highly respected by the reporting industry, and the rest of the world as well as many people in america
i haven't heard of the report, link?
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
well BBC is highly respected, it prolly hasn't been picked up yet in the states because it's not good for ratings, or morale
kinda like that aids vaccine thing i posted a lil while back, only webmd reported it, and it was reported on monday i think, but i have yet to see any news networks pick up the story
The BBC is highly respected? By whom?
Guess you've never heard of the Hutton Commision.
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
well BBC is highly respected, it prolly hasn't been picked up yet in the states because it's not good for ratings, or morale
kinda like that aids vaccine thing i posted a lil while back, only webmd reported it, and it was reported on monday i think, but i have yet to see any news networks pick up the story
The BBC is highly respected? By whom?
Guess you've never heard of the Hutton Commision.
highly respected by the reporting industry, and the rest of the world as well as many people in america
i haven't heard of the report, link?
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The findings of the Hutton Commission revealed that BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan knowingly broadcast a lie about the British government falsifying information. The main point about the story is that Gilligan's lies were inspired by his own strong opposition to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the war. in Iraq. Even more important was the fact that the leadership of the BBC was unwilling to examine the network's shortcomings until forced to do so by public pressure.
In addition, the BBC has a strong anti-Israel bias.
Link
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: Riprorin
The findings of the Hutton Commission revealed that BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan knowingly broadcast a lie about the British government falsifying information. The main point about the story is that Gilligan's lies were inspired by his own strong opposition to British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the war. in Iraq. Even more important was the fact that the leadership of the BBC was unwilling to examine the network's shortcomings until forced to do so by public pressure.
In addition, the BBC has a strong anti-Israel bias.
Link
Wow, an unbiased editorial from the Jewish World Review.
I couldn't help but notice you omitted the "lie" from you post and I couldn't find the "lie" in the JWR editorial. Can you tell us what the "lie" is? Because I was under the impression that Andrew Gilligan reported that the 45 minute Iraq attack threat Blair made was false. And Blair knew it was false.
That's no lie in anybody's book. You people are just doing what you always do. Use an event to start an investigation then go on a witch hunt. Like the 9/11 Commission. Or the Deulfer report. Or the Valerie Plame case. Same MO every time.
Suicide or Murder? The Dr. David Kelly Affair
Originally posted by: Harvey
Rip -- What's your point? In fact, I could ask the same question about most of your posts. Most of what you post is nothing more than links and quotes without making any statement of your own.
If true, the article suggests some there may have been serious violations of the rights of these kids and their parents to determine the medical care they received, but you didn't even bother to mention that all of the kids are alreadh HIV positive. Without some kind of help, they're already dead sooner or later.
If you're going to post something like this, it would be nice if you brought something to the table than we couldn't get by reading and listening to the news.
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Or you could just go directly to the Hutton Report:
Summary of conclusions relating to the BBC arising from Mr Gilligan's broadcasts on the BBC Today programme on 29 May 2003
291. (1) The allegations reported by Mr Gilligan on the BBC Today programme on 29 May 2003 that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong or questionable before the dossier was published and that it was not inserted in the first draft of the dossier because it only came from one source and the intelligence agencies did not really believe it was necessarily true, were unfounded.
(2) The communication by the media of information (including information obtained by investigative reporters) on matters of public interest and importance is a vital part of life in a democratic society. However the right to communicate such information is subject to the qualification (which itself exists for the benefit of a democratic society) that false accusations of fact impugning the integrity of others, including politicians, should not be made by the media. Where a reporter is intending to broadcast or publish information impugning the integrity of others the management of his broadcasting company or newspaper should ensure that a system is in place whereby his editor or editors give careful consideration to the wording of the report and to whether it is right in all the circumstances to broadcast or publish it. The allegations that Mr Gilligan was intending to broadcast in respect of the Government and the preparation of the dossier were very grave allegations in relation to a subject of great importance and I consider that the editorial system which the BBC permitted was defective in that Mr Gilligan was allowed to broadcast his report at 6.07am without editors having seen a script of what he was going to say and having considered whether it should be approved.
(3) The BBC management was at fault in the following respects in failing to investigate properly the Government's complaints that the report in the 6.07am broadcast was false that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong even before it decided to put it in the dossier. The BBC management failed, before Mr Sambrook wrote his letter of 27 June 2003 to Mr Campbell, to make an examination of Mr Gilligan's notes on his personal organiser of his meeting with Dr Kelly to see if they supported the allegations which he had reported in his broadcast at 6.07am. When the BBC management did look at Mr Gilligan's notes after 27 June it failed to appreciate that the notes did not fully support the most serious of the allegations which he had reported in the 6.07am broadcast, and it therefore failed to draw the attention of the Governors to the lack of support in the notes for the most serious of the allegations.
(4) The e-mail sent by Mr Kevin Marsh, the editor of the Today programme on 27 June 2003 to Mr Stephen Mitchell, the Head of Radio News, (see paragraph 284) which was critical of Mr Gilligan's method of reporting, and which referred to Mr Gilligan's "loose use of language and lack of judgment in some of his phraseology" and referred also to "the loose and in some ways distant relationship he's been allowed to have with Today," was clearly relevant to the complaints which the Government were making about his broadcasts on 29 May, and the lack of knowledge on the part of Mr Sambrook, the Director of News and the Governors of this critical e-mail shows a defect in the operation of the BBC's management system for the consideration of complaints in respect of broadcasts.
(5) The Governors were right to take the view that it was their duty to protect the independence of the BBC against attacks by the Government and Mr Campbell's complaints were being expressed in exceptionally strong terms which raised very considerably the temperature of the dispute between the Government and the BBC. However Mr Campbell's allegation that the BBC had an anti-war agenda in his evidence to the FAC was only one part of his evidence. The Government's concern about Mr Gilligan's broadcasts on 29 May was a separate issue about which specific complaints had been made by the Government. Therefore the Governors should have recognised more fully than they did that their duty to protect the independence of the BBC was not incompatible with giving proper consideration to whether there was validity in the Government's complaints, no matter how strongly worded by Mr Campbell, that the allegations against its integrity reported in Mr Gilligan's broadcasts were unfounded and the Governors failed to give this issue proper consideration. The view taken by the Governors, as explained in evidence by Mr Gavyn Davies, the Chairman of the Board of Governors, that they had to rely on the BBC management to investigate and assess whether Mr Gilligan's source was reliable and credible and that it was not for them as Governors to investigate whether the allegations reported were themselves accurate, is a view which is understandable. However this was not the correct view for the Governors to take because the Government had stated to the BBC in clear terms, as had Mr Campbell to the FAC, that the report that the Government probably knew that the 45 minutes claim was wrong was untruthful, and this denial was made with the authority of the Prime Minister and the Chairman of the JIC. In those circumstances, rather than relying on the assurances of BBC management, I consider that the Governors themselves should have made more detailed investigations into the extent to which Mr Gilligan's notes supported his report. If they had done this they would probably have discovered that the notes did not support the allegation that the Government knew that the 45 minutes claim was probably wrong, and the Governors should then have questioned whether it was right for the BBC to maintain that it was in the public interest to broadcast that allegation in Mr Gilligan's report and to rely on Mr Gilligan's assurances that his report was accurate. Therefore in the very unusual and specific circumstances relating to Mr Gilligan's broadcasts, the Governors are to be criticised for themselves failing to make more detailed investigations into whether this allegation reported by Mr Gilligan was properly supported by his notes and for failing to give proper and adequate consideration to whether the BBC should publicly acknowledge that this very grave allegation should not have been broadcast.
Link
Gilligan's allegations were unfounded and the BBC failed to investigate the matter properly.