The Hutton Report

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
One hour left. If the Sun is right it isn't that damning of Blair and Campbell, the MoD and the BBC get the criticism as does Kelly himself.

So will Hoon go? How will the Opposition attack?

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 11:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Side-question: why is ripping off an old Ph.D. thesis and calling it an intelligence report not enough?

And: how dodgy is Murdoch's anti-BBC agenda here?

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 11:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Mail and Murdoch papers are going to Hammer the Beeb in the next few days whatever happens and all the way up to charter renewal, but that would happen without Hutton, this is just an excellent stick to beat the Beeb with.

Interesting side point, The BBC is reported on Slashdot to have bought Google ad words related to kelly and hutton. Although this appears not to be true, no combination of significant words has brought up a BBC sponsored link. However I wonder which lazy hack will repeat the story until it must be true.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 11:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Apparent Hoon is exonerated too. He might just go for a laugh, since he should have gone last week.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 11:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't want an anti-climax, but I think we're going to get one. Fact is, I can't even remember all the details, and I followed this all very closely in August-September. I mean Blair *did* lie and say he hadt attended a naming meeting when in fact he had? Am I wrong?

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:06 (twenty-two years ago)

This enquiry was always going to be a farce. The salient facts are clear enough. Most people will conclude that Kelly would not have been named without explicit approval from Blair and that it is overwhelmingly probable that he instigated the decision and subsequently lied about it. But without incontrovertible, unambiguous proof, Hutton was never going to be able to arrive at a conclusion that would force a democratically elected Prime Minister to resign. Unable to blame Blair but not wanting to appear toothless Hutton will inevitably make harsher judgements on softer targets like Gilligan.

Blair will therefore be in a position analagous to a guilty man who is let off for lack of sufficient evidence and then trumpets his innocence and the clearing of his name. This is the fault of the media, who should all along have been much more sceptical about the rationale for holding this enquiry and the likelihood of it arriving at any kind of truth. The media's need to find (or create) "important" news events means that they have given the verdict of this shabby, pointless enquiry an apparent validity that it doesn't deserve. The anti-Blair press especially need to examine the way they have connived at his "exculpation".

Whether Hoon should go is a different matter. I can't see that he has done much wrong, except toe the party line. People who want to see him go probably want to see him go because he's an obnoxious, oleaginous creep rather than because they think he's guilty of anything.

ArfArf, Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Who needs the Hutton report when we've got the Snow report?

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I find it bizarre that people are still defending Gilligan's integrity in all this - it patently obvious that his original report was flawed and even the BBC has now condeded this.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)

No, you're right Enrique, he did. And as PM he has to take responsibility for all his ministers (and said he would) so if Hoon or Campbell (OK, not a minster by YKWIM) are criticised he should view it as a criticism of himself as well. (Particularly given the micromanagement style he adopts)

Of course, we're expecting him to have any kind of moral rectitude for him to recognise himself in those statements, or recall saying them. I think we both know he's demonstated he has none.

aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Matt DC is cock on, and the arrogance of the BBC to back up a reporter without having some sort of decent internal enquiry does show a massive flaw in their internal structures and assumptions. Will we see Governors resigning. Possibly. Was the Panorama last week already pert of the official party line, distancing them from this cock-up. Puts an interesting burden on journalism, which of course has been responsible for sexing up a lot more news than any Government would ever have time for. (News is now adversarial, things are always someones fault, and we must crucify them for it. NOW! With Nicky Campbell is possible).

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Nicky Campbell makes crucifixion possible? Justifiable, yes...

Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Does the fact that the report was leaked actually matter to anyone other than crass political opportunists?

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Pete, a flawed report at 6.10am hardly compares with going to war based on lies, surely? Journalism's flaws are less likely to result in mass murder. In fact, if Campbell hadn't made a scene, the whole story might never have reached this size.

The leak does matter because it's another Murdochian assault on the BBC.

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, even if Hoon himself is supposedly exonerated then the report supposedly nails the MoD for the way in which they dealt with Kelly, which was dodgy to say the least, and therefore could still lead to Hoon's resignation.

