial systems had failed, leaving the futures of director general Greg Dyke, chairman Gavyn Davies and head of news Richard Sambrook hanging precariously in the balance.

    The BBC is making a statement within the hour and there have already been reports that Mr Davies is considering his position.

    Gilligan made 'unfounded' allegations


    Lord Hutton criticised Gilligan for making "unfounded" and "grave" allegations that the government probably knew that the 45-minute claim was wrong or that it was not inserted in the first draft of the dossier because it only came from one source.

    "The allegations that Mr Gilligan was intending to broadcast in respect of the government and the preparation of the dossier were very grave allegations in relation to a subject of great importance.

    "And I consider that the editorial system which the BBC permitted was defective in that Mr Gilligan was allowed to broadcast his report at 6.07am without editors having seen a script of what he was going to say and having considered whether it should be approved," ruled Lord Hutton.

    BBC management and governors failed in their duties

    He said that BBC managers, including Mr Dyke and the governors, had failed in two respects.

    Firstly, he said they failed to ask for an investigation into the veracity of Gilligan's report and secondly they failed to appreciate that Gilligan's notes "did not support" his May 29 broadcast on the Today programme.

    "The governors are to be criticised for failing to make a more detailed investigation into whether the allegation by Mr Gilligan was properly supported by his notes and failing to give proper and adequate consideration to whether the BBC should publicly acknowledge that this very grave allegation should not have been broadcast," Lord Hutton said.

    He said had they asked for Gilligan's notes "they would probably have discovered that the notes did not support the allegations that the government knew that the 45-minute claim was probably wrong."

    And, in a devastating indictment of the governors, Lord Hutton said they should "then have questioned whether it was right for the BBC to maintain that it was in the public interest to broadcast that allegation".

    All the way down the editorial chain of command, the BBC had taken on trust that Gilligan's report was factually correct. This, he said, was a fundamental dereliction of duty by the governors and management.

    He pointed out that the BBC head of news, Richard Sambrook, had replied to Alastair Campbell's complaints without seeing Gilligan's notes.

    "The BBC management failed, before Mr Sambrook wrote his letter of June 27 2003 to Mr Campbell, to make an examination of Mr Gilligan's notes on his personal organiser of his meeting with Dr Kelly to see if they supported the allegations which he had made in his broadcast at 6.07am," said the judge.

    "When the BBC management did look at Gilligan's notes after June 27, it failed to appreciate that the notes did not fully support the most serious of the allegations which he had reported in the 6.07am broadcast, and it therefore failed to draw the attention of the governors to the lack of support in the notes for the most serious of the allegations" he added.

    Today editor and head of radio news also at fault


    Lord Hutton said the incriminating email sent by Today editor Kevin Marsh to head of radio news Stephen Mitchell, which admitted that Gilligan's story was "marred by flawed reporting" and "loose use of language", should have passed on to BBC bosses before they replied to Campbell.

    The judge said the fact that Mr Sambrook and the governors did not know about this email "shows a defect in the operation of the BBC's management system for the consideration of complaints in respect of broadcasts".

    He ruled that BBC managers and governors were wrong to defend Gilligan's story without knowing the full facts and cleared the government of the broad thrust of the allegations, that it had "sexed up" the dossier to advance its case for war.

    The scale of his criticism has sent shock waves through the BBC, particularly as the way in which the intelligence dossier was drawn up was vindicated by Lord Hutton despite reservations expressed by some intelligence sources during the inquiry about the language used.

    "I do not consider it was improper for Mr Scarlett [chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee] and the JIC to take into account suggestions made by Number 10 and adopt those suggestions if they were consistent with the intelligence available," said the report.

    BBC did not heed government denial

    Lord Hutton said the government had stated to the BBC in "clear terms" that the report that the government probably knew the 45-minute claim was wrong was untruthful.

    He said given this denial was made with the authority of the prime minister and the chairman of JIC, that the BBC governors, rather than relying on the assurance of BBC management, should have made more detailed investigations into the extent to which Gilligan's notes supported the report.

    Lord Hutton's conclusions are bound to provoke renewed calls for the BBC to come under the aegis of new media regulator Ofcom or a separate regulatory body.

    Lord Hutton took the governors to task for leaping to the defence of the BBC without giving proper consideration to whether Gilligan's story was supported by his notes.

    The corporation's critics are likely to seize on Lord Hutton's verdict as evidence that Mr Davies was too close to the director general and saw his role as defending the corporation rather than regulating it. The chairman argued that he was acting on behalf of licence fee payers and not BBC management.

