Greg **** on Channel 4
Posted by: Laurie Saunders on 21 September 2004
Did anyone watch the Channel 4 program on Sunday in which Greg Dyke tried to convince us that he was the victim of Labour bullying?
AFAIAC, any credibility he had prior to the broadcast , was completely lost......it was little more than an amateurish, crass, bleating whinge, and showed up Greg to be much more stupid than I had formerly believed. Thank heaven`s he`s gone
laurie S
AFAIAC, any credibility he had prior to the broadcast , was completely lost......it was little more than an amateurish, crass, bleating whinge, and showed up Greg to be much more stupid than I had formerly believed. Thank heaven`s he`s gone
laurie S
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by garyi
I must say that what he was saying may have bee true but basically he was winging about the way Campbell typed things and what have you, it did sound a little like school playground crying.
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by JonR
Laurie,
I saw the programme and would tend to agree with you. It all seems a little bit too late and it's difficult to see the point of it all, except to promote his book on the subject.
Regards,
JonR
I saw the programme and would tend to agree with you. It all seems a little bit too late and it's difficult to see the point of it all, except to promote his book on the subject.
Regards,
JonR
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by Simon Perry
I saw it and I disagree with your view. Who has more credibility -Greg Dyke or Tony Blair? He has immense credibility in the media world. Greg Dyke stupid? Do you really mean that? What's your beef exactly with Dyke? I know you are against the licence fee.
I can't believe anyone has a problem understanding 'the point of it all'. The writing of daily complaints to a news organisation is normally the behaviour of crack pot regimes. Its not 'too late' because we will be asked to re-elect the current government next year or the year after.
Dyke has simply put forward his version of events in his own style - good luck to him. He acknowledged in the programme that he made some tactical mistakes in how he dealt with the situation. So not just a long whinge infact. The BBC is full of highly intelligent but sometimes pretty difficult people to manage. That Dyke was able to lead them and command their respect so quickly shows exceptional skill and experience.
Simon
I can't believe anyone has a problem understanding 'the point of it all'. The writing of daily complaints to a news organisation is normally the behaviour of crack pot regimes. Its not 'too late' because we will be asked to re-elect the current government next year or the year after.
Dyke has simply put forward his version of events in his own style - good luck to him. He acknowledged in the programme that he made some tactical mistakes in how he dealt with the situation. So not just a long whinge infact. The BBC is full of highly intelligent but sometimes pretty difficult people to manage. That Dyke was able to lead them and command their respect so quickly shows exceptional skill and experience.
Simon
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Perry:
Who has more credibility -Greg Dyke or Tony Blair?
That is a difficult question. I'm not a great fan of Tony Blair but I'm even less a fan of the political slant put forward by the BBC over the last few years. After watching the programme discussed, I'd have difficulty attributing any credibility at all to Dyke.
Steve Margolis
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by Simon Perry
Steve - what political slant is that then? Please explain, and also how this slant has changed in the BBC in the last few years as you say. Also, please explain why Dyke is not credible. Because he is annoyed?
Simon
Simon
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by 7V
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Perry:
Steve - what political slant is that then? Please explain, and also how this slant has changed in the BBC in the last few years as you say. Also, please explain why Dyke is not credible. Because he is annoyed?
Simon
Hmmm, it's difficult to give a quick answer and I don't have the time to give a long answer now. Basically, I suppose I'm talking about what has come to be known as 'left wing liberalism', which the BBC appears to assume is the only permissable view.
In its handling of terrorism, the BBC fails to understand that there is no rational behind irrational acts. Nothing excuses the terrorist acts that are committed, yet the BBC generally tries to paint a 'balanced picture', look for causes and justifications of that which cannot be justified.
In its generally confrontational approach to interviewing politicians (just witness Paxman when he's having a bad day) which, born of TW3 and a TV-satirical approach that started in the sixties, goes some way (IMO) to undermine our institutions and democratic society and is, again, considered (by the BBC) to be an approach that is beyond question.
In the way in which the BBC's news coverage sometimes arrives at quick and dubious conclusions and how, when they are shown to get something wrong, they don't apologise or 'come clean', preferring to ignore the issue altogether.
In the arrogant way in which they'll publicly criticize certain organizations for their detrimental effect on society (I'm thinking about food manufacturers for example) without for one second admitting or considering the negative effect that television itself has on our society and, particularly, on our children.
For the holier than thou approach they sometimes take to advertising and commercial television, without any acknowledgement of the huge amount of advertising that they themselves carry for BBC programmes and products.
