BBC gutted for telling the truth? British jurisprudence a joke?

Bill · 2004-01-30, 05:50 PM

Well, at least in the US newspapers and other media aren't yet being made to grovel for daring to challenge Bush's and the intelligence communities claims of the imminent threat of Iraqs WMDs.

It looks like a bloody mess. Exactly what Blair's judge is criticising is still unclear in the reports I'm reading, but it's almost comedic, what with Kay's recent reports that the state of Saddams so called weapons programs were mostly empty scams, politically connected "scientists" taking sad-dams money and embezzeling it as the dictator became more and more isolated.

DangerDave · 2004-01-30, 07:25 PM

Gotta agree with you there Bill.. seeing that smug asshole Blair come out and say he was happy with the enquiry and how he still loves the BBC was nauseating..

Money and influence can get you anything.

We may see a change of governement here because of the Iraq and WMD bullshit!

DD

dareutwo · 2004-01-30, 08:33 PM

Actually MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) has been covering this quite extensively and for the most part without any bias.

The BBC, as I understand it, has to really walk a tight rope in normal day to day operations. Funded mostly by the gov't, but yet exists as a way to criticize the funding source.

I agree that a few heads should have rolled for exposing a source, but it should end right there.

Seems to me that Mr. Blair hasn't had the best week as being GWB's suck up.

btw- how DO you get objective news other than through the BBC??

urb · 2004-01-31, 05:27 AM

Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!!!

And they have the fuckin' nerve to question my sanity!! |skull|

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040130/325/eksp5.html

I trust the BBC 100%.

tropica · 2004-01-31, 07:00 AM

I feel genuinely sorry for Greg Dyke. I feel he has been made the scape goat in this whole affair. Are we not entitled to uncensored news, which at the end of the day was what the second world war was about. Right of free speech. If it doesn't fit in with what the government wants us to hear then kill the messenger. Or in this case make it so uncomfortable for the BBC that the top has to resign their posts. This whole country makes me laugh, what with the ridiculous laws and the stupid government who can do no wrong, or so they want us to believe. Did anyone hear about the woman that got arrested for using the wrong rubbish bags? What a total waist of police time and the tax payers money. We now have to many laws trying to govern what we do, think or say. This whole country sucks!

Charter · 2004-01-31, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dareutwo
Actually MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) has been covering this quite extensively and for the most part without any bias.

The BBC, as I understand it, has to really walk a tight rope in normal day to day operations. Funded mostly by the gov't, but yet exists as a way to criticize the funding source.

I agree that a few heads should have rolled for exposing a source, but it should end right there.

Seems to me that Mr. Blair hasn't had the best week as being GWB's suck up.

btw- how DO you get objective news other than through the BBC??

Got to disagree here. First of all the BBC is funded by public subscription via a licence fee. The government make no financial contribution to the service at all and, therefore, the BBC has no axe to grind with the government either way.

As the BBC is classified as a public broadcast service, it must conform to certain standards and these standards are laid down by an independant committee. Part of those standards state that news reported by the BBC should be accurate, fair and unbiased. By "tampering" with the original document and adding to it, the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan had breached those standards. It was also he that revealed the source.

The BBC then compounded the issue by saying that they "stood by" their reporters findings when what they should have done was check the facts beforehand. This then put the BBC in an untenable position. The government, and Tony Blair in particular, had been accused of an outright lie based on that document which the BBC then had to support or lose face.

The fact that Harman's investigation (an independant investigation brought on by the standards committee) found that the BBC had in fact lied and that both the chairman and govenor of the BBC then resigned AND that Tony Blair and the government were then offered an unreserved apology by the new incoming govenor in which he stated that there was no foundation in the allegations, would surely suggest where the blame should rest?

If you want objective news, I would start watching channel 4 news. The resignation of Greg Dyke as govenor of the BBC is, in my opinion, the best thing that could have happened to the BBC. Since he took over as govenor it seems as if IQ's in the UK dropped sharply. The news at six went from being the Six O Clock news to the news for six year olds. They now seem to concentrate on the human side of stories and, instead of simply presenting the facts allowing you to judge for yourself, they would rather show "special reports" on how the pound in your shopping basket is worth less now than ten years ago or how drug addicts are less likely to offend if you get them off drugs before they leave prison. Like we need a news service to tell us this?

