h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yeah, just because the truth doesn't suit a particular political party doesn't mean it should not be reported. This is the main flaw of Fox News.

"The BBC did take a side over the 45 minutes claim Zagreb, it is called the the right side."

You're missing the point of impartial reporting by a mile, there. Everyone with an opinion thinks they're right. Fox News gets a lot of flack here and its supporters make the same claims about it "it's the right side". Being impartial means not taking any sides. Ever.

"It was not a political act as the opposition werent questioning the claims so ti was not a political side there was no bias that the BBC should have been or should ever be censured for."

Of course it was a political act, how could it possibly not have been?

"Yes Blair put it to a vote - but he denied access to the information needed to Parliament - and his own cabinet. You may recall Robin Cooke resigned over the issue.

That an ineffective opposition failed to realise they were being hood-winked does not, in my opinion, make this some for of suitable parliamentry gambit.

Withholding the truth - is lying."

Witholding the truth is what politicians do when they're trying to make a case. It's clearly not honourable but it's a) the responsibility of the opposition to confront it in a parliamentary debate and b) not the same as a dictatorship.

"The BBC - in my opinion again - did not "pursue the government" it reported that there was evidence the dossier was "sexed up" The government denied it."

It wasn't pulled up for reporting it - reporting it was fine. It was pulled-up for taking a side and pursuing the government over the issue. I heard at least one person say they had to turn off Radio Four in the mornings because they would simply bang-on about the "45 minutes" claim. There was a clear breach of impartiality and it was that, not challenging the government's position in the context of balance, that got them into trouble.

The point about the 45 minute claim was that the opposition couldn't make an alternative case because the dossier was based on secret information which they didn't have access to. It was logically possible that Hussein did have access to WMD which could be deployed in 45 minutes, and the dossier claimed that this was so. In fact it turned out that this referred only to battlefield munitions (i.e. they could only be used on a battlefield, not in missiles that could be fired at other countries) and was furthermore based on intelligence from a single source (with a grudge, IIRC). The BBC was right to pursue this to the extent that they did because we were being led to war on the basis of false claims, and there is very little that is more serious than that.

>>"The point about the 45 minute claim was that the opposition couldn't make an alternative case because the dossier was based on secret information which they didn't have access to."

I'd have thought the point was that the '45 minute' claim was basically irrelevant anyway.
What ***ing difference would it make if missiles could have been fired on Tehran or Tel Aviv with 45 minutes notice or 45 hours or 45 even days notice if the fear was Iraqi aggression?

One would have thought that offensive action would tend to be planned rather than decided on a whim over breakfast, in which case any inherent decision-to-deployment timescale would be factored into the planning of an offensive?

Perhaps surveillance of Iraq was tight enough that deployment of weapons would have been noticed?

Perhaps they were afraid that someone might say there are two countries ignoring UN sanctions - Iraq and Israel.

"The BBC was right to pursue this to the extent that they did because we were being led to war on the basis of false claims, and there is very little that is more serious than that."

No it wasn't because the BBC isn't supposed to take sides on a political issue. What you are basically saying is "I agree with what the BBC did, therefore they should have done it".

No. This is also an issue of facts. Either Sadam did or did not have those weapons. It has turned out that those weapons did not exist. It would be like the PM saying I want to go to war because a pixy told me to. The BBC would not be critised for pointing out the pixy didn't exist.

"No. This is also an issue of facts. Either Sadam did or did not have those weapons. It has turned out that those weapons did not exist. It would be like the PM saying I want to go to war because a pixy told me to. The BBC would not be critised for pointing out the pixy didn't exist."

The BBC never claimed the weapons didn't exist (mainly because, like everyone else, they didn't know) they pursued the government over the "45 minutes" claim and clearly took a side. As I've been patiently trying to explain, the BBC *cannot* take a side and *cannot* pursue politicians and issues in the way (for example) a newspaper can. If the BBC does this it is in clear breach of its charter. The BBC breached the terms of its charter and got into trouble. It is, as I've said, completely irrelevant whether you agree with the position the BBC took: it had no right taking a position in the first place.

>>"The BBC would not be critised for pointing out the pixy didn't exist."

Well, it wasn't actually criticised for its ongoing reporting of the search for WMDs continuing to find nothing.

The whole 'sexing up' business was really nothing to do with the *existence* of WMDs, but was a retrospective look at whether it was reasonable to believe at the time that they did probably exist, and whether the case made had strayed outside the boundaries of a reasonable intepretation of intelligence material.

They took the side of who, Sadam?

What side were they taking they were reporting the facts that the 45 minute claim was a lie that was not even supported by the intelligence.

They actually got in trouble for using a source that was uncoroborated.

The underlying reason was that they were a thorn in Bairs side over the whole thing and showed him to be the deceitful, underhanded lap dog of the US in all his actions.

one love

Zag,

"As I've been patiently trying to explain, the BBC *cannot* take a side and *cannot* pursue politicians and issues in the way (for example) a newspaper can."

Referring to how patient you're being is a sign of impatience, no?

