After the Hutton Inquiry - Whitewash or Saint Tony?

Great Debates
1

I’m surprised this seems to be the first thread post publication of the final report of the Hutton Inquiry here in the UK. Already the Chairman of Governers has resigned and the PMs Communications Director of the time is back attacking the BBC and the spin from all sides has started in ernest.

Read the headlines and the result appears to be BBC 0: UK Government 1 (AET) but is that correct? I am a bit isolated being resident in Angola so am reliant on the media sources I have access to and have the language skills to understand (TV: CNN, BBC World, RAI International and Sky News) plus the internet.

If I had not taken a close interest in the Inquiry whilst it was going on when I was still in the UK I would get the impression that the Government is in the clear, they did not mislead Parliament or the British people on the evidence or its treatment which was used for the UK involvement for the War - solely the ownership and threat from Iraqi NCB weapons (I hate the phrase, but what is now referred to as WMD).

My question is how have your reactions been influenced by the media sources you have available? Are you happy with the picture that you are getting?

My initial opinion? I am puzzled how, based on the docs submitted to the Inquiry published on their website, that the Report can have reached some of the conclusions it did - especially on the wording of the famous government dossier - that it was not misleading as to the threat.

How well understood is it that the scope of the enquiry was NOT an investigation into how the UK ended up going to War but, in the words of Lord Hutton himself, just:

Extract from the official Inquiry website, for the whole thing go to

However the spin continues, if some random press reaction is anything to go by:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2465667

I am not impressed by the media response, the swamping of fact with spin. It seems marginally worse on the TV than the little I have found in print so far.

With the BBC possibly fatally weakened what is the state of health of the UK and/or global media in reporting the complete picture and taking on the government if and when necessary? I am worried…

2

Just to comment on this issue - Hutton made it clear in the opening paragraphs (9, I think) of his report (PDF) that he felt answering this question was outside the scope of his remit - so it stands unresolved. So many of the opposition leaders are still calling for another investigation into this matter.

For background… Blair in quotes - about Iraqi weapons.

3

Damn, it’s too early. I really did read all your OP and still replied only the part you had already answered yourself. Sorry.

I think the BBC have been bending over backwards to seem impartial in their reporting of Hutton (in light of the criticism) and have been beating themselves up quite badly - probably more so than any other sources.

The interesting thing now is that the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the BBC (who resigned) will now have his position filled by someone of Blair’s choosing - it is a prime-ministerial appointment to that chair. Could prove to be a controversial decision once it is made if Blair picks someone, lets say, less independent.

4

It is ?

Hang on a minute; one reporter with a very good story – the substance of which still stands up - over eggs one aspect of it (that the Government lied) on one radio show at 6.07am.

Some may like to make a huge meal of that, but in the context of this whole damn war, it might be important to a few important people because it is the BBC – hence this insanity – but just take a look at the reporting elsewhere, the USA for example . . God help us if we ever get to that.

It’s a strom in a tea cup, it just happens to be Blair’s tea cup and the BBC’s storm, so it matters much more. At the moment.

It’ll pass soon enough.

5

I think that based on the evidence put forward, it’s hard for me to see this as anything less than a whitewash. “Teflon Tony” seems to have gotten off scot-free, and the government are being painted as damn-near blameless in the whole shoddy affair. It’s utterly disheartening, and I have even less faith in the government now than ever before.

6

Well, you can’t catch Tony out that easily; the Terms of Reference, the Ulster Unionist Safe Pair of Hands that is Hutton, the discretionary submissions of ‘evidence’ by the Executive and Campbell’s ability to cover tracks precluded any possibility of anything meaningful emerging from the very beginning; it was fixed from before the get-go.

Blair, Campbell, Scarlett; these people are real pro’s, the very best in the business – they probably did lie (IMHO) but Hutton sure as hell wasn’t going to catch them out, not that I think anyone could, anyway.

You can’t really even call it a whitewash because it did what it was supposed to do, not what would have been the sensible thing to do i.e. broaden the Remit out from the circumstances surrounding Kelly’s death – but even then Hutton would have turned a Nelson’s eye to whatever did unexpectedly emerge.

I see there’s little mention of Campbell’s’ documented urgings to sex up the dossier.

It was, of its kind, a fine piece of work by Hutton; sickening but fine.

7

Sorry but just noticed the error. The correct link is:

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

Perhaps a passing Mod could correct the link in my OP, please??

On the issue of the misleading nature of the PMs dossier, there nearest any of Lord Hutton’s conclusions get to the issue is:

This is surely being disingenous. The judge is encourging future authors of such dossiers to claim they are being “consistent with the intelligence” if there is a single piece of intelligence in support. The need to use language appropriate to the strength of the evidence, whether if it made up of many mutually supportive independent strands (strong) or a single element (weaker, even allowing for how highly placed it may be) seems to be ignored. If that is not misleading then I do not know what is.