I'm afraid that I haven't been particularly eloquent in presenting my case and don't have time to go further now. It's difficult to see the filters that come with our television coverage as everything is seen through these filters. Perhaps someone else can take this further.
Oh, and Dyke is not credible for the obvious reason that he's been found out for not doing his job properly, forced to resign and wishes to a) 'get even' and b) sell some copies of his book.
Steve
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
What's your beef exactly with Dyke? I know you are against the licence fee.
Because (1) he admiited to standing by Gilligan without checking the facts for himself.....he stuck his neck out and suffered the consequences
(2) He and others have described the Hutton Report as a whitewash
This makes me sick. The Hutton enquiry was carried out in "open court". No one criticised the proceedings whilst in progress, and many critics of the Government were rubbing their hands with anticipation just prior to release of the report. When the conclusions of the report give unwelcome results, these same folk cry "foul"
They have also singularly failed to support the "whitewash" claim with any evidence. They are IMHO behaving like spoilt children who can`t get their own way
quote:
He has immense credibility in the media world.
Perhaps that says more about the media world than it does about the intelligence of Greg Dyke
I could add comments here about the intellectual content of Media Studies courses, but I may be treading on too many toes at once here
quote:
Greg Dyke stupid? Do you really mean that?
Based on that one - hour broadcast, definitely yes....it was structured and presented in a way which can only be described as naive, and crude in the extreme.
He used nauseating pathos...especially the bit where he appeared to be on the point of tears telling us that he`d had thousands of supportive e-mails...come on. I`m not saying that the Blair crew is blameless here. Heaven knows I have enough criticism of New Labour et al. But if Greg Dyke really is , as you claim, one of the best of the BBC leaders, then no wonder there are calls for scrapping the licence fee
Laurie S
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by Simon Perry
Let's set aside the issue of the licence fee for now as its been discussed extensively on another thread.
When someone is not credible they are not plausible, not believable, they appear to be not telling the truth.
Dyke has admitted he made errors of judgement. He has written a book on a important matter. So I ask again, what is not credible about him? If you are saying he is not a credible leader of a major media organisation then quite clearly you are wrong. He has been and could be again.
As far as Hutton goes, even colleagues of Cherie Booth's at Matrix have voiced concerns about Hutton, the process followed, and the findings. If Campbell had been sure of his position then he could have sued for libel. He didn't because he knew his chances of winning were very slim.
Simon
When someone is not credible they are not plausible, not believable, they appear to be not telling the truth.
Dyke has admitted he made errors of judgement. He has written a book on a important matter. So I ask again, what is not credible about him? If you are saying he is not a credible leader of a major media organisation then quite clearly you are wrong. He has been and could be again.
As far as Hutton goes, even colleagues of Cherie Booth's at Matrix have voiced concerns about Hutton, the process followed, and the findings. If Campbell had been sure of his position then he could have sued for libel. He didn't because he knew his chances of winning were very slim.
Simon
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by matthewr
7v said "I'm talking about what has come to be known as 'left wing liberalism', which the BBC appears to assume is the only permissable view"
What rot! In my experience people who say things like this, basically want the BBC to demonstrate its neutrality by agreeing with them.
In fact they tend to say things like:
"In its handling of terrorism, the BBC fails to understand that there is no rational behind irrational acts. Nothing excuses the terrorist acts that are committed, yet the BBC generally tries to paint a 'balanced picture', look for causes and justifications of that which cannot be justified"
I mean this is just nonsense, surely? Typically in BBC reports on acts of terror, they will tell you what happened, report the various people condeming it and say "Organisation X beleives this to be part of it's struggle for Y". What are they supposed to do? Not tell you what Organisation X said/believes because their actions cannot be justified?
It's like me complaining that becuase I beleive that Bush's invasion of Iraq is unjustifiable, the BBC is right wing for reporting his views.
Laurie said "The Hutton enquiry was carried out in "open court". No one criticised the proceedings whilst in progress"
Becuase the inquiry was conducted entirely correctly and the problem was that Hutton drew conclusions that basically nobody apart from Blair and Campbell agreed with.
As much as it pains me to say it, the only newspaper that reported Hutton really well was the Daily Mail who, despite their long-standing antipathy to the BBC, have been very supportive of the BBC and have very effectively dismantled the report at some length and in great detail.
Matthew
What rot! In my experience people who say things like this, basically want the BBC to demonstrate its neutrality by agreeing with them.
