Kelly Affair: It's Not About WMD, It's About Biased Journalism / Kelly-Affäre: Es geht nicht um Massenvernichtungswaffen, es geht um voreingenommenen Journalismus

(Deutsche Übersetzung am Ende des Beitrags)

Andrew Gowers, editor of the Financial Times, has written a brilliant commentary on the true lessons of the BBC scandal and the report of Lord Hutton: "The BBC's failings are a warning to all journalists". (Article in FT of January 31, 2004, p. 7 - paid content)

...the true message of the Hutton report is that this was a story about journalism, not about the deliberate embellishment of a government dossier on Iraqi WMD, against the wishes of the intelligence services. ...

No one - certainly not Lord Hutton - is suggesting that journalism must now retreat from questioning and investigating those in authority. On the contrary: such activites are more needed than ever. But they will have to be done better and - like government officials - we have a duty not to "sex up" what we claim to have found.

Let this dreadful misadventure, then, serve as a wake-up call for journalists.

It should remind us the reflexive media mistrust of every government action or pronouncement ... is corroding British democracy and eroding trust in the media themselves. ... When we make mistakes - as everyone does - the BBC's experience should teach us to correct rather than to defend blindly.

That is the only way to start restoring confidence in the broadcast media, newspapers and the thousands of conscientious journalists who work in them.

Jürgen Krönig in the German weekly ZEIT draws similar conclusions:

It would wrong to reduce the oroblem to a single reporter and an unsatisfactorily investigated and essentially false report.  Andrew Gilligan is not a rare bird that accidentally landed in BBC's cage.  He embodies a new journalistic culture that has infected the BBC and which increasingly colors its journalistic output and which stands in sharp contrast to the work ethic that was the foundation of the worldwide reputation of this broadcaster.  Soberly dissociated journalism that is guided by the ethos of objectivity and impartiality no longer dominates at the BBC.  The sensational story, the exciting scoop, more often than not, count more than a differentiated analysis.  Even BBC reporters succumb to the temptation to make news, instead of reporting the news correctly.  They want to be players on the field of politics, instead of just having to explain the game. (Translation by Holger)

One must admit that British journalism at least has elements of critical self-inspection. Nothing of the kind can be found in the German media system. It's simply unimaginable in Germany to have a government appointed commission investigating biased reporting at ARD or ZDF (whose status is most similar to that of the BBC). Criticizing journalists is simply "verboten" in Germany. As a politician you cross that line at your own risk...

Update: Tanker made me aware of this excellent article by Martin Kettle in the Guardian:

Having read the Hutton report and most of what has been written about it, I have reached the following, strictly non-judicial, conclusions: first, that the episode illuminates a wider crisis in British journalism than the turmoil at the BBC; second, that too many journalists are in denial about this wider crisis; third, that journalists need to be at the forefront of trying to rectify it; and, fourth, that this will almost certainly not happen.

The reporting of Lord Hutton's conclusions and of the reactions to them has been meticulous. The same cannot be said of large tracts of the commentary and editorialising - nor of much of the equally kneejerk newspaper correspondence. Much of this comment has been sullied by scorn, prejudice and petulance. The more you read it, the more you get the sense that the modern journalist is prone to behaving like a child throwing its rattle out of the pram because it has not got what it wanted.

Deutsche Übersetzung

Kelly-Affäre: Es geht nicht um Massenvernichtungswaffen, es geht um voreingenommenen Journalismus

Andrew Gowers, Redakteur der Financial Times, hat einen brillianten Kommentar zu den wahren Lektionen des BBC-Skandals und des Berichtes von Lord Hutton verfaßt: "Die Fehler der BBC sind eine Warnung für alle Journalisten". (Artikel in der FT vom 31. Januar 2004, S. 7 - kostenpflichtig)

...die wirkliche Botschaft des Hutton-Berichts ist, daß es hier um Journalismus und nicht um die absichtliche Verschönerung eines Regierungs-Dossiers über irakische Massenvernichtungswaffen gegen den Willen der Geheimdienste ging. ...

Niemand - und sicher nicht Lord Hutton - schlägt vor, daß Journalismus sich nun von der Untersuchung und Befragung derer in Amt und Würden zurückziehen muß. Im Gegenteil: solche Aktivitäten werden noch mehr gefragt als je zuvor. Aber sie müssen besser gemacht werden und - ebenso wie Regierungs-Offizielle - haben wir eine Pflicht, nicht das aufzubauschen, was wir gefunden zu haben behaupten.

So sollte dieses unerfreuliche Mißgeschick als Weckruf für Journalisten zu dienen.

Es sollte uns daran erinnern, daß das reflexhafte Mißtrauen gegenüber jeglichem Regierungshandeln oder Ankündigung ... die britische Demokratie zersetzt und auch das Vertrauen in den Medien selbst. ... Wenn wir Fehler machen - wie sie jeder macht -, so sollte uns die Erfahrung der BBC lehren, uns eher zu korrigieren, als sich blind zu verteidigen.