I still think he'll be quietly shuffled off to the sidelines, though.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

BUT, and the point that the news media has generally ignored, is that Hutton's remit was not about whether or not the war was justified. Since it seems pretty much accept that there were no WMD's, the fact that they could or could not be launched in 45 minutes seems kind of moot. The government set the terms of teh Report up. It would be nice to see Hotton go at it Judge John Deed style, but he ain't gonna.

Hoon should have gone when the revelations about kit came out, he only hung on we thought so that he could resign today. That still could happen.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 12:44 (twenty-two years ago)

To me, one of the principle facts was the a different BBC reporter had run with exactly the same story almost a month earlier - but Ali Campbell didn't hear that one. (interesting gossip, btw, that he holidays with the Sun editor Rebekah Wade)

The leak is arguably the most significant part now (and if the Sun report is true, Michael Howard should concentrate on nothing else when questioning the PM). To believe Downing Street's protestations of innocence is to believe that somebody who comes out badly from the report has leaked it to someone who has roundly criticised them since the Inquiry began.

aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:05 (twenty-two years ago)

But why leak it six hours before it came out, if it exonerates you? Does a few hours make that much difference.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely the leak was unauthorised, wherever it came from (and it could've come from someone working in the BBC, the government or for Lord Hutton, or possibly elsewhere)? I'm assuming the Sun offered A LOT of money for the exclusive and someone somewhere cracked under the pressure/weight of temptation.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)

It could have been a humble proof-reader...

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Well Pete, the final editions of all the papers had to change their lead story from 'Blair escapes commons defeat by the skin of his teeth'. But no, I don't really believe in this conspiracy. Trevor Kavanagh implied that it wasn't someone high up in the government on Today.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but its not that no-one who follows the news even vaguely (ie people wot buy newspapers) are going to have known about yesterday somehow.

Howard is obv pissed off that he doesn't get to leap in with priviliged knowledge.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:12 (twenty-two years ago)

No, but it still changed the focus of media coverage and thus people's thoughts today.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Trevor Kavanagh implied that it wasn't someone high up in the government on Today.

Oh, well if the news editor of The Sun says so then it must be true.

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Kelly was supposed to have talked to over 20 journalists, which was more than enough for him to lose his job. It's true the way his name was leaked was a little absurd, but surely, as he was going to be found out and sacked sooner or later, it was inevitable that his name would have come out at some point. I don't quite understand the idea that the MoD should have kept his name secret FOR EVER and by letting it out it was some terrible thing. Surely such high ideals are never applied to anyone else?

Bungo, Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:19 (twenty-two years ago)

They lied about leaking it.

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:24 (twenty-two years ago)

What Trevor Kavanagh said was the his source didn't have a political axe to grind.

leigh (leigh), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, those few hours allow the leaker to set the agenda on the interpretation of the report (ie Blair good, BBC bad), an interpretation that is likely to stick even if the full report is a bit less definite.

Enrique - it was TK that got the leaked extracts by telephone and though he obv. didn't reveal his source, he volunteered that it was someone who had nothing to lose or gain from the report's findings. I suppose he could have been lying, yes.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

From the Guardian:

The desire of the PM to have a strong dossier may have subconsciously influenced John Scarlett and the Joint Intelligence Committee to produce a strongly worded document.

Uh-huh.

On the 45-minute claim: Gilligan's report did not distinguish between long-range battlefield and strategic weapons.

Neither did the government's own warnings: very deliberatey we ended up with BIG NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST IF WE DON'T INVADE headlines.

Gilligan's allegation that government probably knew its 45-minute claim was wrong was unfounded - even if the claim is proved to be wrong in the future.

This is tricksy indeed -- probably fair, but also not: the government lied its ass off, used old Ph.D. theses... why give them the time of day?

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Why indeed, though we didn't need Hutton to tell us that (that he doesn't tell us that is a different matter.) I didn't need Kelly to know the 45 mins was just a bizarre stat. 45mins to set off a weapon you should always have a state of readiness. Or hidden...

Nick, I accept your point, I suppose after yesterday the look forward articles would have been all very "Blair survived yesterday, will he survive to day" type stuff.

