« Kelly Affair: Say It Ain't True! / Kelly-Affäre: Das kann doch nicht wahr sein! | Main | Expert Got It Right ... the First Time / Der Experte lag richtig - beim ersten Mal »

Comments

I found this on andrewsullivan' s weblog. It is from an email to him:

"The damage of trust to such an institution as the BBC, is damage to the fabric of trust in Britain. It was threadbare last week: now it barely exists. A Guardian poll today shows that 30 percent of people regard the BBC to be more truthful than the government. only 10 percent believe the opposite. We cannot continue to have an active polity with such disgust and contempt swilling around: things will have to change or it will spill over into something nasty."

I see the same situation here in Germany. Media influence politics with a high irresponsibility. They damaged the peoples trust in politicians for years now and think they are better than politicians. People often say, that they don't trust the media but that is not true. I met many people who just repeated what they read/heard in the media.

I just listen to Morgenmagazin: Mr. John from the opposition party said that Blair sexied up the dossier and he should be responsible for that. Lord Hutton's decision is wrong.

There is much to do.

"FREISPRUCH FÜR TONY BLAIR

"Diese Vorwürfe haben mich ins Herz getroffen"

Tony Blair ist erleichtert. Und er hat auch allen Grund dazu: In seinem Untersuchungsbericht sprach Lordrichter Hutton den britischen Premier von einem schweren Vorwurf frei. Ihn treffe keine Schuld am Tod des Waffenexperten David Kelly.


REUTERS
Angeschagen, aber noch nicht angezählt Premier Blair
London - Er habe in der ganzen Affäre weder gelogen noch heuchlerisch gehandelt, bekräftigte Blair jetzt. Lordrichter Brian Hutton habe in seinem "umfassenden und gründlichen" Bericht alle Vorwürfe widerlegt, dass er gelogen habe, sagte Blair. "Es gibt daran nichts zu zweifeln oder zu interpretieren", sagte der Premierminister im Unterhaus. Er sei "unglaublich dankbar".

Zu dem von Hutton als "unbegründet" bezeichneten Vorwurf, die Regierung habe das im September 2002 vorgelegte Dossier über die Massenvernichtungswaffen des Irak "aufgebauscht", sagte Blair: "Diese Vorwürfe haben die Integrität meiner Regierung und mich persönlich ins Herz getroffen."

Weder bei der Erstellung des Dossiers noch im Umgang mit der Freigabe des Namens von David Kelly habe er "gelogen oder heuchlerisch" gehandelt, sagte Blair. Obwohl im Irak immer noch keine Massenvernichtungswaffen gefunden worden, sei die Militäraktion zur Beseitigung von Saddam Hussein richtig gewesen, fügte er hinzu.

Schwere Vorwürfe gegen die BBC

Der "Freispruch" durch Hutton kam einen Tag nach Blairs knappem Sieg bei einer Parlamentsabstimmung zur Bildungspolitik. In dem heute vorgelegten Bericht wird weder Blair noch seinen Ministern eine konkrete Schuld am Tod des Regierungsberaters gegeben. Schwere Vorwürfe erhob Lordrichter Hutton indessen gegen die BBC.


Er sei davon überzeugt, dass keine der in seinem Bericht genannten Personen jemals hätte in Erwägung ziehen können, dass Kelly sich das Leben nehmen würde, erklärte Hutton. Es könne ihnen auch nicht zum Vorwurf gemacht werden, dass sie nicht an diese Möglichkeit gedacht hätten. Kelly habe zwar unter schwerem Druck gestanden, aber die Konsequenz, die er daraus gezogen habe, sei für niemanden absehbar gewesen.

Kelly war die Quelle eines BBC-Berichts, in dem der britischen Regierung vorgeworfen wurde, Informationen über irakische Massenvernichtungswaffen bewusst übertrieben zu haben, um den Irak-Krieg zu rechtfertigen. Diese Behauptung sei völlig gegenstandslos gewesen, urteilte Hutton an die Adresse der BBC gerichtet. Kelly nahm sich im Juli vergangenen Jahres das Leben - wenige Tage nachdem sein Name als Quelle des Rundfunkberichts genannt worden war.


Hutton kritisierte die Art und Weise, wie die BBC mit den Informationen über angebliche Verfälschungen im Irak-Dossier der Regierung umgegangen sei. Sie habe es versäumt, vor und auch nach der umstrittenen Rundfunksendung die Fakten zu überprüfen. Andererseits warf Hutton auch Kelly unangemessenes Verhalten vor. Als Regierungsberater hätte er sich nicht mit BBC-Reporter Andrew Gilligan treffen dürfen, ohne seine Vorgesetzten darüber zu informieren.

