FWLIW
("For What Little It's Worth")
In comments at various other's blogs, and email discussion with one of my brothers back home, I've been venting my disgust at the Hutton report's treatment of the Beeb. Repeating some of those thoughts here, FWLIW...
Reading the Grauniad's coverage of Hutton and the Beeb fallout set me off. In particular, the Leader column from last Thursday's paper:
“...But have a sense of proportion. Of all the corporation's fiercest newspaper critics, not one has any kind of process for dealing with complaints, let alone an independent system for correcting and apologising promptly and prominently. Scan the pages over coming days for corrections over all the wrong predictions on Hutton or tuition fees. There won't be any. The fact is that the BBC, in most of its editorial processes most of the time, simply towers over the army of enemies who will now be queuing up to kick it in the teeth...”
And I can’t imagine the editor, publisher, or owner of any major national daily or independent broadcast company falling on their own sword in the wake of such unwarranted and unnecessary criticism.
I don’t think Davies or Dyke really needed to resign, and yet I’m heartened and kind of proud, if that’s the right word, to note that they did.
(As for Gilligan? Sure - he should have quit long ago. He's clearly something of a nork, a crappy reporter, and an all round slimebeast. he did, however, manage to get the message right in his statement about quitting: "I accept my part in the crisis which has befallen the organisation. But a greater part has been played by the unbalanced judgments of Lord Hutton").
Hard to tell really if Davies and Dyke's decision to act should be considered noble hara-kiri, or a less "honourable" but no less understandable result of extreme frustration at the government’s continued interference with the wafer-thin premise of a free press.
One thing I hold, though, is that the Beeb is truly unique. It is the only national broadcaster in the world to have such rigorous internal standards of fact-checking.
They are very, very far from perfect in this respect – yet they continue to be a benchmark by which all other media should be judged. Would that all newspapers and broadcasters were so ‘sloppy’ in their approach.
And would that all news organizations were able to maintain such standards of editorial independence.
Gilligan (and his editors) made very serious mistakes in the manner of their reporting – but they fulfilled their principal obligations as mainstream journalists: to bring information of national importance into the public domain.
The last lines of last Thursday's Guardian piece serve as a sad, unintentional epitaph for Dyke. Written prior to his resignation, they entreat him:
“...most important of all, he must make sure there is no collective failure of nerve in the corporation - particularly given the forthcoming process of charter renewal and the fact that the new chair of governors will ultimately be appointed by the prime minister. BBC journalists must go on probing, must go on asking awkward questions - and must go on causing trouble.”
I hope that whoever steps into Dyke's shoes continues to use them to kick Blair’s (and everyone else’s) arse.
For the record: I'm still (just barely) a Blair supporter - if only because the alternatives are infinitely worse. But I want the BBC and print and broadcast media around the world to continue to kick him and his cabinet, and Her Majesty's opposition, and Bush, and Paul Martin, and other figures of power and influence, every single day.
Kick them. Hard. And keep kicking them, even when they're down. Keep them honest and transparent. Make sure they're doing something to earn our votes and the money we pay them.
As Anthony Lester QC, quoted in Saturday's Guardian put it: "I think it very regrettable that some sections of the media have attacked the BBC without realising the dangers inherent in the Hutton report to free expression for themselves and their readers..."
In comments at various other's blogs, and email discussion with one of my brothers back home, I've been venting my disgust at the Hutton report's treatment of the Beeb. Repeating some of those thoughts here, FWLIW...
Reading the Grauniad's coverage of Hutton and the Beeb fallout set me off. In particular, the Leader column from last Thursday's paper:
“...But have a sense of proportion. Of all the corporation's fiercest newspaper critics, not one has any kind of process for dealing with complaints, let alone an independent system for correcting and apologising promptly and prominently. Scan the pages over coming days for corrections over all the wrong predictions on Hutton or tuition fees. There won't be any. The fact is that the BBC, in most of its editorial processes most of the time, simply towers over the army of enemies who will now be queuing up to kick it in the teeth...”
And I can’t imagine the editor, publisher, or owner of any major national daily or independent broadcast company falling on their own sword in the wake of such unwarranted and unnecessary criticism.
I don’t think Davies or Dyke really needed to resign, and yet I’m heartened and kind of proud, if that’s the right word, to note that they did.
(As for Gilligan? Sure - he should have quit long ago. He's clearly something of a nork, a crappy reporter, and an all round slimebeast. he did, however, manage to get the message right in his statement about quitting: "I accept my part in the crisis which has befallen the organisation. But a greater part has been played by the unbalanced judgments of Lord Hutton").
Hard to tell really if Davies and Dyke's decision to act should be considered noble hara-kiri, or a less "honourable" but no less understandable result of extreme frustration at the government’s continued interference with the wafer-thin premise of a free press.
One thing I hold, though, is that the Beeb is truly unique. It is the only national broadcaster in the world to have such rigorous internal standards of fact-checking.
They are very, very far from perfect in this respect – yet they continue to be a benchmark by which all other media should be judged. Would that all newspapers and broadcasters were so ‘sloppy’ in their approach.
And would that all news organizations were able to maintain such standards of editorial independence.
Gilligan (and his editors) made very serious mistakes in the manner of their reporting – but they fulfilled their principal obligations as mainstream journalists: to bring information of national importance into the public domain.
The last lines of last Thursday's Guardian piece serve as a sad, unintentional epitaph for Dyke. Written prior to his resignation, they entreat him:
“...most important of all, he must make sure there is no collective failure of nerve in the corporation - particularly given the forthcoming process of charter renewal and the fact that the new chair of governors will ultimately be appointed by the prime minister. BBC journalists must go on probing, must go on asking awkward questions - and must go on causing trouble.”
I hope that whoever steps into Dyke's shoes continues to use them to kick Blair’s (and everyone else’s) arse.
For the record: I'm still (just barely) a Blair supporter - if only because the alternatives are infinitely worse. But I want the BBC and print and broadcast media around the world to continue to kick him and his cabinet, and Her Majesty's opposition, and Bush, and Paul Martin, and other figures of power and influence, every single day.
Kick them. Hard. And keep kicking them, even when they're down. Keep them honest and transparent. Make sure they're doing something to earn our votes and the money we pay them.
As Anthony Lester QC, quoted in Saturday's Guardian put it: "I think it very regrettable that some sections of the media have attacked the BBC without realising the dangers inherent in the Hutton report to free expression for themselves and their readers..."
