[risk]

ping

[Stirner]

I'm glad that the BBC was lambasted, but it puts me off a little that the problem is stated as not enough levels of managerial oversight and prescreening of what the ground-level reporter, Andrew Gilligan, was going to say. I'd prefer a system where reporters and commentators say what they think, but where everyone knows that they have to take things with a grain of salt. Apparently, the British ideal would be to fact-check everything six times before saying anything. Gilligan apparently exaggerated or even lied about what David Kelly had said to him, and that was wrong, especially since it led to an overly sensitive man's death; but the BBC's fault, in my opinion, was not in being too loosely managed but rather in circling the wagons and claiming that they could never have been wrong. What the Brit's seem to want is an authoritative journalism that they can trust and believe in without people having to be skeptical and think for themselves. A dangerous thing to want, I think.

[Zipporah]

Seems Kelly was right.

[swilhelm73]

All good, except, of course, he should have fired Andrew Gilligan first.

Looks like Gilligan was the only one sexing anything up...

I see the leftiods on other websites are claiming Hutton is in on some grand conspiracy with Blair though. I guess they can't get it through their heads that the "anti-war" cause always was built on a house of cards and neo-fascist sympathizing.

[mewzilla]

Anyone know if Gilligan is still there?

[observer5]

"The inquiry by Lord Hutton criticized journalist Andrew Gilligan, the BBC's management and its supervisory board of governors..."

You mean to say they were exposed to be a SHAMELES propaganda outfit for the left?

Go ahead, you can say it!