Untersuchung zur Quelle der "Sun" gefordert

Mit Empörung reagierten Abgeordnete aller Parteien darauf, dass Teile des Untersuchungsberichts bereits vorab an "The Sun" gelangt waren. Das Massenblatt hatte berichtet, dass in dem Bericht Huttons weder Blair noch sein inzwischen zurückgetretener Kommunikationschef Alastair Campbell des unehrenhaften Verhaltens bezichtigt würden. Woher diese Informationen stammten, war zunächst nicht gekannt. Sowohl Abgeordnete der regierenden Labour Party als auch Oppositionspolitiker forderten eine Untersuchung, wer die Quelle der "Sun" gewesen sein könnte.



Der Fall Kelly hat Blairs Glaubwürdigkeit laut öffentlichen Umfragen schwer beschädigt. Die Opposition, die den Premierminister mehrfach als Lügner bezeichnet hat, stellte sich nach der Veröffentlichung des Hutton-Berichts auf eine heftige Debatte im Londoner Unterhaus ein. Blair wollte dort zu Ergebnissen der Untersuchungskommission Stellung nehmen.

Die Regierung musste gestern Abend einen schweren Dämpfer hinnehmen. Zwar gewann sie die erste Abstimmung über eine Erhöhung der Studiengebühren mit 316 zu 311 Stimmen. Angesichts einer Mehrheit von 157 Stimmen für die Labour Party war dies allerdings ein denkbar knappes Ergebnis. Zahlreiche Labour-Abgeordnete stimmten gegen ihre eigene Fraktion."

"But Mr Byford said the apology was a recognition the BBC made had errors.
He said: "Trust is the foundation of the BBC and definitely its journalism.
"What audiences in the UK and around the world expect from the BBC is independence from government and any political or commercial pressure.
"They expect accurate, fair, objective and impartial journalism and that's what they'll get under my leadership."
But it was equally important to admit mistakes in order to maintain trust, he added."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446759.stm

Trust is also the foundation of politics. How can our politicians run a country, care for us, when the media demands for trust for them and creates suspicion for the politicians? The media is already full of complaints, that Lord Hutton was unfair, that he was wrong.

But the media is in a better position. We, the readers, cannot prove if the media is right. The weblogs help a little. But the great damage is already done by the media and they go on to hide it.


"But Mr Byford said the apology was a recognition the BBC made had errors.
He said: "Trust is the foundation of the BBC and definitely its journalism.
"What audiences in the UK and around the world expect from the BBC is independence from government and any political or commercial pressure.
"They expect accurate, fair, objective and impartial journalism and that's what they'll get under my leadership."
But it was equally important to admit mistakes in order to maintain trust, he added."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446759.stm

Trust is also the foundation of politics. How can our politicians run a country, care for us, when the media demands for trust for them and creates suspicion for the politicians? The media is already full of complaints, that Lord Hutton was unfair, that he was wrong.

But the media is in a better position. We, the readers, cannot prove if the media is right. The weblogs help a little. But the great damage is already done by the media and they go on to hide the truth.


Spiegel-online:

Hutton nannte den Radiobeitrag völlig unhaltbar und warf der BBC vor, in ihrer Berichterstattung wichtige Fakten nicht überprüft und dieses Versäumnis später nicht eingestanden zu haben

http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,284427,00.html


Falsch: Lord Hutton nannte nicht den ganzen Radiobeitrag unhaltbar, sondern nur die Schlüsselbehauptungen Gilligans, die Regierung habe die 45-Minuten-Behauptung eingefügt, obwohl ihnen klar war, daß diese falsch war (=Lüge) und zwar habe Camphell dies veranlaßt. Dies war laut Lord Hutton falsch.

Lord Hutton hatte gar nicht den Auftrag zu überprüfen, ob es Massenvernichtungswaffen gibt oder nicht. Er hat auch nicht den ganzen Radiobeitrag als falsch bezeichnet, sondern nur den von ihm untersuchten Teil.

Spiegel selbst arbeitet hier mit einer Lüge, indem er einfach behauptet, Lord Hutton hätte den ganzen Beitrag überprüft und als falsch bezeichnet. Der Beitrag hätte nicht ungeprüft gesendet werden dürfen, war seine Aussage an anderer Stelle, aber das heißt nicht, daß er insgesamt inhaltlich falsch war. Das war nicht Auftrag Lord Huttons. Dazu hat er sich gar nicht geäußert. Die Journalisten fahren also fort, Falsches zu behaupten, verdrehen und verbiegen den Sachverhalt und der dumme Leser glaubt den Medien.

Wo ist eine Auseinandersetzung mit dem eigentlichen Problem, daß die Medien in unverantwortlicherweise Blair der Lüge bezichtigt haben, dies monatelang weltweit die Medien beherrschte und beeinflußte, und daß Lord Hutton nun festgehalten hat, daß diese Behauptung der Lüge durch Gilligan falsch sei. Er glaubt sogar, daß Dr. Kelly dies gar nicht gesagt habe.