As I see it the BBC, as a news reporting agency, has declined to the point where journalists are no longer given free rein to report the news. They have to comply with every dictate issued to them by someone sat in a newsroom in London. Who is better placed to report the news? The journalist at the scene or the guy sat 500 miles away in an office? Give it another five years and we'll see the BBC turn into a visual edition of the tabloids. All sensational headlines and no content.

What all this goes to show is that the BBC are just as capable of getting it wrong as anyone else. Ten years ago certainly there was no news gathering service in the world that could compare to the BBC - nowadays they're just another "Also ran". I no longer trust the BBC.

And, on a closing note, ask yourself this. There have been many casualties over this affair and who is the only one to come out of it unscathed? Yep, that's right, the reporter who made the original cock up!!

Bill · 2004-01-31, 02:19 PM

Actually, I read a reuters release that said that the reporter - Gilligan was his name I think - had resigned too.

The press releases I've been reading here are not very clear on what the mess is all about- lot's of times the british news seems to be covered partially here.

However, what you are saying has happened to the BBC has also happened to the big news media here in the U.S.. All the news is trivialised here, no in-depth analysis on anything important, the majority of air time is spent on celebrity crap and human interest and popular crime stories.

There certainly has been no indepth coverage on the details of the "BBC scandal", so we here are having a hard time understanding what has happened, and why. Even the net source covered by Google News have been low on information.

Charter · 2004-02-01, 05:55 AM

I wasn't aware of that but it's not before time that's for sure!

dareutwo · 2004-02-01, 08:29 PM

Charter -
This makes things a bit clearer

From what I personally understand about the British broadcasting, every TV in Britain has to pay something to the BBC, for whatever reason.

As for Bush up for the Nobel prize? Well, I can't even reply here in and adult forum... LOL

Why do I have 7 Channels of FOX news???

Time to go back underground to the Internet to get REAL NEWS from people that live there.

Charter · 2004-02-02, 03:56 AM

You're right,

Every household in the UK that owns a TV has to pay a licence fee to the BBC regardles of the crap they broadcast. As for the rest of your post - amen to that!!

Bill · 2004-02-02, 05:31 AM

I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what Gilligan did and said that caused all the trouble. Apparently the two cheif execs threw themselves on their swords because they didn't exercise enough supervision over the story and allowed Gilligan to go on without approving his copy beforehand.

But, aside from saying that Gilligan accused Blair of having "Sexed Up " his intelligence reports and accusing him of lying about saying that Iraq had biochem weapons ready to be used within 45 minutes (this is mostly what they say in the 'sound bytes' in articles I see here in the U.S.), I can't get a transcript of exactly what Gilligan said.

I know the (right name?) David Kelly leak and following suicide is somehow involved, but it is unclear how. Did the BBC unlawfully leak Kellys name, or was that the government?

What was the judge criticising so harshly that BBC had to be punished?

2004-01-30, 05:50 PM	#1
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	BBC gutted for telling the truth? British jurisprudence a joke? Well, at least in the US newspapers and other media aren't yet being made to grovel for daring to challenge Bush's and the intelligence communities claims of the imminent threat of Iraqs WMDs. It looks like a bloody mess. Exactly what Blair's judge is criticising is still unclear in the reports I'm reading, but it's almost comedic, what with Kay's recent reports that the state of Saddams so called weapons programs were mostly empty scams, politically connected "scientists" taking sad-dams money and embezzeling it as the dictator became more and more isolated.

