The Hutton Report
Where
did the BBC go wrong, and how will Lord Hutton's conclusions affect
British journalism?
When Andrew Gilligan picked up the phone on the morning
of May 29th and went live on the Today programme, he could never have
dreamed that what he was about to say would dominate the headlines
for the rest of 2003.
During his unscripted report, Gilligan claimed that
the government had inserted a claim it knew was probably wrong in
its dossier on Saddam Hussein’s weapons capability – that
Saddam could deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes.
Gilligan described the source of this claim as “a senior official
in charge of drawing up the dossier.” Both of these claims were
wrong, and in making them Gilligan ignited the biggest scandal in
the BBC’s long history.
Gilligan’s report came at a time when relations between Downing
Street and the BBC were particularly strained. Throughout the invasion
of Iraq, Blair’s press secretary Alistair Campbell had been
intensely critical of coverage he felt was biased against the war.
For months, Campbell bombarded the BBC with complaints, many of which
concerned Gilligan’s own reporting from Baghdad.
Campbell thought Gilligan’s report, and a subsequent story in
the Mail on Sunday in which he named Campbell as the man responsible
for “sexing-up” the dossier, was the final straw; he demanded
an immediate correction.
Perhaps for the first time, Campbell actually had
a legitimate complaint, but the BBC was sick of him and dismissed
his complaint out of hand. An infuriated Campbell went on the warpath,
accusing the BBC of having an anti-war agenda and lying in its report.
So began an unprecedented feud between No.10 and the home of British
broadcasting.
Campbell had gone too far in his allegations of anti-war bias at the
BBC (a claim that was later disproved in a study by Cardiff University).
He had slurred its reputation just as much as he was claiming the
BBC had slurred his; its managers felt a strong response was justified.
But in doing this, they failed to check the veracity of Gilligan’s
story – a reporter who, according to his own editor on the Today
programme, was prone to “loose language and lack of judgement”.
BBC director general Greg Dyke was not even aware of the content of
Gilligan’s report when he issued the first rebuttal to Campbell.
Even after director of news Richard Sambrook admitted
Gilligan’s shortcomings at a special meeting of the BBC governors,
they still issued a statement saying they were, “wholly satisfied”
that he had “maintained impartiality and accuracy.”
This was the key failure. The BBC’s charter makes the governors
responsible for, “regulation of impartiality and accuracy.”
Lord Hutton, and many other critics, have said their failure to investigate
Gilligan’s report before jumping to its defence was a direct
violation of this role.
“It was the action of a champion, not a regulator,” said
Barry Cox, deputy chairman of Channel Four. “A regulator would
have taken more time to inquire into the matter…not feel it
necessary to get its views in first.” Mr Cox says the new communications
watchdog, Ofcom, should take over regulation. He also advocates abolition
of the license fee, to be replaced by a voluntary subscription.
Even the BBC’s supporters, acknowledge that something was wrong
with their editorial process. “If the BBC can have a story like
Gilligan’s, it needs a change,” says Mark Wolff, reporter
for Le Monde. “There were not enough checks.”
However there has also been widespread criticism of Hutton’s
judgement. There is an obvious imbalance,” said Sir Christopher
Bland, former chairman of the BBC. “He whitewashed the government,
but he tarred and feathered the BBC. ”Lord Hutton “might
just harbour an old-fashioned faith in the benign motives of the government
and may, for all we know it, take a dim view of journalism,”
said Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian. Friends of the BBC have been
rallying round, and polls in the Guardian and the Telegraph showed
that a majority of people still trust it and are willing pay license
fee.
Since the resignation of Dyke and Davies, the war with the government
seems to have ended. Tony Blair has made conciliatory statements and
culture secretary, Tessa Jowell, who will oversee the review of the
charter, has said that the corporation will continue to be a strong
and independent organisation and the license fee is still the preferred
form of funding.
Prof Howard Tumber, Dean of the Department of Social Studies at City
University, agrees that there will not be major changes. He says BBC
coverage has come under attack in past wars, from Suez to the Falklands.
Perhaps the bloodiest clash came in 1987, when the Thatcher government
felt a programme about the secret Zircon spy satellite jeopardised
national security. It ended with the special branch raiding the offices
of BBC Scotland to confiscate all materials related to the programme
and the dismissal of the Director General Alisdair Milne. Ultimately,
the BBC and the government resolved their differences, and Professor
Tumber believes the same will happen this time. “I’m sure
the government is worried about damaging the BBC too much,”
he says.
The greatest fear right now seems to be that Hutton’s verdict
will damage British journalism, especially a “gun-shy BBC”.
Issues like accuracy, sourcing and balance are once again in the spotlight.
Greg Dyke has said that, “every newspaper and broadcaster in
this country should be concerned,” about what Hutton’s
verdict means for the future of investigative journalism.
However, others are downplaying its significance. “There are
many high-quality executives and journalists in the news and current
affairs departments,” said Professor Roy Greenslade, “who
will not be cowed into self-censorship.” He added that the Hutton
report creates no legal precedent that will affect journalists in
the future.
In conclusion, it seems unlikely that the Hutton report will have
a noticeable effect on the way British journalism in general is practiced.
In the weeks since the report, it has been very much business as usual.
The effect on journalism at the BBC and its future status as a public
service broadcaster are harder to judge. The corporation is still
in a weak position, without a chairman of the governors or a director
general. However, the huge surge in support for the BBC following
Hutton’s verdict suggests that most still regard it as a national
treasure that is worth preserving. That fact, more than anything else,
is likely to see it through any troubles ahead.
Picture courtesy of www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk
