BBC Chairman resigns

dysfunction · Jan 28, 2004

Due to the Hutton enquiry saying that the BBC's editorial process was defective.

I am pleased to see this. Its about time the media takes responsibility for the things they report.

Its all about reporting facts and not just jumping to conclusions and making accusations before having all the facts at hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3434661.stm

I think sometimes the media get away with far too much...

Tom · Jan 28, 2004

I'm glad, the BBC is such a poorly run organisation from the top. Too many managers, too much fluff, not enough action.

Andrew Gillingham should be next IMO.

Cask · Jan 28, 2004

I hope his replacment hates soaps especially Australian ones.

Tom · Jan 28, 2004

Personally I'm hoping they get someone in there who realises that sending out researchers to shoot programs with DVcam is a bad idea.

dysfunction · Jan 28, 2004

Tom said:
Personally I'm hoping they get someone in there who realises that sending out researchers to shoot programs with DVcam is a bad idea.

You want them to hire you instead eh?

Tom · Jan 28, 2004

Well, yes that would be nice, but the main problem is the lack of training now going on. Most people in the industry (myself excepted) have a background in network television, either BBC or ITV trained. The vast majority of camera crews in this country are now freelance, and there is little if any training now in place for people wishing to become a cameraman. I learnt by observation, and trial and error. These researchers are sent on 2-3 day courses, and don't particularly want to even be cameramen!

Most experienced cameramen started off by being camera assistants, and learning that way. There isn't a budget for camera assistants in most television programmes these days, so how are people expected to learn?

The answer is, they can't. It all starts with the accountants. Cost cutting might help balance the books and make an organisation appear more cost-effective, but in the end it will only serve to help the demise of tv in this country.

Its happening now with ITV. You know the big Granada building in Manchester where Coronation St is shot? That will be empty soon, they're moving most of their programming down to London, and the rest will be in a smaller warehouse facility they own in Manchester. Corrie will still be shot where it is.

Maybe I'm being selfish, but it pisses me off when I see someone make a mess of a job I love doing well (although I'm far from perfect

). Anyway, I just hope they get someone in who is more concerned with producing quality programming, rather than cheap programming. Fucking John Birt, wanker.

Paradroid · Jan 29, 2004

dysfunction said:
Due to the Hutton enquiry saying that the BBC's editorial process was defective.

I am pleased to see this. Its about time the media takes responsibility for the things they report.

Its all about reporting facts and not just jumping to conclusions and making accusations before having all the facts at hand.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3434661.stm

I think sometimes the media get away with far too much...

I can't believe I'm reading these reactions to the Hutton inquiry, it's a sham ffs.

Lord Hutton has produced a biased report which basically blames the BBC for it's mistakes, but, sees nothing wrong with the government making the exact same mistake.

Think about it, the BBC (as a whole) are responsible for broadcasting information that was inaccurate (i.e. Blair sexed-up the document, Hutton found this untrue, spanked bottoms, BBC chairman resigns), the government are also responsible for broadcasting information that was inaccurate (WMD, "...may be within 45 minutes...", changed to: "...will be within 45 minutes..."). Hutton himself actually admits that the document was sexed-up, by referring to the "subconscious" effect the discussions may have had on the report - comparing it to a "normal" JIC report (ffs).

How can you blame the BBC bosses for "giving-out" duff info, and not our governments bosses?

The BBC should be applauded for having the balls to say what they think (or have found) ffs. If the BBC hadn't started this "upset" where would the whole "invade Iraq" right/wrong debate be?

You only have to look to the USA to see how wrong the desicion would be to stifle the press, I say give 'em hell boys, right or wrong lets have it out in the open!

dysfunction said:
Its all about reporting facts and not just jumping to conclusions and making accusations before having all the facts at hand.

Oh, and regarding the above quote...these are facts that weren't considered, these too...

:flame:

xane · Jan 29, 2004

Paradroid said:
the government are also responsible for broadcasting information that was inaccurate (WMD, "...may be within 45 minutes...", changed to: "...will be within 45 minutes..."). Hutton himself actually admits that the document was sexed-up, by referring to the "subconscious" effect the discussions may have had on the report - comparing it to a "normal" JIC report (ffs).

Hutton also made clear that his inquiry was precisely not about a judgement regarding Iraq. The facts you are so concerned about were that the government were accused of being a bunch of liars when they were not. All the information the government presented was "true" in the context it was presented, if you change the context then that's avoiding the issue.