Daß Gilligan seltsamerweise zwei unterschiedliche handschriftliche Notizen zu dem Gespräch hatte, einmal mit Camphell und einmal ohne, erwähnt niemand in den Medien. Daß Gilligan zuvor emails an das FAC geschickt hat und Dr. Kelly als Quelle für Susan Watts Bericht preisgegeben hat, findet sich auch nur in vereinzelten Artikeln. Als Dr. Kelly vom FAC in die Mangel genommen wurde, hatte Gilligan zumindest zweien der Fragesteller emails zugeschickt und die Fragen vorgegeben. All dies findet in den Medien keine große Beachtung, und es wäre doch wichtig zur Meinungsbildung, wem mehr zu trauen sei: BBC oder Blair.

Here you can find all the facts, what Gilligan said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/print/politics/hutton_audio_timeline_20040128.shtml#

Wednesday, January 28, 2004

THE 'TODAY' AUDIO TIMELINE

Listen to any or all of the major interviews and reports broadcast by Today in the lead up to Lord Hutton's inquiry. Simply CLICK ON THE DATE of the item you'd like to hear.

* May 29, 2003: 6.07am
The Andrew Gilligan early un-scripted 'two-way' interview with John Humphrys in which he first reports his source, later confirmed as Dr David Kelly.
"What we've been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that dossier was that actually the Government probably knew that that 45 minute figure was wrong even before it decided to put it in."
- Andrew Gilligan

* May 29, 2003: 7.32am
Andrew Gilligan reports what he says Dr David Kelly told him in their meeting at the Charing Cross Hotel in London on May 22, 2003.
"It was transformed the week before it was published, to make it sexier. The classic example was the statement that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within 45 minutes. That information was not in the original draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes because it wasn't reliable. Most things in the dossier were double sourced, but that was single sourced. And we believed that the source was wrong."
- Andrew Gilligan

* May 29, 2003: 8.10am
Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram, speaking with John on the morning of Andrew Gilligan's report, concedes the 45 minute claim came from a single, uncorroborated source (following questioning on cluster bombs).
"Well, that (45 minute claim) was said on the basis of a security source information. Single sourced, it wasn't corroborated"
- Adam Ingram


These are only some examples. There is much more to read.

Now Gilligan said in his statement: "It is hard to believe now that this all stems from two flawed sentences in one unscripted early-morning interview, never repeated, when I said that the Government "probably knew" that the 45-minute figure was wrong."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3446443.stm


NEVER REPEATED? Always repeated by nearly every journalist all over the world! And it still goes on.

Does Gilligan really believe what he is saying here?

Where are the serious journalists who get up against such shitty journalists?

Here is a summary what the British media wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,13822,1135682,00.html

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/comment/0,13747,1133970,00.html

"Judged by these criteria, the BBC journalist Andrew Gilligan got more right than he got wrong in the 19 radio broadcasts concerning the government's dossier on weapons of mass destruction in which he was involved last May 29. This was a subject of the clearest possible public interest. His source was a reliable, knowledgeable and admired public servant. Mr Gilligan knew from other sources - and other respected journalists were reporting the same - that there was, indeed, disquiet within the intelligence community as publication of the dossier became imminent. Dr Kelly told another BBC reporter, Susan Watts: "They were desperate for information ... they were pushing hard for information which could be released." Dr Kelly told yet another BBC reporter, Gavin Hewitt: "Number 10 spin came into play.""

This journalist also missed the point as many: Why do they all think that Dr. Kelly was right, that he was telling the truth. They don't report, that Susan Watts did not report this because she thought this was gossipy.

Here is what she said about Dr. Kelly in the Lord Hutton inquiry:

21 I (Susan Watts) would also like to say I have made a point of not
22 familiarising myself with what Andrew Gilligan has given
23 in his evidence so that I can remain independent in
24 mind, but I am of course familiar with his broad
25 reporting both on the Today Programme and in The Mail on

5
1 Sunday and the remarks he made in those reports.
2 I wanted to say, contrary to some of the
3 interpretations that were put on my evidence of
4 yesterday in today's newspapers, I feel that there were
5 significant differences between what Dr Kelly said to me
6 and what Andrew Gilligan has reported that Dr Kelly said
7 to him.
8 Q. What were those differences?
9 A. Well, he did not say to me that the dossier was
10 transformed in the last week. He certainly did not say
11 the 45 minutes claim was inserted either by
12 Alastair Campbell or by anyone else in Government. In
13 fact, he denied that specifically that Alastair Campbell
14 was involved, in the conversation on 30th May, which we
15 will come to, which will become clearer. He was very
16 clear to me that the claim was in the original
17 intelligence material.
18 Q. That was your understanding?
19 A. Seized upon --
20 Q. That was your understanding when you spoke to him?
21 A. Absolutely

So when Gilligan and many other journalists now say that the Governemnt did sex up the dossier. How can they proof it. When they refer to Kelly, who knows that Kelly denied it and Susan Watts called it gossip.