My OP was requesting views on the media reaction but I cannot prevent it widening I know…

8

Looking at the headlines this morning - much self-satisfied crowing from the Murdoch tabloids, everyone else much more equivocal. The Independent used the word “whitewash”, which is pretty strong language for the Indie …

Of course, the question Hutton didn’t answer is the one that needs to be answered: where did the “forty-five minutes” claim come from? If Hutton’s right, and the Government didn’t “sex up” the documents, then there must be something from the intelligence services which would justify that claim … which would seem to be a grievous error on the part of the intelligence services.

Yes, it’ll blow over … but it means we’re not getting anywhere nearer the truth at the moment. My personal opinion is that, however far Andrew Gilligan may have stepped over the line, I still wouldn’t trust Blair an inch. Somebody lied about these phantom “WMDs”, and it wasn’t the BBC …

9

I agree, especially in light of the fact that Hutton lambasted the BBC for not doublechecking their information before broadcasting. As such, he is applying different standards to the government than to the press. While different standards is certainly nothing bad, the fact that he is giving the government more leeway is highly questionable, both due to the freedom of the press, and because the public has other media outlets to provide other assessments, but there is only one government.

10

As someone who followed the whole thing very closely I cannot see how Hutton came to the conclusions he did. He appeared to just take the government witnesses at their word and proceed on that basis. Just another of the whitewashs we do so well. Remember the first Bloody Sunday inquiry.

11

I must admit to be almost dumbfounded by this report. There has been so much evidence of government spin and misinformation on this topic (The dodgy dossier springing to mind as the best example).

I am amazed that Hutton came up with such a black and white report even if Gilligan was guilty of exaggeration.

I’ve considered the idea that I simply wanted to believe that the government was guilty in this case and they where really totally lily white. However I truly believe that the truth here is that Hutton’s own personal prejudices are showing through.

12

I deeply afraid that this will be used as an excuse to remove the independance of the BBC. I note that Tessa Jowell has already said that the Hutton report will be “taken into account” during the up coming review of the BBC’s chater.

The real horror of ending up with a corrupt biased media like Italy’s is a risk here in my opinion.

13

This report certainly does kibosh the idea that the BBC is somehow independent and fair. Of course, this is hardly news to the sailors of the Ark Royal, among others. Among the worst parts of this story is that the citizens of Britain who want to own a televsion must pay for the BBC and its hijinks.

14

I think this is a contender for “stupidest post in the history of the SDMB, if not the entire Internet”. Do you have any idea who the opposing parties were in the inquiry? Do you have any idea what “independent” means?

Hint: UK government v BBC.

15

I suppose Davies resigned because the BBC simply could not stand so much happy and positive PR? He left, and the BBC is now in crisis talks, because this report painted the BBC as a paragon of accurate reporting?

16

I suppose wishful thinking counts as evidence where you come from? But I take it that the accuracy of reports is characterized by their compliance with your opinion.

17

**Brutus ** and your respondees - please refrain totally hijacking this thread with allegations and rebuttal of alleged bias by the BBC.

I am not having a go at Brutus’ right to a contribution - it is just I have seen what happens on the many other threads where you have made this allegation. The latest does not prove anything, and you will no more success convincing the majority on this board now than in past.

Yes, one of the elements of Gilligan’s story does appear to be flawed, in that he cannot prove it. A poor piece of work, badly controlled by his editorial team.

What most people seem to be concerned about is that the damage to the BBC from this Report may damage it’s independence and encourage an even more pro-Labour chairman than Greg Dyke to be parachuted into the job. That and the upcoming BBC Charter review may use this Report to attack and emasculate the UK media’s enthusiasm to publish controversial news in the future.

My OP requested your views on the effect of Hutton on the UK and/or global media. Is the Report fair, and what might be it’s long term effects? Hutton’s terms of reference did not of course require him to judge what effect his conclusions might have on press freedom and democracy.

Some swerving about the topic is expected so long as we try to come back to the topic I wanted to debate here. Please?

18

PS A hint - how about quoting sections of the report from the links given that support your conclusions? Especially if you are going to extrapolate from one specific incident put under the microscope and the general picture.

Brutus, have you actually read the report? Or at least it’s Conclusions? It is very specific.

19

I think the report, taken on itself, raises deep concerns about the author’s commitment to democratic principles and the freedom of the press. But, as one press comment I read this morning suggested, its effect might be quite opposite in that it is so black and white, it will rather evoke a backlash by the public. I think its lack of even-handedness greatly undermined the authority of the report, and as such, while Blair may gloat now, the report could turn out to be far worse for him than a more even-handed one would have been.
As another comment I read stated: Assume there is a real crisis somewhere, and the British government really NEEDS to send troops to avert serious and imminent harm. Who is going to believe Blair? Rather than restoring Blair’s credibility, the report further undermined it by strengthening the idea of Teflon Tony getting away with everything.

20

Beautifully put; my feelings exactly.

Since the enquiry began I’ve been concerned that Hutton’s remit was too small, and the government knew the validity of Blair’s claims based on the dossiers wouldn’t be touched; the report confirms this.

I fully agree that the Beeb made some serious editorial booboos. However, one question that hasn’t been adequately answered for me yet, though. If, as the report found, Gilligan was lying about what Kelly said, why didn’t Kelly refute it (via a lawyer if necessary, given his private nature) before killing himself? Why let it stand?