If you want a wider issue on Iraq then Kelly made it absolutely clear that Iraq could have WMD in "days or weeks", another "inaccurate" intelligence report, to continue to argue the point that perhaps we would have not gone to war with Iraq if it had been "WMD in one week" rather than "WMD in 45 minutes" is stretching it somewhat.

I'll absolutely admit that speculation about Iraqi WMD was a great excuse for war when the real reasons lie elsewhere, that's another matter, and doesn't mean that you can accuse people of lying about things when they have not, like Gilligan thought it should be.

Stimpy · Jan 29, 2004

Greg Dykes just resigned to, can't provide a link because BBC webby is dead for me atm.

edit: Here

Shovel · Jan 29, 2004

Aye, just saw that on News24.

While naturally you don't know what to think on the BBC reporting their own internal strife, I think there's a rather big risk now of making an even bigger mess out of it: BBC government independence was something that Dyke did a fairly good job of promoting, and replacing that after the fallout from a direct conflict with with government will be hard to maintain similar respect.

They interviewed Andrew Marr, who seemed genuinely pissed off about it I must say.

I can't see any good reason for the BBC not to just sack Gilligan (who appears to have disappeared from view). I'm not aware of him being an especially good reporter for anything else anyway, and this does largely stem from his over sensationalisation of the issue in the first place. The BBC didn't stop him, but he still compiled a shite report.

throdgrain · Jan 29, 2004

All the wailers here seem so dissapointed that the Prime Minister wasn't found to be in the wrong. They forget ,as someone else here said, that the Hutton inquiry was specifically re the Gilligan report and the subsequent suicide.
The BBC have been found to be in the wrong, yet that conclusion doesnt suit some people ,so they just keep on regardless :/

DaGaffer · Jan 29, 2004

throdgrain said:
All the wailers here seem so dissapointed that the Prime Minister wasn't found to be in the wrong. They forget ,as someone else here said, that the Hutton inquiry was specifically re the Gilligan report and the subsequent suicide.
The BBC have been found to be in the wrong, yet that conclusion doesnt suit some people ,so they just keep on regardless :/

Fine, so when can we have a public, independent judicial enquiry into the Government's misleading of Parliament and the Public as to the reasons for the war? Oh, yeah, when Hell freezes over.

Stazbumpa · Jan 29, 2004

^ Wot Throddy sed.

Entertaining that the BBC were found to be guilty of sexing up a report about sexing up a report. I'm glad that the top bods are resigning because the BBC is one of the worlds largest news gathering agencies, and as such should not be making stories up to suit their own views.

Reporters should report what is happening, not what they think is happening or what they want to happen. The fact that the BBC top guns stood by Gilligan without actually doing any research at all just makes it funnier.

Stazbumpa · Jan 29, 2004

DaGaffer said:
Fine, so when can we have a public, independent judicial enquiry into the Government's misleading of Parliament and the Public as to the reasons for the war? Oh, yeah, when Hell freezes over.

The reasons for the war were clearly stated I think. The Government, and other Governments, thought he had WMD. UN inspectors had been looking for at least 10 years, he was either non co-operative or kept kicking them out of Iraq altogether.

It annoys me that all you conspiracy tossers who think that the USA/GB/whoever else are lying to us about the reasons for the war have never stopped and looked at the grand conspiracy of Saddam.

Why was he so uncooperative? Why did he keep expelling the inspectors? Why did he keep breaching unilateral UN resolutions?
Fucking ask yourselves why was Saddam doing this if he had nothing to hide??

Krazeh · Jan 29, 2004

Stazbumpa said:
The reasons for the war were clearly stated I think. The Government, and other Governments, thought he had WMD. UN inspectors had been looking for at least 10 years, he was either non co-operative or kept kicking them out of Iraq altogether.

It annoys me that all you conspiracy tossers who think that the USA/GB/whoever else are lying to us about the reasons for the war have never stopped and looked at the grand conspiracy of Saddam.

Why was he so uncooperative? Why did he keep expelling the inspectors? Why did he keep breaching unilateral UN resolutions?
Fucking ask yourselves why was Saddam doing this if he had nothing to hide??

Because he was a megalomaniac dictator who would never go and admit to doin what the west had told him to do. Do you honestly believe saddam would admit to having destroyed his WMD as instructed?

He was never gonna say that he had done what he was told even if he did do it, it would've been a sign of weakness in his rule if he admitted to allowing himself to be forced to do things by the west.

throdgrain · Jan 29, 2004

I think Saddam would probably do it now though ..

DaGaffer · Jan 29, 2004

Stazbumpa said:
The reasons for the war were clearly stated I think. The Government, and other Governments, thought he had WMD. UN inspectors had been looking for at least 10 years, he was either non co-operative or kept kicking them out of Iraq altogether.