2004-01-30, 07:25 PM	#2
DangerDave Bonged Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BrisVegas, AUSTRALIA Posts: 4,882	Gotta agree with you there Bill.. seeing that smug asshole Blair come out and say he was happy with the enquiry and how he still loves the BBC was nauseating.. Money and influence can get you anything. We may see a change of governement here because of the Iraq and WMD bullshit! DD __________________ Old Dollars >>>> Now with over 90 Hosted Free Sites <<<< DangerDave.com.au - Adult Links to Free Porn

2004-01-30, 08:33 PM	#3
dareutwo You can't disprove anything with evidence that doesn't exist Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NW Minnesota - pop 865 +/- 1 Posts: 2,038	Actually MPR (Minnesota Public Radio) has been covering this quite extensively and for the most part without any bias. The BBC, as I understand it, has to really walk a tight rope in normal day to day operations. Funded mostly by the gov't, but yet exists as a way to criticize the funding source. I agree that a few heads should have rolled for exposing a source, but it should end right there. Seems to me that Mr. Blair hasn't had the best week as being GWB's suck up. btw- how DO you get objective news other than through the BBC?? __________________ This is me Mark's-Links

2004-01-31, 05:27 AM	#4
urb All the way from Room 101 Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 3,557	Bush and Blair nominated for Nobel Peace Prize!!! And they have the fuckin' nerve to question my sanity!! \|skull\| http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040130/325/eksp5.html I trust the BBC 100%. __________________

2004-01-31, 07:00 AM	#5
tropica WHO IS FONZY!?! Don't they teach you anything at school? Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 41	I feel genuinely sorry for Greg Dyke. I feel he has been made the scape goat in this whole affair. Are we not entitled to uncensored news, which at the end of the day was what the second world war was about. Right of free speech. If it doesn't fit in with what the government wants us to hear then kill the messenger. Or in this case make it so uncomfortable for the BBC that the top has to resign their posts. This whole country makes me laugh, what with the ridiculous laws and the stupid government who can do no wrong, or so they want us to believe. Did anyone hear about the woman that got arrested for using the wrong rubbish bags? What a total waist of police time and the tax payers money. We now have to many laws trying to govern what we do, think or say. This whole country sucks! __________________ Jo XXX

2004-01-31, 02:19 PM	#7
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	Actually, I read a reuters release that said that the reporter - Gilligan was his name I think - had resigned too. The press releases I've been reading here are not very clear on what the mess is all about- lot's of times the british news seems to be covered partially here. However, what you are saying has happened to the BBC has also happened to the big news media here in the U.S.. All the news is trivialised here, no in-depth analysis on anything important, the majority of air time is spent on celebrity crap and human interest and popular crime stories. There certainly has been no indepth coverage on the details of the "BBC scandal", so we here are having a hard time understanding what has happened, and why. Even the net source covered by Google News have been low on information.

2004-02-01, 05:55 AM	#8
Charter Internet! Is that thing still around? Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: UK Posts: 4	I wasn't aware of that but it's not before time that's for sure! __________________ www.24-7content.com

2004-02-01, 08:29 PM	#9
dareutwo You can't disprove anything with evidence that doesn't exist Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: NW Minnesota - pop 865 +/- 1 Posts: 2,038	Charter - This makes things a bit clearer From what I personally understand about the British broadcasting, every TV in Britain has to pay something to the BBC, for whatever reason. As for Bush up for the Nobel prize? Well, I can't even reply here in and adult forum... LOL Why do I have 7 Channels of FOX news??? Time to go back underground to the Internet to get REAL NEWS from people that live there. __________________ This is me Mark's-Links

2004-02-02, 03:56 AM	#10
Charter Internet! Is that thing still around? Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: UK Posts: 4	You're right, Every household in the UK that owns a TV has to pay a licence fee to the BBC regardles of the crap they broadcast. As for the rest of your post - amen to that!! __________________ www.24-7content.com

2004-02-02, 05:31 AM	#11
Bill Selling porn allows me to stay in a constant state of Bliss - ain't that a trip! Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 3,914	I'm having a hard time figuring out exactly what Gilligan did and said that caused all the trouble. Apparently the two cheif execs threw themselves on their swords because they didn't exercise enough supervision over the story and allowed Gilligan to go on without approving his copy beforehand. But, aside from saying that Gilligan accused Blair of having "Sexed Up " his intelligence reports and accusing him of lying about saying that Iraq had biochem weapons ready to be used within 45 minutes (this is mostly what they say in the 'sound bytes' in articles I see here in the U.S.), I can't get a transcript of exactly what Gilligan said. I know the (right name?) David Kelly leak and following suicide is somehow involved, but it is unclear how. Did the BBC unlawfully leak Kellys name, or was that the government? What was the judge criticising so harshly that BBC had to be punished?