Pete (Pete), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:34 (twenty-two years ago)

In a similar vein, these journos have even more at stake than Gilligan.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/story/0,7493,1128825,00.html

leigh (leigh), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:35 (twenty-two years ago)

The Hutton enquiry was a great way of deflecting calls for a proper enquiry into the process leading up to war.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:38 (twenty-two years ago)

The leak appears to have been entirely correct.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:55 (twenty-two years ago)

This was a set-up from the moment they framed the question so that it excluded the original context. Hutton effectively says 'I will not look at the wider context of whether the war is justified.' But without that wider context, none of the actions of the principal actors in this scenario make any sense. The BBC and Kelly, without motivation, can only appear as insane (the 'Walter Mitty character' slur the government has already produced to explain Kelly's death), or 'political'. But political about what, exactly? Nobody mention the war. It's Alice in Wonderland.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:55 (twenty-two years ago)

But the Hutton enquiry wasn't really even about whether the BBC or the Government were correct, Momus - what was central to it was the way in which all parties treated Dr Kelly and to what extent that treatment caused his death. Since no one could have predicted he was likely to go and top himself, everyone is cleared of the main offence, surely?

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 13:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Here it is folks. Anyone want to do an unbiased summary of some kind?

http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk/content/report/index.htm

hmmm, Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Ed must be right -- you'd never usually have this scale of enquiry if it was *just* about Kelly's suicide. It's ridiculous not to look into the surrounding context, about the ethics of Gilligan. Yeah, he was flawed, but he was trying to publish the truth -- that the justification for war was bullshit.

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)

" he was trying to publish the truth -- that the justification for war was bullshit" when he had no evidence for this is kind of crucial though

Jaunty Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, he had circumstantial evidence (ie absense of weapons), the contested evidence of Kelly (which he sexed-up, sure -- but didn't fabricate), and evidence that the government had already lied about the weapons (Ph.D. thesis, etc). He had enough, I would have thought.

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the statement that makes the least sense in Lord Hutton's summing up is that the government's desire for a strong report only "subconsciously" affected the JIC wording.

aldo_cowpat (aldo_cowpat), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Blair is doing a merry jig of victory in the commons.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah! Like, wtf -- can we all use that as a get-out-of-jail-free card?

xpost

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:13 (twenty-two years ago)

the central piece of evidence G brought to the argument was non existent though - this is not the method of someone trying to get to the truth. he made it up.

Jaunty Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:15 (twenty-two years ago)

What bit did he make up?

Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus the report was an inquiry into the death of David Kelly. That's all. Get over it. Your lack of vertigo sat up there on the moral high ground is disgusting.

If you want an report into the war then lobby your MP.

Lynskey (Lynskey), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

that the government, "campbell", had put a claim into a report that intelligence was unhappy with. Kelly neither said nor implied this.

Jaunty Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Michael Martin is a fantastic Speaker.

Now Blair doing jig of contrition before resuming jig of victory.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:36 (twenty-two years ago)

what was central to [the report] was the way in which all parties treated Dr Kelly and to what extent that treatment caused his death. Since no one could have predicted he was likely to go and top himself, everyone is cleared of the main offence, surely?

If this had been a court case about who was responsible for Kelly's death, do you think the motivations of all the principal suspects and the surrounding context would have been judged inadmissible?

You cannot understand this picture, these events, without understanding that the BBC and Kelly acted the way they did because of a profound conviction that the war was wrong -- just as profound as Blair's conviction that it was right. Without that framing, the events are the senseless and malicious acts of deranged, incompetent and malicious individuals.

But who are these 'deranged, incompetent and malicious individuals'? Gilligan, Kelly, Greg Dyke... Their conviction was that people should not die in a pointless war. They had the majority of the British public on their side. It is not just they who are insulted today, it is the British public itself. We are all in one of the scales, and Blair is in the other, yet our collective weight still does not tip the measure. I think people will recoil at the obvious injustice, and deliver Blair a stiff electoral kicking.

Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:37 (twenty-two years ago)

"Michael Martin is a fantastic Speaker." ho ho - is this a confusion of the leader of the ROy party with a burglar-killing farmer?