    "The governors should have realised more fully than they did that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the governments complaints," said Lord Hutton.

    Minutes of the governors' meeting released on July 6 showed that the governors and Mr Davies had their own concerns about Gilligan's broadcast.

    However, they believed that the principle of defending the BBC's journalism was more important than expressing their concern over the reporting of the story. "If you say it tonight, you are disowning Andrew Gilligan," Mr Davies warned his fellow governors.

    Mr Dyke, who has been bullish in the run-up to the publication of the report, will also come under pressure to resign after Lord Hutton said he considered "the editorial system which the BBC permitted was defective" and "at fault" for failing to investigate Gilligan's allegations.

    Mr Dyke is ultimately responsible for all of the corporation's output as editor in chief. He has already told staff there would be "no scapegoating inside the BBC as a result of the Hutton inquiry".

    It is understood that he plans to go on the offensive if he doesn't agree with Lord Hutton's damning verdict. In an email to staff, Mr Dyke has already said the BBC will only take the report on board if he agreed with its conclusions.

    "What is important once Hutton is published is that if the BBC is criticised we learn from whatever is written - assuming of course that we agree with what is said," he wrote.

    The corporation has already instigated a number of changes designed to take the sting out of Lord Hutton's criticism. World Service chief Mark Byford has been installed as deputy director general to oversee a root and branch review of complaints procedures and the corporation has banned employees from writing columns for newspapers.

    [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1133174,00.html]http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,1...1133174,00.html[/url]

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Remember folks; this is the "news" organization that Section109 and Tailgators have said in previous posts they believe to be thruth/solid outlets for real news....fiction is more like it ;)

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    who the f--k is Lord Hutton and why should anyone care?

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by bitonti[/i]@Jan 28 2004, 10:20 AM
    [b] who the f--k is Lord Hutton and why should anyone care? [/b][/quote]
    Bitonti -

    It's posts like this that make me unable to argue with you about WMD or serious issues concerning American foreign policy.

    You simply don't know enough yet have strong opinions about EVERYTHING.

  4. #4
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]Gilligan made 'unfounded' allegations [/b][/quote]

    Gilligan got bad advice from the Skipper.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    5ever i was being facitious - the greater point is just cause some feudal age aristocrat wearing a powdered wig damns the BBC i should give a crap? this is america baby!

    you are right i don't know everything... but i know enough to know that i don't know everything and thats a start.

    besides at the end of the day im a bull**** artist who can smell a steamy pile of Bull**** a mile away. As soon as Bush mentioned Iraq i knew it was based on Bull****. i think that's my italian heratige... very strong "gut instinct" -

    meanwhile guys like you are still hemming and hawing, where are the facts, lets search some more, blah blah blah.

    newsflash: its complete bull****. 100% grade A USDA approved dung. Have been saying that for a year now. <_<

  6. #6
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like
    Hutton&#39;s report is a HUGE kick in the teeth to the Tory party, which was hoping to use it to bury Blair.

    I belive they had the "no confidence" vote all scheduled.

    Sucks for them.

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Bob the Jets Fan™[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 12:24 AM
    [b] Hutton&#39;s report is a HUGE kick in the teeth to the Tory party, which was hoping to use it to bury Blair.

    I belive they had the "no confidence" vote all scheduled.

    Sucks for them. [/b][/quote]
    Its&#39; a bigger kick in the ass for the BBC which historically has been an ultra-liberal/anti-American rag.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 09:58 AM
    [b] the BBC which historically has been an ultra-liberal/anti-American rag. [/b][/quote]
    The BBC is an ultra-liberal,anti-American rag?

    That&#39;s preposterous&#33;

    Have you ever watched the BBC?

    I doubt it.

  9. #9
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators+Jan 29 2004, 09:02 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (tailgators @ Jan 29 2004, 09:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Come Back to NY[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 09:58 AM
    [b] the BBC which historically has been an ultra-liberal/anti-American rag. [/b][/quote]
    The BBC is an ultra-liberal,anti-American rag?

    That&#39;s preposterous&#33;

    Have you ever watched the BBC?

    I doubt it. [/b][/quote]
    Tailgators -

    You don&#39;t think the BBC is liberal? Oh, right, NPR and the NY Times aren&#39;t liberal either.

    Is John Kerry liberal?

    You know - I was thinking Ted Kennedy would make a GREAT President. Why doesn&#39;t he run?

