The Hutton Report

Judging from comments on here, I don't get the impression that the Blair Govt has emerged from Hutton with any more real credibility than they started the week with. Trying to get even a gullible public to accept they were absolutely blameless in all respects is a tough call.

If they'd accepted just a smidgeon of responsibility, it would have been far more believable, but now it just looks like an obvious whitewash job.

I suspect that Auntie won't be well pleased either. People at the BEEB have long memories and this will ensure they keep Blair in their sights until the smoking gun is finally found. He's made bad enemies there!

David

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter C:
Why assume the report is correct.

---

In a democracy, we have to abide by the final result of an election and accept it. When a court finds a person guilty or not guilty of a crime, we have to accept the verdict. When a report such as Hutton is published, we have to accept its findings. This is how society in the civilised world works. "Correct" is not in the script, only the "verdict".

quote:

---

In a democracy, we have to abide by the final result of an election and accept it.

---

No we don't. The majority won't necessarily defend the rights of the minority, therefore the minority have a right to protest.

quote:

---

When a court finds a person guilty or not guilty of a crime, we have to accept the verdict.

---

No we don't. In the past verdicts both way have been proved to be wrong.

quote:

---

When a report such as Hutton is published, we have to accept its findings.

---

No we don't. I don't know Hutton, I haven't seen all the evidence and I don't know what his agenda was. The whole think smacks to me of the government choosing it's fight, and what the rules of that fight would be.

quote:

---

This is how society in the civilised world works. "Correct" is not in the script, only the "verdict".

---

What's your definition of "accept"?

Regards
Steve

I think we have to accept Hutton's report; he's a Law Lord with no political axe to grind and above corruption IHO.

But I'm amazed that he says that the JIT 'may' have been 'subconsciously' influenced by Blair's desire to make the strongest possible case for war, without critising Blair for putting such pressure on the writers of an supposedly 'independent' report that this was a possiblity.

Similarly, I'm amazed that Hutton accepts that there was no 'underhand' strategy to name Kelly, (although everyone accepted that Kelly's name would come out) but he doesn't criticise anyone for not just releasing Kelly's name to the press in a 'up-front' sort of way.

Also, I don't think Hutton says that Gilligan's report was incorrect, just that he didn't have the eveidence to back it up, and therefore had no right to broadcast it.

Regardless of Hutton's conclusions, there is a large amount of documentaion in the public arena that will enable other people to make their own conclusions and I think that the evidence will be referred to many times to embarass the white washed politicians - we are still in the early days of this affair. If the report had been more "shades of grey" then there would have been a greater acceptance.

The actual report reflects the task that Tony gave LH - ie "sort this out and put us in the clear"

Derek

<< >>

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
I think we have to accept Hutton's report; he's a Law Lord with no political axe to grind and above corruption IHO.

---

I think we can accept he's not corrupt, however there is no reason I can see for anyone to agree with his "government good/BBC bad" black & white conclusion, or that his inquiry was more than window dressing of one minor area of a much, much larger issue.

Regards
Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patrick Dixon:
Also, I don't think Hutton says that Gilligan's report was incorrect, just that he didn't have the eveidence to back it up, and therefore had no right to broadcast it.

---

Perhaps in the same way he should have said that the government weren't necessarily incorrect in their assertion that Iraq had WMD's, just that they did have the evidence to back it up, and therefore had no right to go to war?

Regards
Steve

quote:

---

Perhaps in the same way he should have said that the government weren't necessarily incorrect in their assertion that Iraq had WMD's, just that they did (sic) have the evidence to back it up, and therefore had no right to go to war?

---

Agreed: but that was outside his remit

I've just this minute spoken to a journalist friend of mine (European) who is absolutely dumbfounded at events. What the hell are you British playing at ? If we can't rely on you guys to get it right, who the hell can we rely on ? Sincerely, Seriously, and emotionally said too; I think that about says it all.

Fritz Von Lostforwordsforonceramificationsthereof ³

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:

quote:

---

In a democracy, we have to abide by the final result of an election and accept it.

---

No we don't. The majority won't necessarily defend the rights of the minority, therefore the minority have a right to protest.

---

So you don't believe in the democratic process because your view over-rides all others?
Just think about what you are saying Steve.
Protest, yes. Disagree, by all means, but respect the process and the verdict. Got a better way?

Rasher ~

What has the Hutton report got to do with democracy?????

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
So you don't believe in the democratic process because your view over-rides all others?

---

I believe that the minority have a right to protection and peacable protest no matter who is elected. In this country governments are usually voted in by a minority of the electorate anyway.

quote:

---

Just think about what you are saying Steve.
Protest, yes. Disagree, by all means, but respect the process and the verdict.