Jaunty Alan (Alan), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Would taht it were so Momus but since there is no viable alternative to the Blair administration, I fear the good old British Public will not get off their asses, even if they notice that they have been ignored once again.

a shotgun, Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I would argue that the sequence of events from the moment the report was aired leading to the moment Kelly killed himself was most vital to to the inquiry, though.

The BBC inserting information they know full well to be false is still wrong even if you agree with the point they are trying to make, Momus. Heaven knows, I opposed the war as much as many people here, but something about the way the BBC handled the Gilligan affair leaves a nasty taste in my mouth - its very much a case of "one rule for them, another rule for us" which bothers me so much about the British media and I'd hoped that the BBC was above all that.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 14:47 (twenty-two years ago)

One of the most gripping editions of "Question Time" I've seen, last night. A raging Ian Hislop sharp and right OTM... Menzies (Mingus it seems to be pronounced) Campbell showing how preferable the Liberal Democrats are, with some reasoned words... even Oliver Letwin putting a human face on the Conservatives' position.
Margaret Beckett left clutching at straws really; in something of a different atmosphere to Wednesday's Commons backslapping on the Labour benches...

The public audience; they showed a good deal of intelligence, and a sort of righteous anger at this clear whitewash that is heartening. The support for the BBC - even Letwin gave a great little tribute - was just the sort of response that's needed. One only hopes the wider public feels similarly... in a large polling turnout, 82% of viewers thought that Dyke should not have resigned, which I hope is similar across the board.

I share the despair that the Pinefox feels about the whole situation; but clearly, analysis is going into this situation now, after yesterday's startled surprise, within which the Govt ingloriously crowed as if they were back to before Bush wanted to start this war! A justified backlash is happening; people can see through it. Hutton has possibly done his job *too* well for Blair's liking... it draws people's minds to the clear white gaps which form a chasm in these "findings".

The Govt simply will not be able to install puppets in place of Davies and Dyke... there's no way this can happen now politically. Signs point towards all but Murdoch and his followers wanting the BBC to retain its public service credentials and continue to deliver high quality journalism.

Tom May (Tom May), Friday, 30 January 2004 02:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Blair After the Hutton Inquiry

Immediately after the Inquiry Blair appeared on the steps of Number Ten Downing Street dressed in the purple robes of a Roman Emperor and, leading a blind toothless lion on a gold chain, hog-called his constituents to come and get their appointments. The constituents rushed up grunting and squealing like the hogs they were.

Men who had gone grey and toothless in the faithful service of their country were summarily dismissed in the grossest terms - like "You're fired you old fuck. Get your piles outa here." - and in many cases thrown bodily out of their offices. Hoodlums and riffraf of the vilest caliber filled the highest offices of the land.

When the Supreme Court overruled some of the legislation perpetrated by this vile rout, Blair forced that august body, one after the other, on threat of immediate reduction to the rank of Parliamentary Lavatory Attendants, to submit to intercourse with a purple-assed baboon; so that venerable, honored men surrendered themselves to the embraces of a lecherous snarling simian, while Alastair Campbell, Blair and his strumpet wife, and the veteran brown-nose Lord Hutton, smoking a communal hookah of hashish, watched the lamentable sight with cackles of obscene laughter. Judge Blackstrap succumbed to a rectal hemorrhage on the spot, but Blair only laughed and said coarsely, "Plenty more where that came from."

Hutton, unable to control himself, rolled on the floor in sycophantic convulsions, saying over and over "You're killin' me, Chief. You're killin' me."

Judge Hockactonsvol has both ears bitten off by the simian, and when Chief Judge Howard P. Herringbone asked to be excused, pleading his piles, Blair told him brutally, "Best thing for piles is a baboon's prick up the ass. Right Hutton?"

"Right Chief. I use no other. You heard what the man said. Drop your moth-eaten ass over that chair and show the visiting simian some Southern hospitality."

Blair then appointed the baboon to replace Judge Blackstrap, "diseased."

"I'll have to remember that one boss," said Campbell, breaking into loud guffaws.

