I think you’ve got it about right, so far as I can see. More importantly, the Govt won the right to hold the discussions behind closed doors which will inevitably result in a fudge. My guess is the BBC will be admonished, Campbell will carry on regardless and the whole issue - the important bit about whether our Govt took us into a war on false information - will be forgotten in the furore.
Update: Letter shows Campbell Iraq role
The big issue really is not the BBC at all, since this is accountable in various ways such as the Broadcasting Standards Commission.
The real big problem for me is that massively important dossiers are passed to a completely unelected individual who is completely unaccounatble to the electorate or even the usual Government employee machinery.
What we have is a person who has been authorised by Tony Blair to receive top secret material, and intepret it and rewrite it for public consumption.
Such a role has to be intimately political since it is public opinion that is supposed to inform government policy.
It is not wether the report was altered, which is serious enough, it is the mere fact that Alistair Campbell, a private citizen with no more rights than any other member of the public, should be presented with such documents at all.
Intelligence reports are obviously cleared for public release having been sterilised, but this is a far cry form the changes in meaning that have been made here.
December asks if the BBC will be held account and in what manner, I say that at least it can be held to account, I don’t see any control mechanism to which the misdemeanors of Alistiar Campbell can be referred.
So far there has not been any apology from anyone about this outrageously plagiarised and vandalised report, some have said it was a ‘mistake’ but given what we know about what the CIA and British Intelligence felt about it, it seems that it was less of a mistake and far more a manipulation, which of course is the specialist field of Alistair Campbell.
It also drastically undermines the barely credible subsequent reports of WMD too.
Infacted just today a leaked memo has prove conclusively that Alastair Campbell did “sex the document up”, though the issue of “nuclear weapons deployed in 45 mins” remains unclear.
Get a grip people! This is classic spin by the spinmaster Campbell. When faced with the questions :
Campbell instead created a diversionary fuss about the BBC reporting on the subject. And people are buying it!
No-one has yet supplied an answer to the questions that really matter. But everyone’s discussing the BBC instead. Of course Campbell sexed it up. That’s his job.
The control mechanism is that you can vote against the party of the PM who appointed him.
Could you expand on the Broadcasting Standards Commission? What power do they have? How are they selected? How active have they traditionally been? What POVs are represented on the Commission? Have there been complaints or satisfaction over the Commission’s past performance? Is their work public?
In particular, BBC Watch just put out a third report, which compares BBC coverage of Iraq against coverage of the Israelis in Israel and the West Bank
What would you expect the Broadcasting Standards Commission to do with this report, if anything? I would guess that the Commission did not take any sort of action on BBC Watchs first two reports, since BBC Watch doesn’t mention them in its web site.
Wow that’s lame. The main complaint seems to be the use of the description “Israeli” when describing actions that are erm Israeli.
The authors recognise that the BBC has been criticised for being too harsh in it’s coverage of British actions, then discounts this for no apparant reason.
As I also could not find any mention, then presumably the Broadcasting Standards Commission have not been contacted and will not do anything. If the authors care to make a complaint to the Broadcasting Standards Commission, then they can look into it. But they might want to get together something a bit less laughable first.
The claim about the BBC being too soft on US/UKtroops in Iraq is supremely ironic because US right-wingers routinely lambast the BBC as being the “Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation” and being too critical of the war.
As for BBC Watch is there any reason to take it seriously? . What credibility does it have as a serious and impartial critic of the media? It appears to be just another pro-Israel outfit .
The BSC only adjudicates on complaints received. (Though, as a proactive step that was widely reported in the British press this week, they contacted Fao’s family to ensure that they were aware of the mechanisms for submitting complaints.) They do however publish a summary of all the complaints considered; the most recent is here.
I see nothing to suggest that “BBCWatch” have actually submitted this report. Perhaps you should suggest to them that they should.
It would be nice to think so. Certainly the usual political hoohah won’t damage it; it’s the concerted lobbying efforts by the BBC’s rivals (including one Mr. R. Murdoch, currently trying to get permission to purchase Channel 5) that could hit the Beeb hard. The three other terrestrial channels and associated companies have been propagandizing hard over the last several months (I’ve seen at least three segments on Channel 5 alone over “Should the License Fee be scrapped?” in six months), and the quiet pouring of money from corporate coffers into Labour (and probably Tory) bank accounts could hurt the BBC come Charter renewal time.
Fingers crossed for an uncomplicated charter renewal.
Thanks for the cites, bonzerYour second cite gives the BSC’s function. It’s not clear whether or not anti-Israel bias would come within their purview. The closest statement is “redress for people who feel they have been treated unfairly.” I don’t know whether that function would extend to countries that believe they have been treated unfairly.
Cyberpundit-As for BBC Watch is there any reason to take it seriously? . What credibility does it have as a serious and impartial critic of the media? It appears to be just another pro-Israel outfit .
I’m guessing it’s more a pro-privitization front. One of the lawyers(at least) writing reports for BBC Watch is a partner in a international law firm specializing in, among other things, media regulation. Trevor Asserson is a partner in Bird&Bird. From their website(select “Media” from the pull down menu top right):
Privatizing the BBC would be a suicidal policy for any political party who attempted it. The BBC is one of the most popular institutions in the UK, and generally viewed by Britons as an unbiased and reliable news source. A government that attempted to change its charter in such a massive way would find itself unelected rather soon.
Besides, any organization that manages to annoy Alastair Campbell and December so frequently really must be doing something right.
For those impugning the Beeb’s impartiality, it has actually been found to be the most pro-war TV media:
Regarding “BBC Watch” Here in Canada we have a national newspaper which has been runng a regular column called “CBC watch”.
It is full of fulminations similar to BBC watch.
Guess what? The owner of theat newspaper is one of the most vocal advocates of privatising the CBC. He also, by sheer coincidence, owns a rival TV network.
The same feeling (WRT CBC) applies in Canada. (IMHO)
The report of the Parliamentary committee where this kicked off is due out on Monday, so expect it to get nasty again as Blair and Campbell try to keep the row going to stop anyone enquiring into any of the real issues that have so far managed to avoid being discussed.
Meanwhile todays Observer is reporting that senior executives at the BBC were briefed in secret by the chief of MI6 that the threat from Iraq was not that serious before they ran the controversial story.
Well to be perfectly accurate, our Blog Spotter Extraordinaire is not an actual BBC consumer, nor has he ever been. The annoyance is an indirect effect, via his Blog and Conservo-Pundit Spotting.
Exactly. Just as many Dopers have an animus against Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, although they are not consumers of those two sources.
But do you really want to treat the BBC and Ann Coulter as equally trustworthy news sources? :eek:
Well the differnce being my dear fellow, that one can relatively easily get up to speed with Coulter by perusing her pieces, it is the work of one person.
You, however, are a self-confessed non-consumer of BBC and by your many threads on the subject rather display a deep and unsettling ignorance of the channel. Rather as if I started going round opining on say Fox’s channels in LA or some such, which I have never ever seen.
In short, it would behoove you to obtain some glimmer of an understanding and familiarity with the subject before rambling in blithe and self contained ignorance on as you so habilitualy do.