Das ist der einzige Weg, um das verloren gegangene Vertrauen in das Fernsehen, die Zeitungen und die tausenden von Journalisten, die dort arbeiten, wieder herzustellen. (Unsere Übersetzung)

Jürgen Krönig hat in der ZEIT ähnliche Schlußfolgerungen gezogen:

Doch wäre es falsch, das Problem auf einen einzigen Reporter und einen mangelhaft recherchierten, in der Essenz falschen Bericht zu reduzieren. Bei Andrew Gilligan handelt es sich nicht um einen exotischen Paradiesvogel, der zufällig in das Gehege der BBC geriet. Er verkörpert eine neue journalistische Kultur, die in der BBC um sich gegriffen hat, die den journalistischen Ausstoß immer stärker prägt und in scharfem Kontrast zu der Arbeitsweise steht, die den weltweiten Ruf des Rundfunksenders begründete. Bei der BBC dominiert nicht länger jener unangefochtene, nüchtern distanzierte Journalismus, der sich vom Ethos der Objektivität und Unparteilichkeit leiten lässt. Die sensationelle Story, der aufregende Coup zählen allzu oft mehr als eine differenzierte Analyse. Auch BBC-Reporter erliegen der Versuchung, Nachrichten zu machen statt Nachrichten korrekt zu berichten. Sie wollen Spieler auf dem politischen Feld sein statt das Feld zu erklären.

Man muß zugeben, daß der britische Journalismus zumindestens Elemente von Selbstkritik aufweist. Davon kann in den deutschen Medien keine Rede sein. Es ist einfach unvorstellbar, daß in Deutschland eine Regierungskommission voreingenommenen Journalismus bei ARD oder ZDF untersucht (deren Status noch am ehesten dem der BBC entspricht). Journalisten zu kritisieren ist einfach "verboten" in Deutschland. Als Politiker verstößt man gegen diese Regel nicht ungestraft...

Comments

[Gabi]

Lesenswert:

1. In defence of Hutton

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;$sessionid$JIVOQKLX0UG0ZQFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F02%2F01%2Fdl0101.xml&sSheet=%2Fopinion%2F2004%2F02%2F01%2Fixopinion.html

2. Wrong then, wrong now: How the BBC blundered

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/02/01/nhutt201.xml

[Gabi]

Auch Wolfgang Münchau in der Financial times Deutschland setzt sich gut mit der Problematik auseinander.

http://www.ftd.de/pw/in/1075534252929.html?nv=se

Kolumne: Dichtung, Wahrheit und Krieg (03.02.2004)

[Pamela]

Gabi, I have one problem with the headline in the Telegraph. To characterize the behavior of the BBC as a 'blunder', is to give it the credibility of a mistake made honestly.

That is not the case. Andrew Gilligan was rewarded within the culture of the BBC for being anti-Tony Blair. He was in Baghdad when it fell, maintained he had not seen any American military, and when the statue of Saddam was pulled down, an event covered live worldwide by even Al Jazeera, the BBC covered an earthquake in India.

This was not an honest mistake. This is propaganda. If this were just one reporter, just one incident of over-the-top reporting, it would have gone unnoticed. But now the BBC, as a culture, and Andrew Gilligan as a human being, have to sit back and get bitch-slapped for their complicity for the death of David Kelly. They lied about his information, they lied about him.

I cannot imagine how Gilligan could ever face Kelly's family.

[Gabi]

Pamela:
Gilligan does not realize his responsibility. He still goes on with complaining about Blair and the pressure they made and that they made the dossier sexier. When he still blames others, there is no need to see the truth: Dr. Kelly killed himself NOT because of the Government.

[Gabi]

Thomas Kielinger von der WELT hat leider auch nicht die Problematik verstanden und suggeriert den Lesern, es ginge nun um Einschränkung der Pressefreiheit. Gerade an den Reaktionen in unseren Medien sieht man die Qualität der jeweiligen. Zeit und Finanacial Times Deutschland, ein bißchen sehr wenig. Oder gab es noch mehr gute Analysen?

[Gabi]

"The media," writes Mr. Kaplan, "is no longer simply the fourth estate, without which the other three branches of government could not operate honestly and effectively. Because of technology and the consolidation of news organizations — similar to the consolidation of airline and automobile alliances — the media is becoming a world power in its own right. The power of the media is willful and dangerous because it dramatically affects Western policy while bearing no responsibility for the outcome. Indeed, the media's moral perfectionism is possible only because it is politically unaccountable."

aus: Investigating weapons expert's death, another side of England by Clive Davis

http://www.washtimes.com/books/20030830-104305-4854r.htm

[Gabi]

I think it is good when the discussion will go on because too many people still believe more the journalists and did not understand the problem when journalists go on creating news instead of reporting them.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-3711049,00.html

The lawyers also say the BBC's decision to run Andrew Gilligan's infamous Radio 4 Today programme broadcast claiming the dossier was "sexed up" was justified under the European Convention on Human Rights and previous legal rulings that allegations do not have to be proved before they are published.