In fact they tend to say things like:
"In its handling of terrorism, the BBC fails to understand that there is no rational behind irrational acts. Nothing excuses the terrorist acts that are committed, yet the BBC generally tries to paint a 'balanced picture', look for causes and justifications of that which cannot be justified"
I mean this is just nonsense, surely? Typically in BBC reports on acts of terror, they will tell you what happened, report the various people condeming it and say "Organisation X beleives this to be part of it's struggle for Y". What are they supposed to do? Not tell you what Organisation X said/believes because their actions cannot be justified?
It's like me complaining that becuase I beleive that Bush's invasion of Iraq is unjustifiable, the BBC is right wing for reporting his views.
Laurie said "The Hutton enquiry was carried out in "open court". No one criticised the proceedings whilst in progress"
Becuase the inquiry was conducted entirely correctly and the problem was that Hutton drew conclusions that basically nobody apart from Blair and Campbell agreed with.
As much as it pains me to say it, the only newspaper that reported Hutton really well was the Daily Mail who, despite their long-standing antipathy to the BBC, have been very supportive of the BBC and have very effectively dismantled the report at some length and in great detail.
Matthew
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
Becuase the inquiry was conducted entirely correctly and the problem was that Hutton drew conclusions that basically nobody apart from Blair and Campbell agreed with.
As much as it pains me to say it, the only newspaper that reported Hutton really well was the Daily Mail who, despite their long-standing antipathy to the BBC, have been very supportive of the BBC and have very effectively dismantled the report at some length and in great detail.
Matthew, if the criticism of Hutton is as fair as you suggest, how come the conclusions of the report have not been retracted?
AFAIR, the BBC govenors have taken no issue with the conclusions........they demanded Greg Dyke`s resignation
Why?
Laurie
laurie S
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by JonR
I agree with Laurie's assertion that the Hutton enquiry was conducted with IMO a remarkable degree of openness and fairness, but I was left very disturbed by the result - in fact not just the result itself but by how incongruous it all seemed when all the evidence was taken into account.
I wonder how confident Campbell/Blair & Co. were that they were going to get the 'right' result and whether this lead them to be so apparently willing to give evidence in person.
That said, the fact is Dyke (and Davies for that matter) failed to properly investigate the circumstances surrounding Gilligan's original broadcast and in effect hung themselves out to dry as a result.
I would argue whether he has as much credibility as you claim, Simon. If he did, would he not already be gainfully employed as chairman of ITV by now?
Regards,
JonR
I wonder how confident Campbell/Blair & Co. were that they were going to get the 'right' result and whether this lead them to be so apparently willing to give evidence in person.
That said, the fact is Dyke (and Davies for that matter) failed to properly investigate the circumstances surrounding Gilligan's original broadcast and in effect hung themselves out to dry as a result.
I would argue whether he has as much credibility as you claim, Simon. If he did, would he not already be gainfully employed as chairman of ITV by now?
Regards,
JonR
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by matthewr
Laurie,
Becuase once everyone agrees that there will be a formal public enquiry you basically have to agree to be bound by the findings. Otherwise we'd never get anywhere. Hence, the BBC was obliged to take the criticisms on board and people had to go.
But this doesn't change the fact that the overwhleming majority of people believe that Hutton basically got it wrong. Specifically in every single instance where there was room for doubt or opinion he sided with the government and against the BBC.
Which is not to say that the BBC and Dyke (and Davies) didn't make mistakes and have lessons to learn. Rather the problem with the report's unbalanced conclusions is that a) it so cowed the BBC that it was (and is) in danger of damaging it's independence and authority and b) it let the government off the hook.
My view on this whole process (stated before the inquiry even started) was that this was Campbell's great triumnph and he had taken an impossible situation (the government had start an illegal war on a false premise) and somewhow turned it into a debate about the exact legal meaning of one 5:30am ad-libed BBC report whcih tehy knew they could win. I am still in awe about how he turned an argument about governments lying to Parliament and the people and starting wars into an argument about news reporting protocols in the BBC.
Matthew
Becuase once everyone agrees that there will be a formal public enquiry you basically have to agree to be bound by the findings. Otherwise we'd never get anywhere. Hence, the BBC was obliged to take the criticisms on board and people had to go.
But this doesn't change the fact that the overwhleming majority of people believe that Hutton basically got it wrong. Specifically in every single instance where there was room for doubt or opinion he sided with the government and against the BBC.
Which is not to say that the BBC and Dyke (and Davies) didn't make mistakes and have lessons to learn. Rather the problem with the report's unbalanced conclusions is that a) it so cowed the BBC that it was (and is) in danger of damaging it's independence and authority and b) it let the government off the hook.