It annoys me that all you conspiracy tossers who think that the USA/GB/whoever else are lying to us about the reasons for the war have never stopped and looked at the grand conspiracy of Saddam.

Why was he so uncooperative? Why did he keep expelling the inspectors? Why did he keep breaching unilateral UN resolutions?
Fucking ask yourselves why was Saddam doing this if he had nothing to hide??

Its simple; Saddam may well have believed he had UMD, he wouldn't be the first dictator to have underlings telling him what he wanted to hear. Or maybe he just got a kick out telling UN inspectors to f*ck off? The point is, that doesn't matter! Credible weapons inspectors like Hans Blix were telling the US/UK - "we don't think he's got UMD, but we need more time" - Dubya and the Neocons had a different agenda. More importantly, even if Saddam did have UMD, he was absolutely no threat to us, lacking as he did any credible delivery systems, and hadn't actually made any aggressive moves outside his own borders for 12 years! We were 'sold' the war on the basis of imminent threat, which was, quite clearly, bollocks, as no WMD have been found, and no one expects to find any.

Even if the US/UK Governments genuinely beleived that there was an imminent threat from WMD by Iraq, then this shows a catastrophic failure on the part of the intelligence services in both countries and is deserving of an enquiry anyway.

So what's it to be? They were stupid, or they lied to us? Its got to be one or the other, and neither option makes me feel safer in my bed at night.

throdgrain · Jan 29, 2004

a) That has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with the Hutton inquiry. This is NOT the issue involved.
b) It was only one of the issues regarding the invasion of Iraq, albeit a major one. Even if they did make a mistake and there wernt any WMD, as incidently I personally believe, a dictator has still been overthrown, the people of Iraq will one day control thier own affairs. Even if the government of Iraq does end up as a Muslim state, arguably the last thing the US want, at least it will be thier own Muslim state, rather than a country run by gangsters.
Thats the end of it really.

dysfunction · Jan 29, 2004

throdgrain said:
a) That has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with the Hutton inquiry. This is NOT the issue involved.
b) It was only one of the issues regarding the invasion of Iraq, albeit a major one. Even if they did make a mistake and there wernt any WMD, as incidently I personally believe, a dictator has still been overthrown, the people of Iraq will one day control thier own affairs. Even if the government of Iraq does end up as a Muslim state, arguably the last thing the US want, at least it will be thier own Muslim state, rather than a country run by gangsters.
Thats the end of it really.

I just have to quote that as its exactly what I was going to say...

DaGaffer · Jan 29, 2004

throdgrain said:
a) That has nothing, repeat NOTHING to do with the Hutton inquiry. This is NOT the issue involved.
b) It was only one of the issues regarding the invasion of Iraq, albeit a major one. Even if they did make a mistake and there wernt any WMD, as incidently I personally believe, a dictator has still been overthrown, the people of Iraq will one day control thier own affairs. Even if the government of Iraq does end up as a Muslim state, arguably the last thing the US want, at least it will be thier own Muslim state, rather than a country run by gangsters.
Thats the end of it really.

a. I know. Read the thread - I was responding to someone else's response to my "so when are we going to get the real enquiry" point.

b. Doesn't matter. Its not the US/UK's job to decide the internal affairs of other countries. If it is, I expect the 82nd Airborne over Harare any minute now, and the Sixth fleet to start shelling Pnomh Penh in the morning. But its not going to happen is it? We were sold the invasion of Iraq on the basis of WMD, NOT to oust Saddam because he's a bad 'un. I personally have no problem with us invading Iraq on that basis, but its not what we were 'sold' until after the fact.

throdgrain · Jan 29, 2004

You're just hijacking the thread to bang on about the same things again . The thread is about the BBC/Hutton thing, and my point was that they government was found to be in the right about its claims, and the BBC to be in the wrong. That is what the thread is about.
When you listen to radio phone-ins and read net forums all the people do is neatly avoid that fact, then continue on about WMD unabated. Im trying to say its over really.
Do you really think there will be an inquiry over wether the Iraq invasion was right or not ? Even if they did , and it was found the government was correct, some people would still say it was a whitewash/i want an iquiry about the inquiry/whos eaten all the cornflakes etc.
Yes, by the way, I know the General Belgrano was sailing away from the Falklands, yes I know we still sunk it.

nath · Jan 29, 2004

Well it wasn't unbated. And in the same vein, I could say that you pro war numpties keep going on about how the anti war lot keep going on about it unbated and avoiding the subject at hand. That in itself is dodging DaGaffer's point. He's quite right, he was responding to Stazbumpas post. If you want to point fingers and complain about thread hijacking, blame him.

