BBC, Alastair Campbell and that dossier.

[Dauphin]

It just won't go away.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...727673,00.html

I find these to be amusing:

Mr Campbell hit back immediately at the Sambrook letter, saying

"It confirms that the BBC broadcast a story that was hugely damaging to the integrity of the Government and the Prime Minister without knowing that story to be true and without any effort to check whether the story was true or not."

"It confirms our central charge that they do not have a shred of evidence to justify their lie, broadcast many times on many outlets, that we deliberately exaggerated and abused British intelligence and so mislead Parliament and the public."

"The allegations were outrageous. So is Mr Sambrook's reply. If the BBC are now saying that their journalism is now based on the principle that they can report what any source said, then BBC standards are now debased beyond belief.

Then we find out..

The letters were released after Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, defended the inclusion of the 45-minute claim in the dossier.

Ministers have admitted it was based on a single intelligence report and had not been corroborated by another independent source, as is usually the case with intelligence material.

Anyone else see the irony.

[Cruddy]

Yeah, I get it BC - the govt uses an "unsubstantiated" report to make the case that Iraq had WMD.

Then when the BBC uses one "unsubstantiated" report to confirm Alastair Campbell is a lying cheating sh1t, he gets all moody and defsenive.

Mind you, he's a Campbell. Not surprising I instrinctively hate him.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cruddy

Mind you, he's a Campbell. Not surprising I instrinctively hate him.

Would your name be MacDonald by any chance?

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by Agathon


Would your name be MacDonald by any chance?

I'm taking the 5th amendment on that.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Cruddy

I'm taking the 5th amendment on that.

Caught!

[chequita guevara]

What is this Campbell's and MacDonald's you whisper of?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Clan warfare. Between them they showered the highlands in each other's guts.

[The Viceroy]

I know its going slightly off topic, but I think its about time the British public had a choice to pay for the BBC or not. I can choose to have Sky Movies or not, why am I forced to pay £100 a year for the BBC ..

What really gets up my nose is, the Government and the BBC try to cover their backsides over this, while our troops (and American troops) are giving their lives each day for Iraq. Maybe we should send the journalists and politicians to police iraq instead .

[Cruddy]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What is this Campbell's and MacDonald's you whisper of?

Mostly about this - click me

To this day, if you go into many Scottish pubs and let on you're a Campbell, you will be chased out of that pub (and sometimes clean out of town).

[Drogue]

Originally posted by The Viceroy
Maybe we should send the journalists... to iraq instead.

They did, and one died. Much as many journalists are scum, I think arguing about whether those soldiers are died in a just and legal war is important. If Blair mislead the house then he should be removed from office, as that is a gross breach of the democratic system. However if the BBC are lying, they should apologise as asked. To be honest, I suspect both should happen. Much as I think Blair lied about the 45 minutes, I think the BBC have gone way to far with this. Straw acted on a single piece of intelligence information. The BBC acted on a piece of malicious information. There is a fine line between a free press and a press that is not held to account for anything that they say. I think they crossed that line. The press should be free, but they should also be held to account as show that what they print is substantiated. So much at the moment reports just twist things and put a spin on things, far worse than #10 spin doctors, just to get a story.

Take that whole thing about the guy who said he wanted to raise tax. He said he wanted to raise the level at which you become a higher rate tax payer and thus raise the higher tax rate to pay for it. It means those on lower middle incomes (like £25-40000pa) pay less, and those on upper middle incomes (£40000+) pay more, with the same amount overall. All that was quoted was that he wanted to raise tax, not that he wanted to raise part and lower part, meaning no gain in overall tax.

IMHO it is not the spin doctors putting spin onto stories, it is the newpapers who have a vested interest. They don't want to provide the public information, they want to sell papers. With the Sun telling half the country how and what to think, it's not surprising we have all this unrest over asylum seekers and motor transport. If people saw both sides, not just what the paper wants them to see, they would be much more balanced in their opinions.

Sorry for the rant, but I think newspapers, especially the tabloid mogels like Piers Morgan, Rupert Murdock, Max Clifford et al. should be held accountable for what they print. If they have evidence, then great. If not, stop printing gossip and slander just to sell papers

[Evil Knevil]

What really gets up my nose is, the Government and the BBC try to cover their backsides over this, while our troops (and American troops) are giving their lives each day for Iraq. Maybe we should send the journalists and politicians to police iraq instead.

Bah!

The most important question is, who else would have (un)covered this story? Who else would have the will? That is why the BBC should stay as it is.

Trust me, I work for the enemy and the BBC's independence sounds alot better than the raw deal we get.

[lightblue]

You can say what you want, but i would not want to debate with Campbell. Did any of you see him on Channel 4 News ripping Jon Snow to shreds? The man is a genius, and knows it, which is probably part of the problem...

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by lightblue
You can say what you want, but i would not want to debate with Campbell. Did any of you see him on Channel 4 News ripping Jon Snow to shreds? The man is a genius, and knows it, which is probably part of the problem...

He'll be too clever to get caught over this...

[Cruddy]

Right. So if Campbell didn't doctor the dossier and the security services have washed their hands of it, who did deceive Parliament and the British public?

You think Blair will take the fall? He'll want to protect Campbell if possible... but if no other scapegoat emerges he won't have any choice.

[Drogue]

I'm not so sure. I'd love to debate with him. Jon Snow is clever, but not sharp or lively enough to get him, but there isn't enough substance behind all that good arguing. He's clever, but he's not above slipping up. I don't think he'll be caught, because people are after politicians blood. I think he might get them out of this though.

[reds4ever]

IMHO the trick to getting him is going to lie in the definition of 'doctored', as opposed to bringing some things to the fore while down playing others

[Solly]

I told you the BBC was biased.