I think actually you're missing the point here, which is that there is a difference between the 45 minute claim and the BBC taking sides. If they were highly critical of a new tax policy and had lots of tories on saying why it was wrong without putting the government's position forward - that would be taking sides. If there is a fact (or possible fact) which is highly germane to the decision about whether or not to go to war and they didn't bring attention to it as strenuously as possible this would be not only taking sides but a derelicition of their public service duty, surely?

blicky,

"They actually got in trouble for using a source that was uncoroborated."

Ironic given that the 45 minute claim was based on an unsubstantiated claim by a single individual.

>>"If there is a fact (or possible fact) which is highly germane to the decision about whether or not to go to war and they didn't bring attention to it as strenuously as possible this would be not only taking sides but a derelicition of their public service duty, surely?"

But the discussion was not about whether to go to war. It was about whether the long-past decision about whether to go to war had been justified by the then-available evidence. At the time of the seemingly incessant banging-on about 'sexing up', there simply wasn't any kind of urgency, and most people had already made their minds up about the justification or otherwise of the decision to go to war.

Indeed, in February 2003 (a month *before* the war started), something like a million people ahd already protested in London, whereas the Kelly interviews were in May and June (after the offensive phase of the invasion had effectively finished).

I wonder, did the BBC news gurus actually ask the question "What's the big ******* deal about '45 minutes' anyway?" at any point between the publishing of the dossier and the vote on going to war?

In any case, "...as strenuously as possible..." does seem to be close to giving carte blanche for obsession.

Wow, Ms. VX-Nerve-Gas-Canister, you are looking sexy tonight.

They tried to link Saddam to Al Qaeda but they couldn't.

They couldn't use the vile and obnoxious ploy - might stop arms sales to Burma, Indonesia, and Zimbabwe.

But a big bomb - That'll do it.

Here's a quote "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy.All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger; it works in any country."

As somebody said already the biggest march the country has ever seen rose up to protest about the war, The Left were there, The Right were there, the middle ground were there. The revolt by Labout MPs was the biggest Commons rebellion by members of a governing party. Robin Cooke, Peter Kilfoyle, Chris Smith, Mo Mowlen, Frank Dobson, and Graham Allan all revolted.

And the evidence - a report put together by putting "Iraq weapons of Mass Destruction" into Google and doing a cut and paste.

The BBC didn't say it had evidence to prove that Alistair Cambell (and who voted him into power ?) had exaggerated a tentaive report from MI6, merely that an annonymous, high level source had alledged it had been 'sexed up' to Andrew Gilligan.

In July Dr David Kelly admitted to his superiors that he'd talked to Gilligan, but denied accusing Cambell. The government leaked Kelly's name and denial to the press.

Now I'd say that was the government going for the BBC - but that's me I guess. Two weeks later David Kelly was dead. Tony Blair appealed to the public to trust his claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and claimed state secrets.

Where's the weapons Mister Prime Minister ?



Anyone got the quote yet ?

>>"The BBC didn't say it had evidence to prove that Alistair Cambell (and who voted him into power ?) had exaggerated a tentaive report from MI6, merely that an annonymous, high level source had alledged it had been 'sexed up' to Andrew Gilligan."

Whether or not he claimed to have reliable evidence (from multiple sources?), Gilligan reported that people in the government probably knew the 45-minute figre was wrong, but included it in the report anyway. It would also seem the phrase 'sexing up' came rather more from him than his source.

Though I didn't agree with the war, that doesn't mean I have to mindlessly and black-and-whitely conclude the BBC was faultless.

Isn't it about time the British faced facts?

Why is everyone arguing over the minutiae of a smokescreen?

I thought by now everyone knew we went to war in Iraq over oil. Iraq being one of the biggest producers in the world of the fuel that maintains the economies of the West. The supply needs to be safeguarded or we're all heading for parity with the Third world. It really is that simple.

Potholer,

"But the discussion was not about whether to go to war. It was about whether the long-past decision about whether to go to war had been justified by the then-available evidence."

That's not how I remember the timeline, but I could well be remembering it wrong. I thought it was before or at most shortly after the vote to go to war had been taken.

"At the time of the seemingly incessant banging-on about 'sexing up', there simply wasn't any kind of urgency, and most people had already made their minds up about the justification or otherwise of the decision to go to war."

I'm pretty sure that more than one MP claimed that the 45 minute claim was a significant factor in their choice to vote for going to war.

"Though I didn't agree with the war, that doesn't mean I have to mindlessly and black-and-whitely conclude the BBC was faultless."

Yes they were at fault for stating their case inaccurately and a little sensationally when they could have done it more carefully and precisely. They were not at fault for pursuing the story. They were at fault for caving in to government pressure so easily.

>>"I'm pretty sure that more than one MP claimed that the 45 minute claim was a significant factor in their choice to vote for going to war."

Well, I'm not responsible for the intelligence or otherwise of Members of Parliament.

>>"Yes they were at fault for stating their case inaccurately and a little sensationally when they could have done it more carefully and precisely. They were not at fault for pursuing the story. They were at fault for caving in to government pressure so easily."

Caving in to government pressure to do *what*?
a) To stop pushing an innaccurate story
b) To never mention the decision to go to war again
c) To give unwavering support to Saint Tony
and which of thiose things has actually happened?

And that government pressure was applied how?
a) Tanks outside BBC headquarters
b) Death squads
c) Secret threats
d) Vocal complaints from politicians