So henceforth the proceedings of the Court were carried on with a screeching simian shitting and pissing and masturbating on the table and not infrequently leaping on one of the Judges and tearing him to shreds.

"He is entering a vote of dissent," Blair would say with an evil chuckle. The vacancies so created were invariably filled by simians, so that, in the course of time, the Supreme Court came to consist of nine purple-assed baboons; and Blair, claiming to be the only one able to interpret their decisions, thus gained control of the highest tribunal in the land.

He then set himself to throw off the restraints imposed by Parliament and the House of Lords. He loosed innumerable crabs and other vermin in both houses. He had a corps of trained idiots who would rush in at a given signal and shit on the floor, and hecklers equipped with a brass band and fire hoses. He instituted continues repairs. An army of workman trooped through the Houses, slapping the legislators in the face with boards, spilling hot tar down their necks, dropping tools on their feet, undermining them with air hammers; and finally he caused a steam shovel to be set up on the floors, so that the recalcitrant legislators were either buried alive or drowned when the Houses flooded from the broken water mains. The survivors attempted to carry on in the street, but were arrested for loitering and were sent to the workhouse like common bums. After release they were barred from office on the grounds of their police records.

Then Blair gave himself over to such vile and unrestrained conduct as is shameful to speak of. He instituted a series of contests designed to promulgate the lowest acts and instincts of which the human species is capable. There was a Most Unsavory Act Contest, a Cheapest Trick Contest, Molest a Child Week, Turn In Your Best Friend Week - professional stool pigeons disqualified - and the coveted title of All-Around Vilest Man of the Year. Sample entries: The junky who stole an opium suppository out of his grandmother's ass; the ship captain who put on women's clothes and rushed into the first lifeboat; the vice-squad cop who framed people, planting an artificial prick in their fly.

Blair was convulsed with such hate for the species as it is, that he wished to degrade it beyond recognition. He could endure only the extremes of human behavior. The average, the middle-aged (he viewed middle age as a condition with no relation to chronological age), the middle-class, the bureaucrat filled him with loathing. One of his first acts was to burn every record in London; thousands of bureaucrats threw themselves into the flames.

"I'll make the cocksuckers glad to mutate," he would say, looking off into space as if seeking new frontiers of depravity.

(A detournement of William Burroughs' text Roosevelt After Inauguration by Quentin Crisp II)

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 31 January 2004 12:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I think that, despite this 'victory', we will now see very hard times for Labour. The New Labour project is based on the calculation: 'If we go really right wing, we will win forever. The left will love us because we are Labour, the right will love us because we are conservative'. But instead they have found the opposite: the left hate them because they are conservative, and the right hate them because they are Labour. They are completely isolated. The country is being run by two men, Blair and Brown, and the only trick they have up their sleeves now is to switch seats.

Momus (Momus), Saturday, 31 January 2004 13:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Put more effort into rehashing Burroughs please.

Ed (dali), Saturday, 31 January 2004 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I think that as long as the economy holds up, most people will forget this whitewash and blair will get a third term if he wants it.

We'll see what happens.

Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Saturday, 31 January 2004 15:56 (twenty-two years ago)

i just wonder which is more likely now - a year from now with neither Bush nor Blair, Bush but not Blair, Blair but not Bush, or both still in power

stevem (blueski), Saturday, 31 January 2004 17:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Neither Bush nor Blair: 49/18 against
Bush but not Blair: 26/7 for
Blair but not Bush: 119/59 both ways
Both still in power: Sorry guv booth's closed

Momus (Momus), Sunday, 1 February 2004 14:14 (twenty-two years ago)

This can't be genuine. Please tell me this isn't genuine.

Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Dear God.

ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:13 (twenty-two years ago)

If that's what I think it is, it is. See also: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,110172,00.html

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:18 (twenty-two years ago)

It is. Who thinks of the Beeb as "mother". Surely Auntie?

ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

(like that's the only fault I can find with this)

ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:22 (twenty-two years ago)

It is kind of bizarre. Regulators don't allow that kind of tabloid editorial allowed on the TV here. Frankly, I'm not even sure that the tabloid press would go quite that far either. Who is that guy anyway? Does he do regular newscasts as well?