throdgrain · Jan 29, 2004

*points*

*blames*

Not really Nath, its just we get bored of you anti-war numpties banging on from your soapboxes all the time

As I said earlier, I do think the concept that WMD were in Iraq was mistaken , and in fact there were none, but what can you do?
If they had an inquiry about that, like as not they'd still say there was reasonable doubt or something, so theres not a lot to be done.

nath · Jan 29, 2004

I just think that there's plenty of call for people to get on their soapboxes. The fact is, we went to war because we thought he had WMD. It seems like he didn't. Sure, Saddam was a naughty, naughty man but that's beside the point. Attitudes such as "well what can you do, get over it!" is totally wrong if you ask me.

throdgrain · Jan 29, 2004

I really cba to get into all that too much, but the thing is WMD simply wasnt the only reason we went to war.
However , i do agree that it was a prominant reason.All the same, naughty man is no longer in power, so it cant be all bad.

dysfunction · Jan 29, 2004

nath said:
I just think that there's plenty of call for people to get on their soapboxes. The fact is, we went to war because we thought he had WMD. It seems like he didn't. Sure, Saddam was a naughty, naughty man but that's beside the point. Attitudes such as "well what can you do, get over it!" is totally wrong if you ask me.

Yes you are quite right. We did go to war cos it was thought he had WMD at that time. Now it looks like that was incorrect due to bad info....I dont believe the Government lied about that. I think they believed there were WMD in Iraq at the time of going to War.

Tom · Jan 29, 2004

Iraq is a pretty big country, 50 000 litres of Anthrax can do a lot of damage, 50 000 litres of Anthrax can be stored on your typical lorry, which isn't exactly difficult to hide? It might take years to find proof, or it might never be found at all. One thing is for sure, theres no use in closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Personally, I think Tony Blair is a man of integrity. No matter how I may disagree with some of his government's policies, I simply don't believe he misled parliament or the public over any of this.

nath · Jan 29, 2004

I wasn't really going on about the lies (if there were any), I merely meant that the justification for war was WMD, none have been found and some have said none will ever be found. Bearing that in mind, the war may have been a mistake and people need to learn from it one way or another.

GekuL · Jan 29, 2004

When you have a regime as corrupt as the one in Iraq, I imagine it would be quite complicated to get any substantial proof concerning WMD. I expect Saddam himself believed he genuinely had them, his scientists constantly exxagerated their capabilities. Combine that with a leader as uncooperative as Saddam and what are you likely to believe at that point. In hindsight it is very easy to come to a conclusion, but at the time what were the odds?

Stazbumpa · Jan 29, 2004

nath said:
I wasn't really going on about the lies (if there were any), I merely meant that the justification for war was WMD, none have been found and some have said none will ever be found. Bearing that in mind, the war may have been a mistake and people need to learn from it one way or another.

Indeed it was the justification, and it was based in the intell available at the time. Given that Saddam wasn't helping anyone in finding his WMD that he definately DID have after GW 1 in '92, what the bloody hell do you do?

Do MI6 say "ok, lets believe him and/or the tentative guesses from some of the people searching for said WMD, that he MAY not have any, therefore we leave him in power" or do they err on the side of caution and say "we don't believe he's got rid of it all and the only solid info we have is that which we know to be true from '92 and this is what this stuff is capable of...etc etc etc". Just because they haven't been found, doesn't mean they don't exist. The facilities are/were there, so where has the stuff gone? (Syria anyone?)

If anything is to be learned from this, its that the UN nations cannot be trusted to sort things out and once again the rule of the strong (ie: US & GB avec a few allies) is the only way to gets things done. I agree this isn't entirely the best of situations, but then neither is a few countries destroying any chance of a unilateral UN resolution because of vested interests thanks to oil contracts.

I apologise if I appeared to be hijacking this thread, but like Throddy said, I am pissed off with the anti-war mob refusing to believe anything except what they want to hear.

/rant

BBC Chairman resigns

FH is my second home

I am a FH squatter

Fledgling Freddie

I am a FH squatter

FH is my second home

I am a FH squatter

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Can't get enough of FH

FH is my second home

Down With That Sorta Thing

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Part of the furniture

FH is my second home

Down With That Sorta Thing

FH is my second home

FH is my second home

Down With That Sorta Thing

FH is my second home

Fledgling Freddie

FH is my second home

Fledgling Freddie

FH is my second home

FH is my second home

I am a FH squatter

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Fledgling Freddie

Users who are viewing this thread