My view on this whole process (stated before the inquiry even started) was that this was Campbell's great triumnph and he had taken an impossible situation (the government had start an illegal war on a false premise) and somewhow turned it into a debate about the exact legal meaning of one 5:30am ad-libed BBC report whcih tehy knew they could win. I am still in awe about how he turned an argument about governments lying to Parliament and the people and starting wars into an argument about news reporting protocols in the BBC.
Matthew
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by Laurie Saunders
At the root of this "dispute" is the implied suggestion that somehow Tony Blair and/Alastair Campbell unfairly influenced the conclusions that Hutton reached. I like to think that I am open minded, so if anyone out there can convince me of this then I will lead the queue of folk screaming for Blair`s scalp
Up till now, the more evidence I get to see, the more I am convinced that it was Gilligan who was a loose cannon trying to make a name for himself, with folk like Greg Dyke guilty of the most extreme naivity, and allowing himself ..and along with him...the reputation (such as remains) of the whole of the BBC..to be dragged through the mud
As such Greg Dyke was/is unworthy to remain at the head of the BBC, and IMHO, his departure is good news for everyone concerned.
Laurie S
Up till now, the more evidence I get to see, the more I am convinced that it was Gilligan who was a loose cannon trying to make a name for himself, with folk like Greg Dyke guilty of the most extreme naivity, and allowing himself ..and along with him...the reputation (such as remains) of the whole of the BBC..to be dragged through the mud
As such Greg Dyke was/is unworthy to remain at the head of the BBC, and IMHO, his departure is good news for everyone concerned.
Laurie S
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by matthewr
"At the root of this "dispute" is the implied suggestion that somehow Tony Blair and/Alastair Campbell unfairly influenced the conclusions that Hutton reached"
Not at all -- Blair and Campbell were as astonished with Hutton's findings as everyone else.
Indeed there was even a suggestion that they were rather worried that the conclusions were so pro-government that people might not take the report seriously and that it might have been better if there had been a little more criticism of the government just to add credibility.
Matthew
Not at all -- Blair and Campbell were as astonished with Hutton's findings as everyone else.
Indeed there was even a suggestion that they were rather worried that the conclusions were so pro-government that people might not take the report seriously and that it might have been better if there had been a little more criticism of the government just to add credibility.
Matthew
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by Laurie Saunders
quote:
Not at all -- Blair and Campbell were as astonished with Hutton's findings as everyone else.
then what motive would Hutton have for the claimed "whitewash"?
quote:
Rather the problem with the report's unbalanced conclusions is that
Matthew.....this is a word game......it is "unbalanced" as you put it,only if you believe it to be so.Ok....please define "balance" for me......would you suggest a distortion of the truth to fit in with (your) preconceptions?
In the same way, almost everyone would suggest that their own position on any matter is "reasonable" according to their own criteria
Interestingly, I heard a well known antipodean (liberal?) journalist on the BBC (radio 4) commenting that "The Government had a proven track record of lying"....the host of the programme (john Humphrys I think), did not even challenge this ......
I repeat again...all I hear is the "bleating" of unfulfilled prejudice
Laurie S
Posted on: 21 September 2004 by matthewr
Laurie,
I think it's the lack of an explanation for the apparent oddity of Hutton's conclusions that causes people to suggest a whitewash. Rather in the same way that the lack of 737 wings at the 9/11 Pentagon crash site causes a certain type of person to conclude the crash was caused by a missle fired by the CIA/Mossad double agents.
"it is "unbalanced" as you put it,only if you believe it to be so"
For sure, Except that in this case there appears to be a strong consensus that beleives Hutton's conclusions strongly favoured the government. Indeed pretty much the only people who don't seem to beleive this are the Government, Hutton and yourself.
This is consistent with the overwhleming impression before the report was published that, based on the evidence we had seen, there was going to be significant criticism of the governemnt.
Overall I don't think it a remotely controversial view to say that Hutton's conclusions were, at teh very least, surprising.
Matthew
I think it's the lack of an explanation for the apparent oddity of Hutton's conclusions that causes people to suggest a whitewash. Rather in the same way that the lack of 737 wings at the 9/11 Pentagon crash site causes a certain type of person to conclude the crash was caused by a missle fired by the CIA/Mossad double agents.
"it is "unbalanced" as you put it,only if you believe it to be so"
For sure, Except that in this case there appears to be a strong consensus that beleives Hutton's conclusions strongly favoured the government. Indeed pretty much the only people who don't seem to beleive this are the Government, Hutton and yourself.
This is consistent with the overwhleming impression before the report was published that, based on the evidence we had seen, there was going to be significant criticism of the governemnt.
Overall I don't think it a remotely controversial view to say that Hutton's conclusions were, at teh very least, surprising.
Matthew