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Did Gilligan really claim that the Iraqi army was 'heroically repulsing' the US army?

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I am not answering that question until you show me that you are wearing a flag in your lapel.

N. (nickdastoor), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Lapel? I got it goddamn tattooed on my ASS!

Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:38 (twenty-two years ago)

How do Fox get away with such arrant, dangerous nonsense? Is there no form of watchdog on news and journalism standards in the U.S.?
Nick is right; you would not even get anything like in the tabloid news print in the UK. Not even Murdoch's tabloid press... or the Daily Mail indeed.
And to think that it is the most watched news channel... says all too much about broadcasting in the USA.

Tom May (Tom May), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

General point: the BBC is held mercilessly to account; most of the rest of the media (UK and otherwise) is full of pernicious lies and is indulged.

When Murdoch and co say that the BBC should be stripped of special status and license fee and made to fight in the marketplace, do they mean it should no longer be held to account, but merely indulged?

Doubtless they don't.

I could not hear what the man was saying on that broadcast that you have just talked about.

the bluefox, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 21:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I was only able to watch the first 20 seconds of that Fox News thing on my dial-up. I hope by tomorrow (Pam's birthday) I will have forgotten all about it so I don't entirely ruin my, her and everyone else's day by watching the whole thing on super-fast work connection and exploding in miserable rage.

(Pam's always vaguely amused by my anger at stuff like this - "What else did you expect? It's Fox.")

Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 3 February 2004 22:23 (twenty-two years ago)

You'd better not tell me what it said, or by the sound of it I'll be angry too and I might attack, for instance, a train on the way home.

An only possibly interesting fact is that the images on their own were not obviously offensive.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 February 2004 22:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I waited for about 15 mins to see it on my dial-up. You'd love it, beebfox.

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry pinefox, but you must Know Your Enemy.

Venga, Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:22 (twenty-two years ago)

sickening video clip - i wish to punt a physical manifestation of the Fox/Murdoch/blinkered American reactionary mentalist Wilkinson style

stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Fuck that guy. Fuck him fuck him fuck him. That clip hurt my head like a hundred dogs. It made me very sad, too. Even though I'm out of that country where things like that are permitted on the air, to know that it still goes on, with or without me, is devastating. I know that we have weaker libel laws in the United States than you have in the UK, but I am very surprised that this guy was able to describe Andrew Gilligan as "pro-Iraq."

I disagree about the Daily Mail and the Sun, though. I think they would print something with those desperately hateful and totally-uninformed sentiments in a heartbeat, minus a few things the lawyers made them take out.

Finally I have to think that this guy is an almost psychotically unhappy person inside.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:40 (twenty-two years ago)

aw

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:40 (twenty-two years ago)

i think they would too, maybe even the cunting Telegraph (albeit more eloquently), but all perhaps with just a little less audacity and a smidgen less nationalistic disdain than THE FUCKING IMBECILIC COCKFARMING ASSHATS AT FOX 'NEWS'

stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:43 (twenty-two years ago)

(oof, that was pretty kneejerk as well)

stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Your jerk is true stevem, your jerk is true

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:46 (twenty-two years ago)

dude i haven't been this enraged since c-man slagged Queen

stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:49 (twenty-two years ago)

"Long white cloak dripping with blood?"

"check"

"Rivers of blood as high as a horse's shoulder?"

"check!"

"Fox News staff in da house?"

"check!!!!"

"Call in the angels"

the Book of Revelations can't come true soon enough for assbaskets like this. I hope you sit on your fucking lapel pin, bitchnose

xpost yeah that was bad.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 01:52 (twenty-two years ago)

John Gibson comes out fighting

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 02:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Democrats watch out!

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 02:03 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.foxnews.com/images/69289/0_22_200x300_bio_johngibson.jpg

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 02:04 (twenty-two years ago)

(apologies - Ricardo had already pasted the first link)

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 02:06 (twenty-two years ago)

ha ha, i was just about to do that. i've been pondering whether i am mature enough to not just Photoshop this coiffured inbred nonce to the depths of Hades. i can reveal that the answer is 'nah mate - altho it is way past my beddy-byes so perhaps another time'

stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 02:08 (twenty-two years ago)

!

