Slashdot Mirror
BBC Buys Google News Keywords In Kelly Case
foreign devil writes "BBC has purchased keywords related to coverage of the Hutton Inquiry in an attempt to direct all traffic to their special news coverage. This would be only moderately interesting, except the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier. The article in the Guardian says this is coming out of the GBP 63.5m ad budget. I wonder how much it would cost them if someone, say, automated searching for those links on Google." It doesn't seem fair to pronounce the BBC complicit in Kelly's death (unless that's proven by the facts of the case), but it's certainly an interested party.
Seems their adword budget ran out. The adword links don't appear on "hutton report" or "hutton enquiry" anymore. At least not on google.co.nz, google.com or google.co.uk.
The top non-ad links are the BBC, but that is more than likely due to the fact that the BBC is generally considered a _very_ good source of news, with a great reputation.
As for the whole sexing up discussion, I'll wait until after I've seen the report. :)
I'll go to a new source other than the BBC, since they are obviously trying to skew the news surrounding the case by buying up these Google results.
From the Sydney Morning Herald:
According to the newspaper (the Sun), Lord Hutton criticised the BBC and its reporter Andrew Gilligan over a broadcast suggesting Downing Street inserted a claim that Saddam could launch WMD within 45 minutes.
"I am satisfied Dr Kelly did not say the Government probably knew or suspected the 45-minute claim was wrong before the claim was inserted in the dossier," Lord Hutton is reported as finding.
"The allegation reported by Mr Gilligan that the Government probably knew the claim was wrong or questionable was unfounded."
As a result, the program's listeners were given a misleading impression that the Government "embellished" its dossier.
The British newspaper, The Sun, has gotten its hands on a leaked copy of the report, from which this above information is drawn. Dr. Kelly killed himself after it was claimed he was the one to give the 45 minute quote. Therefore, the BBC is complicit.
The BBC didn't sex up the dossier. They accused the UK Goverment of doing so. The Hutton Report officially is released today, (28th Jan 2004), at 12:30[GMT]. One newspaper, (News International's The Sun), is claiming they have a leaked copy of said report, and according to them the BBCs reporter "Gilligan is effectively accused of LYING in a bombshell broadcast blaming Number Ten for "sexing up" a dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction." source http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004041477,00.h tml
Buying Google keywords doesn't redirect searches. It just determines what sponsered links show up.
Independant Counsel does a report for Congress on who knew what and when and who ordered what and why.
NPR buys keywords so they can ??
You get the picture. Fortunately nothing like this could ever happen in the US so go back to sleep citizens, theres nothing to worry about.
Only the names have been changed to protect the writer from defamation action.
Actually, Dr. Kelly made some comments criticizing the government. The BBC then "sexed up" Dr. Kelly's comments and his reported position in the government in order to increase ratings and further the reporter's agenda and career. (They essentially took comments from a CIA Analyst level expert, spun them, and reported them as anonymous comments from a Cabinet level member.)
When the BBC heads found out about this they closed ranks and defended the reporter's falsification of information. Compare this with the NY Times reaction when it was discovered that a black reporter was falsifying stories.
Whether "complicit" is the right word relative to the death is open to debate and the report will hopefully tell more about how much pressure ther BBC put on Dr. kelly to spin things in a way that would preserve the BBC's reputation. Regardless, the BBC was complacint in falsifying and exagerating information, and reporting based upon a personal or insitutional bias and not being neutral (as required by British law).
The fundamental problem, is that ever since Watergate journalists don't feel that they have "made it" in their profession unless they can bring down a government. So, this type of slanted reporting and lying to the public, under the arua of nuetrality is rewared. When the politicians lie and spin, I expect that of them. They are acting like wolves in wolves' skin. The reporters, especially in this case, acted like wolves in sheeps' skin.
Before we all don our tin-foil hats, its worth pointing out that the episode of Panorama (a highly-respected current affairs programme) which aired last Wednesday was highly critical of the BBC involvement in the Kelly business. Which channel did it air on? That would be BBC One. Don't beleive me? Check out this story on the BBC website.
In light of this, it's pretty peverse to suggest that the BBC has gone to any lengths to hide or downplay their involvement in the whole affair. I myself think the Google ad buying is simply part of the BBCs shift towards positioning itself as more of a 'regular' media player (albeit with public funding), as opposed to the state-run service which it originated as.
Tubal-Cain smokes the white owl.
it takes a lot of money to buy keywords in such magnificent cases
Anyone who is interested in what they might cost can see for themselves at Adwords for free. Just click on the 'Click to begin' button. You can set up an ad, plug in keywords, max cost per click per keyword and see what your daily cost would be. They don't ask for a credit card until the very end so you get a feel without the slightest commitment (not even a name or email address is required until the end.) It's really pretty interesting.
> What exactly is wrong with advertising your side of the story.
Perhaps the fact that they're using taxpayer money to do it? And the fact that their public charter requires that they be fair and unbiased on everything they report on?
So yes, technically speaking, the BBC should not have a "side" of the story -- even if they are involved. Their journalists should report this Hutton Inquiry news in a factual and even-handed manner. No slant.
The BBC is in a unique position, and is bound by rules that other news organizations are not. Whether they've been abiding said rules is a another story altogether.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Quoting the Sun second-hand by way of the Sydney Morning Herald doesn't really count as a news source. The Sun, as a flagship of Rupert Murdoch's News International has its own axe to grind with the BBC. You can't trust the Sun's "reporting" on anything, least of all about subjects where Murdoch has a vested interest. Your link is about as convincing as if the Sydney Morning Herald had quoted Slashdot.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
The cretin who submitted this doesnt even live in the UK - he is an American who lives in San Francisco.
Quote : "the BBC is complicit in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'sexing up' of the Iraq dossier."
Where does this idiot get his information from ? Yes, looking at this sentence, the BBC IS involved in the death of Dr. Kelly and the 'dossier' accusations, but only as a part of a whole, including the BBC senior management, the Government, MOD, some MP's and Dr. Kelly itself. And NO-ONE is directly accused of directly causing Dr. Kellys death - he committed suicide, end of story. The BBC's alleged involvement was to stand by an accusation against a government adviser of 'sexing up' an intelligence dossier, despite grave misgivings about the accuracy of the story.
I know news coverage in the US is poor, but I would suggest the original submitter tries to get some decent news coverage - BBC TV news (if you can get it in the US) still beats the pants off anything else you are likely to get for objectivity and editorial quality. I was also under the impression that the Guardian is a bit of a cheerleader for the BBC in general - public service broadcasting is something I would think the vast majority of it's readership support.