This whole Kelly-affair is difficult. To have an judgement you have to consider many facts. There are only very few journalists who know all these facts. But they all write their statements about it. I wonder how many of them read the Hutton Inquiry and how many of them read the Lord Hutton's report.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7813-983221,00.html
Mr Dyke insisted that the BBC had not accused Tony Blair of lying.
"The Prime Minister consistently comes back and says effectively 'I was accused of lying'. We never accused the Prime Minister of lying."


The whole world repeated it and referred to Gilligan. when they all were wrong and misunderstood Gilligan wrong, why didn't the BBC get up and told them, Blair did not lie?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7813-984513,00.html

January 31, 2004

The advert
The full text of “wildcat” BBC newspaper advert:
THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE BBC



THE following statement is from BBC employees, presenters, reporters and contributors. It was paid for by them personally, not the BBC itself.

Greg Dyke stood for brave, independent and rigorous BBC journalism that was fearless in its search for the truth. We are resolute that the BBC should not step back from its determination to investigate the facts in pursuit of the truth.

Through his passion and integrity Greg Dyke inspired us to make programmes of the highest quality and creativity.

We are dismayed by Greg’s departure, but we are determined to maintain his achievements and his vision for an independent organisation that serves the public above all else.

THE SUPPORTERS

Signatories included:
Jonathan Ross; Jeremy Clarkson; Dawn French; Lenny Henry; James Nesbit; Fay Ripley; Richard Wilson; Nick Ross; Robin Denselow; Jeremy Vine; Roger Graef; John Sweeney; Simon Schama; Joan Bakewell; Lyse Doucet; Martha Kearney; Ben Brown and Gavin Esler.

THE REACTION

Bill Dare
producer of the satirical series Dead Ringers:

“Everyone is shocked at Greg’s leaving. He was the best Director-General the BBC had in decades”

Mike Hales
senior producer, Radio 6 Music interactive:

“Greg had a spark and honesty that draws you to him and makes you believe in the possibility of changing things for the better”

Peter Horrocks
head of current affairs:
“We are not going to allow the current traumas to affect our objective judgments”

My opinion:
But the problem is, Andrew Gilligan made his report sexier. He told us already that he did so. He lied. He did not search for facts and the truth. Why do his supporters ignore this?





http://www.zeit.de/politik/kroenig_bbc

http://www.nzz.ch/2004/01/31/al/page-article9DNN0.html

Ich habe bisher nur zwei Artikel in den dt.sprachigen Medien gefunden, die sich mit der eigentlichen Problematik auseinandersetzen: Krönig in der Zeit (Blair entlastet, BBC in der Krise) und Peter Gaupp in der NZZ (Vorurteil und Systemschwächen bei der BBC).

Andrew Gilligan's story was in it's main part correct. Intelligence was misused. The following quote is taken from an article by Peter Obourne in The Spectator.

"In an interview with the Times two weeks ago, Alastair Campbell spoke of how modern intelligence services had a ‘presentational role’ alongside their historic function. The charge against Scarlett is that he accepted this heretical proposition too avidly. He was on emailing terms with quite junior members of the Downing Street press office. He allowed Campbell to chair an intelligence meeting. When very senior DIS staff took the extraordinary step of writing a letter to complain that the dossier went too far in its claim that Saddam Hussein could deploy WMD in 45 minutes, they were ignored. And yet when Campbell, who told Hutton that he had never even seen the raw intelligence, wanted the language materially hardened, he was accommodated."http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old&section=current&issue=2004-01-31&id=4227

Yes in one report at 6.00 o'clock in the morning Gilligan went to far - but if Downing Street hadn't made a fuss nobody would have noticed. At 6 in the morning relatively few people are listening.

If Lord Huttonhad prodced a balanced report with blame on both sides then people could accept it. But Hutton's report may as well have been written in No 10 for all the balance that is present.

The fundamental facts for Germany are that a media that tries to impose its opinions on its factual reporting will slowly rot and fade away. The US networks are in a panic over their continual drop in viewership. Part of this is due to market segmentation. A great deal of it has to do with the media being caught in lie after exaggeration after invention. People want a news media that they can trust to give them the facts so that they can make up their own minds. If German media follow the establishment TV networks in the US, they will end up in the same desperate place, bleeding viewers and battling irrelevancy.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

August 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31