N. (nickdastoor), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 02:11 (twenty-two years ago)

He's much easier to dismiss in print. Actually the more I think about it (i.e. the more distance I have from that unbelievable video clip) his hyperbole surely signals that this man feels in TROUBLE. Kind of a parallel to America having to actually use enormous wodges of its military - rather than persuasion and sweet-talking - to extend its empire.

stevem you have just persuaded me to go to bed.

Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 02:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus said this:

"On each element of the case before him, Lord Hutton gave the government the benefit of the doubt, opting for the interpretation that most favoured it, never countenancing the gloss that might benefit the BBC. Perhaps the clearest example was Lord Hutton's very judge-like deconstruction of the "slang expression" sexed up. One meaning could be inserting items that are untrue, he said; another could simply be strengthening language. Under the latter definition, Hutton conceded, Gilligan's story would be true. So his lordship decided the other meaning must apply."

I share your worries about the whitewash, but don't you see that Gilligan's sloppiness gave Hutton the licence to interpret the meaning of "sexed up" the way he did? The listeners were being told at the same time that the document was sexed up and that the government "probably" had known that the 45-minute deployment information was not true. The implication was clearly that the sexing up consisted at least in part of lying. It was later found out that the detail in question had been added late because the information had come in late, and not because a fictional element was needed to bolster the dossier. So even though the term "sexing up" usually means only to streghtn existing facts, in this case it obviously implied extended embellishment with untruths.

The sad thing about this is that it means that the government is excused the blatant sexing-up concocted between Campbell, on behalf of the government, and John Scarlett. And black becomes white. It was the sexing up which took us to war. It wasn't the 45-minute capability in itself, but the removal of the word "may" from the dossier and its replacement with such terms as "capable of", and the replacement of "WMD programmes" with "WMD", that clinched the deal in the public's eyes and made 55% of them poll in favour on the eve of the war.

R the bunged up with jollop of V (Jake Proudlock), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 03:12 (twenty-two years ago)

that clip is still making me feel ill.

toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm glad I haven't seen it yet

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 08:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I haven't seen it, but I haven't read anything in the linked articles that I couldn't imagine appearing in the Sun, Mail or Express. I think some people are glossing over quite how BAD much of our print media is in order to bash Fox here.

Matt DC (Matt DC), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 09:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I think Matt DC is right. I could totally imagine the Express running something like that in print. But there is something about the same thing being televised that makes it seem much, much worse. I was spitting chips after seeing that clip, even though I'd already read the article.

Ricardo (RickyT), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 09:44 (twenty-two years ago)

bwa ha ha - i may have to read this book

stevem (blueski), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 18:59 (twenty-two years ago)

steve, we can lend you that, as long as you don't mind samizdat proof quality, I've got the audio book verison on the iPod if you are lazy.

Ed (dali), Wednesday, 4 February 2004 19:38 (twenty-two years ago)

I looked at Venga's link and now I too am angry.

Perhaps I should attack a train *tonight*?

the beebfox, Wednesday, 4 February 2004 20:39 (twenty-two years ago)

"It's either be with America, or be with France. And we can all see that's an easy choice."

No shit it's an easy choice! Au revoir, freedom fries - hello, pomme frites!

David R. (popshots75`), Thursday, 5 February 2004 17:12 (twenty-two years ago)

two years pass...
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/kelly/story/0,,1782062,00.html

new labour are some sick fucks.

Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Wednesday, 24 May 2006 13:55 (twenty years ago)

It costs £70 even without the celebrity autographs.

Is it me, or are they managing to keep this fairly quiet? Page 6 of The Independent.

PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 25 May 2006 06:42 (twenty years ago)

the gbp has forgotten about 'all that', and the beeb won't want to drag it up?

Enrique IX: The Mediator (Enrique), Thursday, 25 May 2006 07:29 (twenty years ago)

this was on the BBC news, last night

RJG (RJG), Thursday, 25 May 2006 08:08 (twenty years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.