Slashdot Mirror

The BBC's current "politeness" has everything to do with them getting blamed by the Hutton report:

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

That was widely viewed as being at the very least badly focused if not actually inaccurate in its conclusions. It cost the BBC the top two people running the corporation; since then there hasn't seemed to be the willingness to go out on a limb to make accusations that can lead to serious investigation. Other broadcasters (Channel 4, even occasionally Sky) did a job that was as good as the BBC before - now they're much more willing to raise issues.

For more of this angle on the Hutton report, here's some humour from Guardian readers:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hutton/story/0,,1146756, 00.html

My point about the BBC connection is that the BBC is an arm of the British government, funded by taxpayers.

It's pretty clear that you're not British, and you've never lived there. The BBC is in fact not funded by taxpayers, but rather by the monthly licence fee paid by everyone who owns a TV in the U.K. Thus, the BBC is financially independant of the government, and it's governance is fairly arms-length (the directors are appointed on the advice of ministers), so it's unfair to call it an "arm of the . . . government". Indeed, if it was, all the Hutton nonsense could probably have been avoided.

The upshot of all this is that the BBC is, structurally anyway, the most independant news source out there: in theory, it's free from both market and government coercion, and it can concentrate on its mandate as a public interest broadcaster.

And as for all that other stuff, I honestly can't be assed to follow all the links, but I'd suggest two general principles:

1. If the BNP says it, it's probably dead wrong: the guys are unapologetic neofascists.
2. The BBC has its flaws and problems, but in no sense is it a subsidiary of the British government, so tempting as it is, it's hard to hang anything that you might want to blame the BBC for on Blair. Although, heaven knows there's enough stuff to blame on him, but that's another story.

Have you actually read the Hutton report. Aside from the fact that it is a complete whitewash by a member of the establishment hand-picked by Tony Blair to clear him of any wrongdoing, it doesn't actually accuse the BBC of making anything up. At the end of the entire episode, I still have enormous amount of respect for the BBC and their journalists, and no respect whatsoever for the government or their lackey Hutton.

Then again, I suppose the BBC did make up the spaghetti tree hoax

In case you didn't know, the guy's referring to the fact that the Hutton report pushed out the top people at the BBC, and that it now looks as if the independance of the BBC is under threat... especially as the report is seen as a whitewash, totally clearing the government of any wrongdoing of it's intelligence in the run up to the iraq war, and not being guilty in any way of causing one of their weapons experts to take his life, even though they revealed his name to the press without telling him first. The BBC took the blame for most of the government's lies, and so this is why its independance is seen to be under threat.

The BBC didn't name Kelly. His name was leaked by the Goverment. He was subjected to Goverment's Foreign Affairs Committee on the 15th of July 2003, 24 hours later at the Goverments intelligence and Security Committee, the next day he was found dead. As for media attention it was a major part of his day to day life, there is plenty of evidence that Dr David Kelly met with a variety of journalists. "I have been involved with the press for ten to 12 years" - Dr David Kelly, FAC transcript Evidence from the Hutton Enquiry is here, with the report appearing at lunchtime in the UK. http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/

I'm surprised at Number 3...I've never heard of him

He heads up a small outfit called the BBC. They do a bit of reporting every now and again. You might have seen some of their articles linked from slashdot sometime - it happens occasionally.

Anyway, you clearly haven't been following the Hutton enquiry into the death of Dr. David Kelly (the affair that should be toppling the British government any time now). Grey Dyke has been a prominent witness. Let me guess, you're not from this side of the Atlantic, are you?

WRT journalists protecting their sources, the events leading up to the Hutton Inquiry in the UK are interesting. The spat between the UK government and the BBC blew up largely because Andrew Gilligan refused to name his source for a report even after it became clear who the source was. His stance was that he had guaranteed the anonymity of his source, and would under no circumstances reveal or confirm the name, even after that source had come forward to his superiors.

This is all notwithstanding the fact that Gilligan's report was third rate, sensational and, it seems, contained several inaccuracies. It is apparent that none of the parties in the affair is without blame (even Dr Kelly himself), but I will be very surprised if Gilligan is not singled out for particular criticism.

Nevertheless the whole debacle can be argued to stem from the fact that a journalist (and the news organisation for whome he was working) refused to bow to government pressure and break a guarantee of anonynimity.

If Blair, Blunkett and the rest of them were _forced_ to reveal both their email and snail mail to the public and there was no way round it like national security and the rest of the crap they will sell....

Sort of like this maybe?

Just to slightly correct you here, he "allegedly" killed himself, his death is at the very least suspicious in that he was found with a bottle of painkillers that are easily overdosed on, causing respitory arrest and his wrist was slashed as well. It maybe that he did kill himself, though that is not proven, and before the war Dr. Kelly said he would be found dead in the woods if Iraq was invaded. The documents released so far in the Hutton enquiry can be found here and include such interesting information as the government attempting to ensure that Dr. Kelly was not questioned about the status of Iraqs WMD programmes in his testimony before Parliamentry commitees, as his informed opinion contradicted the government line that Iraq was a "current and ongoing threat" as the PM stated and as the PMs chief of staff said he might say some uncomfortable things.