BBC RIP?
The British Mass Media
After The Hutton Report
JNV Anti-War Briefing
54 (5 February 2004)
|
Posted:
13 February 2004
|
DECAPITATING THE BBC?
After Lord Hutton's criticisms of the performance of Andrew
Gilligan, the Today programme, and the BBC, in the events leading
up to the death of Dr David Kelly, the Director-General and
the Chair of the BBC were both forced to resign, and the corporation
has had to delay the publication of a key policy document defending
the broadcaster's 10-year royal charter, its licence fee funding
formula, and public service remit. (FT, 4 Feb. 2004, p. 3) 'One
BBC journalist, looking around at his battered colleagues busy
smearing themselves in ashes, said to me: "RIP the BBC".'
(Alice Thomson, Telegraph, 30 Jan., p. 28)
The Daily Telegraph comments that there are those in Government
who, now they have 'humbled' the corporation, want to 'decapitate'
it - noting that Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell has said that
Hutton should figure in the upcoming review of the BBC's charter,
revenues and remit. (30 Jan., p. 29)
REINING IN THE BBC
BBC Political Editor Andrew Marr observes, 'There will be many
around the BBC who will be very concerned with the editorial
independence of the BBC.' (Daily Mail, 30 Jan., p. 2)
The signs are not good. On 6 Feb. the Today programme pointed
out, after interviewing the Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, that
he had just contradicted part of his testimony to the Hutton
Inquiry. Mr Hoon complained. Today then read out a lengthy statement
on his behalf. 'One Today insider said: "Highlighting differences
in what Mr Hoon told the BBC and what he told Hutton was a perfectly
fair and proper piece of journalism. We didn't make a mistake
journalistically or get something wrong. Reading out a statement
like this in the name of "balance" is unprecedented".'
(Telegraph, 7 Feb., p. 13)
REINING IN
THE MEDIA
More broadly, Lord Hutton said: 'false
accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including
politicians, should not be made by the media.' There should
be a restraining 'system in place'; senior managers should be
brought in to give 'careful consideration to the wording of
the report and to whether it is right in all the circumstances
to broadcast or publish it.'
Veteran journalist Peter Preston points to the 'subtext': 'Don't
attack a politician unless you have him or her bang to rights,
trapped in triplicate; and even then "ponder all the circumstances".'
(Observer, 1 Feb., p. 21)
The former editor of the Guardian goes on, 'When Greg Dyke fears
a legal sea change which silences whistleblowers unless every
jot and tittle of their allegations are independently confirmed
before publication, he's not conjuring up vague fears, merely
quoting a report the Government has accepted "in full".'
The prescription in Hutton is 'one of profound,
chilling caution,' writes Mr
Preston. If Lord Hutton is allowed to define the boundaries
of proper investigation, 'then media freedoms - already shadowed
by an unending war against terrorism - face an
ice age.' (Observer, 1 Feb., p. 21)
General Secretary of the National Union of Journalists Jeremy
Dear warns that, 'The Hutton report
... will inevitably mean journalists face greater pressure to
reveal their sources and will make sources and whistleblowers
think twice before coming forward.'
(Independent, 5 Feb., p. 4)
THE LAW LORD GETS
THE LAW WRONG
Focussing on the central Hutton recommendation that 'false accusations
of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians,
should not be made by the media', the BBC's barrister Andrew
Caldecott has stated his view that this, as a general and unqualified
proposition, is 'wrong in law'.
Without defending the parts of the Gilligan broadcast that inaccurately
represented Dr Kelly's views [see Briefing
55 for more on Gilligan], 'insofar as Dr Kelly was accurately
reported - which in large measure he was - the BBC was entitled
to broadcast them whether or not the BBC had itself managed
conclusively to verify what he had said.' (Observer, 1 Feb.,
p. 1)
The BBC's lawyers 'point to previous legal rulings that "protect
certain defamatory publications, even when they cannot be shown
to be true".' The lawyers compiled an opinion for the BBC
arguing that newspapers have a complete defence 'even where
false allegations of fact have been reported, so long as the
publication is the result of "responsible reporting"
on a matter of legitimate public interest.' (Independent, 5
Feb., p. 4)
So, 'the law did not require the BBC to verify the allegation
that the Government "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq
weapons before broadcasting it.' (Independent, 5 Feb., p. 4)
THE MISSED FIGHTBACK
A 135-page legal opinion compiled by the BBC's lawyers identifies
12 key issues 'not considered' by Lord Hutton, including the
fact that Alistair Campbell gave deceitful testimony to the
Foreign Affairs Committee about his role in the writing of the
Sept. 2002 dossier.
The opinion also criticises Lord Hutton for failing to deal
with the Sept. 2002 dossier properly, and especially for ignoring
the issue of whether the dossier was referring to battlefield
chemical/biological weapons, or to longer-range strategic weapons:
'the BBC believes this issue is fundamental to any full examination
of both Dr Kelly's concerns and the public interest issues.'
(Independent, 5 Feb., p. 4)
The BBC governors caved in, forced out Greg Dyke, the Director-General,
and issued a grovelling apology to the Government. Instead,
they could have defended the BBC on the basis of the legal opinion
they had commissioned: 'It shows that we could have mounted
a strong and convincing fightback,' said 'a BBC insider'.
(Independent, 5 Feb., p. 1)
DEFEND THE BBC
The unprecedented demonstrations by BBC staff in support of
Greg Dyke fit in with poll results showing majority support
for the BBC against the Government. 67% trusted the BBC to tell
the truth (compared to 31% for Government ministers and 40%
for intelligence chiefs); 52% thought the BBC system of governance
'worked well and should remain in place'; 56% supported the
BBC licence fee system; 70% were afraid the BBC would become
too cautious and 'too subject to Government behind-the-scenes
pressure'. (Telegraph, 30 Jan., p. 2)
But the BBC's reputation has been damaged. The proportion of
people who trust BBC news journalists to tell the truth, has
fallen from 81% in Mar 2003, to 67% now. 51% thought Greg Dyke
behaved improperly in the Kelly affair - almost the same level
as for Mr Blair (52%). (Telegraph, 30 Jan., p. 2) 34% felt less
favourably towards the BBC as a result of the Kelly affair -
again, similar to Mr Blair's rating (36%). (Times, 30 Jan.,
p. 6)
'If the BBC is wrecked, or even weakened, by bullying politicians,
then we will ALL be losers'. Anne Leslie, Daily Mail, 30
Jan., p. 12.
See also Briefing
55: Gilligan 6:07 and Briefing 57: Media
Servility
PLEASE SUPPORT JNV (Justice Not Vengeance) 0845 458 9571
We are making as many briefings as we can. Please help with
printing/distribution by sending cheques to:
'JNV', 29 Gensing Rd, St Leonards-on-Sea, East Sussex TN38 0HE.