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 10:04 AM
    [b] Tailgators -

    You don&#39;t think the BBC is liberal? Oh, right, NPR and the NY Times aren&#39;t liberal either.

    [/b][/quote]
    To guys like you 5-ever any broadcast or publication that doesn&#39;t just parrot the press releases from the White House is considered liberal.

  11. #11
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    No.

    Fox News is conservative, the NY Times, BBC and NPR are liberal. What&#39;s so hard about admitting it?

    Hey - what do you think about my Ted Kennedy idea? Why do you think the Democratic establishment doesn&#39;t back him...poor people love him, right? I&#39;d think he&#39;d be a shoe-in...everybody loves him, he&#39;s JFK&#39;s brother...seriously, what gives?

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 10:18 AM
    [b] No.

    Fox News is conservative, the NY Times, BBC and NPR are liberal. What&#39;s so hard about admitting it?

    Hey - what do you think about my Ted Kennedy idea? Why do you think the Democratic establishment doesn&#39;t back him...poor people love him, right? I&#39;d think he&#39;d be a shoe-in...everybody loves him, he&#39;s JFK&#39;s brother...seriously, what gives? [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...The way things are going for you politically, I can appreciate your crankiness.

    Face it dude, your guy Bush is going to lose big time&#33;&#33;

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    Post Thanks / Like
    Cranky about what - I enjoy ribbing you - admit it - you fawn about Teddy...I just like pointing out that he&#39;s a drunken murderer and everyone knows it and that&#39;s why he can&#39;t be President. It funny to me that he is still taken seriously by people like yourself.

    The way things are going for me politically? I have no compliants with my life, chief. Great job, awesome wife, my health is good, I make very good money, l pay less taxes now than I did before, there is food in the cupboard and my house is nice and big and my stocks are all going up...things are just peachy for this guy.

    I think the election will be close, although I disagree about Bush losing.

    Even still, with the way he spends I won&#39;t mind seeing him go, to be honest.

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Kingston, NY
    Posts
    3,975
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by jets5ever[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 10:34 AM
    [b] The way things are going for me politically? I have no compliants with my life, chief. Great job, awesome wife, my health is good, I make very good money, l pay less taxes now than I did before, there is food in the cupboard and my house is nice and big and my stocks are all going up...things are just peachy for this guy.

    [/b][/quote]
    5-ever...I&#39;m very happy that you have a contented personal life. I never doubted that, and wasn&#39;t even refering to it. Thanks for sharing though.

  15. #15
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 10:30 AM
    [b] Face it dude, your guy Bush is going to lose big time&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Losing to who? Kerry?? Dean??? Edwards???? Clark?????

    Get a grip man...oh forgot, you&#39;re a liberal; reality and fact have no place in your world ;)

  16. #16
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    2,393
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by tailgators[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 10:30 AM
    [b] Face it dude, your guy Bush is going to lose big time&#33;&#33; [/b][/quote]
    Are you quoting Ann Richards, Kofi Annon, Jaques Chirac or Al Gore?

    I hope every one of you libercrats honestly believes that. Keep telling yourselves this election will be a piece of cake and George Bush is a dummy or a lightweight. Keep telling Americans how less safe we are with him in office and watching those poll numbers.

    Keep hope alive.

  17. #17
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Washington, D.C.
    Posts
    3,408
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][b]I hope every one of you libercrats honestly believes that. Keep telling yourselves this election will be a piece of cake and George Bush is a dummy or a lightweight. Keep telling Americans how less safe we are with him in office and watching those poll numbers.
    [/b][/quote]

    The Democrats should win. The forumla is simple.

    The last election Gore won the popular vote and lost the election by a hair. All they need to do this time is pick a candidate more appealing than Gore. I think the public realizes this time around that unfortunatly voting for a third party candidate like Nader will be throwing away their vote.

  18. #18
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Jan 29 2004, 02:08 PM
    [b] The Democrats should win. The forumla is simple.

    The last election Gore won the popular vote and lost the election by a hair. All they need to do this time is pick a candidate more appealing than Gore. I think the public realizes this time around that unfortunatly voting for a third party candidate like Nader will be throwing away their vote. [/b][/quote]
    Interesting...especially since a third party candidate (Ross Perot) kept George Bush I from getting re-elected in &#39;92.

  19. #19
    All League
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Posts
    4,255
    Post Thanks / Like
    Wrong. If Perot hadn&#39;t split the anti-Bush vote in &#39;92, Clinton would have won in a landslide.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us