[The Mad Monk]

Originally posted by Cruddy


Mostly about this - click me

To this day, if you go into many Scottish pubs and let on you're a Campbell, you will be chased out of that pub (and sometimes clean out of town).

Do you have Campbell's Soup over there?

[C0ckney]

campbell is a lying bastard, but i would be fairly surprised if he took the fall for this, he's too important to blair...

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by Cruddy
I'm taking the 5th amendment on that.

Eek...
*hides under sofa*
My gran's a Campbell, I think. But IIRC we have blood from the other side, too.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by Drogue
I'm not so sure. I'd love to debate with him. Jon Snow is clever, but not sharp or lively enough to get him, but there isn't enough substance behind all that good arguing. He's clever, but he's not above slipping up. I don't think he'll be caught, because people are after politicians blood. I think he might get them out of this though.

Campbell vs Paxman, next on Pay per View

[Whaleboy]

I think arguing about whether those soldiers are died in a just and legal war is important

Do you believe in an issue enough to send others to die for it?

They say they had justification for it, but the case against was far stronger, except economically. Economically speaking, the war was fantastic, because of the access to oil. However, the moral argument against appeared to outweigh that, which is borne out by the fact that even those who supported the war deny its about oil!

I agree to an extent about the newspapers, but at the end of the day, its what they do, its what theyve always done, and its what makes them money, and will continue to do so in the future, because fundamentally, the 99.9% of the population that are sheep happen to love it. Fundamentally, they are just using free speech (forget the libel angle, drogue knows me arguments on that one), and if they think politicians are doing something, then they have the right to say so, just as I do or anyone does.

Spin doctors are probably a natural, if disturbing, development of modern politics, although in a manner of speaking, they have been integral since the ancient greeks. However, the degree of dishonesty, facets, and public relations, in almost a marketing sense is an attempt to dumb politics down, make it simplistic, so the idiots in their armchairs are taken in by it, almost like how a firm will advertise its product. In the context of how history will view such things, I doubt very much it will take kindly to the kind of distortion that spin doctors apply.

Just proves me theory with Bliar, all pastry, no vegetables.

I'm not so sure. I'd love to debate with him. Jon Snow is clever, but not sharp or lively enough to get him, but there isn't enough substance behind all that good arguing. He's clever, but he's not above slipping up. I don't think he'll be caught, because people are after politicians blood. I think he might get them out of this though.

It would be fun to debate with him! I'm not sure whether we're too close to the next general election (couple of years?) for it to become a liability to new labour. People are after blairs blood, and campbell is an integral part of blair. They could quite easily be the same person in terms of what they say, indeed, campbell is basically the way blair interfaces with the public, both via campbell in press releases (as opposed to putting stuff before parliament ) and via blair in speeches. Campbell is probably more vulnerable than ever before, but lets not forget he's [s]barely[/s] human. For 6 years, he's been targetted by the press, and elements of the more intelligent public who dont want to see politics dumbed down and shrink-wrapped. That kind of pressure must get to the man, and like Andrew Marr said, I think we're seeing an explosion.

I dont think he did rip snow to threads, if you actually examine what he said, its a mixture of ad hocs and ad hominems, very little in the way of actual worthy material. It probably appeared so because he was so aggressive, and attempted to usurp snow in the power struggle that is live-tv interviews. Theyre trying to spin their way out of this, but in 3 different directions at once - anti cook/short, straw and campbell.

I think the BBC are entirely justified, they have made it clear that they are not specifically standing by what the source said, they are merely standing by the reporting of that source, as the BBC is the conduit of communications effectively for that source. Campbell is confusing them with standing by their source, or rather, attempting to portray that, I doubt he is confused, but he is attempting to give a straw-man argument to the media. Its very common in spin, and the actual quality of arguments you get with these PR people is suprisingly low. Lets not overestimate the mans genius, he may be good at PR, but when it comes to debating and arguing, from what I've seen, he's a minnow in a shark tank.

[Whaleboy]

Campbell vs Paxman, next on Pay per View

Campbell vs Drogue,
Campbell vs elijah ... those could get interesting!

[DinoDoc]

I think the BBC are entirely justified, they have made it clear that they are not specifically standing by what the source said,

Then why are they reporting what he said?

[Whaleboy]

Then why are they reporting what he said?

Because he's their source. Like they said, they stand by the reporting of the source, not necessily the source itself.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by elijah
Because he's their source. Like they said, they stand by the reporting of the source, not necessily the source itself.

That sounds kind of stupid. If he's not a credible source of info (Which they seem to be admitting acording to you.), why bother reporting what he says?

[Whaleboy]

I dont know if theyre admitting it or not, I havent got that info, but its not the bbc, or any element of the medias job per se, to be a source of information, rather to report and editorialise sources to be public, be a conduit of information rather than a source in itself (of course as far as you and me are concerned, that is irrelevant as they are a source of information to us), at least as far as the bbc are concerned.

From what I do know about their source, it was someone pretty high up in the intelligence service, I dont think theyll say more for obvious reasons, but as far as the government is concerned, that is certainly a thorn in its side, and it boils down to new labour vs bbc. I know which one I trust more

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What is this Campbell's and MacDonald's you whisper of?

*psst*

One's a barnd of soup, the other is a Fast Food Chain.

[Sirotnikov]

Hmm... howcome I'm not surprised that the BBC put spin on things, and rely on sources whose accountability they do not wish to defend?

It seems to me, that for 2 years now, the BBC first decide on their 'official line' (bias) and then spin events to fit into the pre-concieved message.

[The Viceroy]

Its gone to the dogs .. time to rid the British people of this £100 a year tax.