Article

2003-07-20 Britain

Blair Stands Firm as BBC Says Scientist Was Source

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Frank G 2003-07-20 3:33:32 PM|| || Front Page|| [5 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 The BBC may claim to have "accurately interpreted and reported" Kelly's information, but former BBC correspondent Tom Mangold, writing in The Scotsman, isn't sure:

"He [Kelly] told me then he was anxious that reporters who did not fully understand the politics and mechanics of weapons of mass destruction should understand quite clearly what Iraq had been up to, and why it might be difficult, perhaps impossible, to find actual weapons...
But he told me he certainly did not brief anyone that Iraq had weapons ready to go at 45 minutes? notice...
That is why he did not recognise his briefing to Gilligan and assumed that he must have had another source..." --"We are all involved in the death of a fine and honourable man"

Interesting profile of Kelly and backgrounder on the whole WMD thing.
(Pointer from Wretchard the Cat).

Posted by Old Grouch 2003-7-20 5:21:25 PM|| 2003-7-20 5:21:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Where are the reporter's notes or tape recording of the conversation?

I read an interesting point: The timing of the release of the original story. Maybe the bbc deliberately waited to release it to do damage to Blair.

I can't believe that, can you?

Posted by Anonymous 2003-7-20 9:51:43 PM|| 2003-7-20 9:51:43 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 Via Lucianne from al Guardian:

Cracks appear in BBC ranks as executives face staff revolt

Journalists fear they may be tarnished by Kelly furore

(You think?)

Senior BBC executives seemed isolated from their own staff last night when the corporation implicitly accused David Kelly of failing to be entirely open when he appeared before MPs last week...

But journalists, editors and presenters contacted by the Guardian yesterday questioned - on condition of anonymity - the credibility of this stance. They expressed doubt about the positions of Gilligan and Richard Sambrook, the director of news, who has given unswerving support to the reporter since he learned that Dr Kelly was his source. A few even talk darkly of revolt. Support for Gilligan, outside the increasingly fraught confines of the Today programme where he is defence and diplomatic correspondent, is slipping away....
---

I would think, with renewal so recent, this really has to be hitting them to the core.

hehehehehehehehehehe

"It's one thing if the top brass choose to go to the wall for Gilligan. It's quite another if they expect us to do it too," one insider said.

Posted by Anonymous 2003-7-20 11:07:50 PM|| 2003-7-20 11:07:50 PM|| Front Page Top

08:41 raptor
08:18 Dar
02:11 parallaxview
23:07 Anonymous
22:19 Frank G
22:00 Anonymous
21:51 Anonymous
21:40 Zhang Fei
21:40 PD
21:21 PD
21:17 Lu Baihu
21:09 Frank G
21:03 Not Mike Moore
20:57 Not Mike Moore
20:44 PD
20:33 mojo
20:25 Dishman
20:25 Ernest Brown
20:24 Douglas De Bono
20:18 PD
19:57 PD
19:47 Anonymous
19:28 The Marmot
19:26 Steve