---

How naive. The process is often tailered to give the verdict, as appears to be the case this time.

quote:

---

Got a better way?

---

Yes - elect me dictator of the world.

Regards
Steve

quote:

---

Originally posted by Keith J:
Rasher ~

What has the Hutton report got to do with democracy?????

---

The same relationship as the war had with WMD's?

quote:

---

Yes - elect me dictator of the world.

---

Well, you will have to do Celebrity Death Match with Teflon Tone then

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steve G:
How naive. The process is often tailered to give the verdict, as appears to be the case this time.

---

I'm not suggesting that it is ideal, but that is the system that we have, flawed though it may be. We have to have a basis for our democratic society, and this is what we have right now. Change the system, by all means.
USA shouldn't really have Bush in the White House, but they have and they will get on with it until next time, and make sure it won't happen again. Same thing maybe perhaps

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:

quote:

---

Yes - elect me dictator of the world.

---

Well, you will have to do Celebrity Death Match with Teflon Tone then

---

I could take him no worries - not that he ever does his own dirty work of course...

What sort of financial compensation do the forced retirees of the BBC get - or are they down at the dole office tomorrow to sign on and so get their National Insurance Card stamped.

Does Greg D have another job to turn to?

Derek

<< >>

Anyone care to speculate on what's going to happen when the BBC has to have its charter renewed?

An infamously spin-prone government hand-picked an investigator who (surprise!) found the government largely free of wrong-doing but the BBC guilty of being over-zealous in their investigative reporting of that spin-prone government. Surely the real danger here is the potential for further serious erosion of press freedom.

Derek, I think you'll find Greg Dyke & Gavin Davis are pretty well financially secure and don't need to worry too much about another job .... ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejl:
...found the government largely free of wrong-doing but the BBC guilty of being over-zealous in their investigative reporting of that spin-prone government. Surely the real danger here is the potential for further serious erosion of press freedom.

---

Firstly, the presentation of opinion as fact hardly qualifies as investigative reporting.

Secondly, if press freedom means the freedom to say absolutely anything without fear of legal challenge then perhaps there should be less press freedom. On the other hand, if press freedom means the freedom to investigate the truth, report opinion as opinion and fact as fact then I fail to see how Hutton has any bearing on the issue whatsoever.

quote:

---

Secondly, if press freedom means the freedom to say absolutely anything without fear of legal challenge then perhaps there should be less press freedom.

---

Jeremy,

I certainly wouldn't advocate having no legal recourse (for slander, libel, etc). But look at the legal challenge in this case; the party who claims to be harmed (Blair) gets to pick the judge. That is worrisome.

As far as the "presenting opinion as fact" thing goes, let me just say that it's an unreasonable and overly-restrictive standard to insist that journalists be prohibited from publishing anything false (under threat of lawsuit, etc.). The reasonable standard is warranted assertability, not truth, and the distinction is important. If journalists were only "allowed" to publish truths under threat of punishment, the amount that journalists could actually say about any government anywhere would be very small, and largely limited to what government spokespeople said. Knowingly publishing something false, or unwarranted is, of course, a different story -- whether or not the BBC did that isn't exactly clear to me.

It's worth noting that scientific journals don't take truth to be a requirement for publication, but only warranted assertability, which is fallible. This is in a context where standards are intentionally among the highest.

Repressing journalists for saying false things is a favorite tactic of repressive regimes (witness Charles Taylor last year in Liberia). It's a mistake to think it's justified. Investigative journalists have, sometimes, to work in an atmosphere where information is suppressed and distorted; they can't wait around to be sure that they never say anything false, although of course they should do their best to minimize doing so.

Although it might seem odd to say that truth (as opposed to warranted assertion) is too high a standard for journalists, consider that libel and slander laws generally recognize this distinction(although I admit I don't know British law here). In many countries, at least, you can't automatically sue for libel just because they publish something false about you, as long as they can show that they had some reasonable reasons for saying it. I think there are good reasons for this kind of restriction.

Eric

I agree with you Eric, but we are talking of the BBC here, a publicly funded body that has to be squeeky clean in order to justify its revenue through tax. It's not the same as a newspaper where you either believe it or you don't, you buy it or you don't. Here, the BBC is financed by what is essentially a tax, and therefore is accountable like no other press. The solution of course is to change the way the BBC is funded, and then it can say whatever it likes and be as biased as any other press. This is a unique problem, and given the way the world has changed since the formation of the beeb, I think it's the end of the current method of funding, which I am sure is already on the wrong side of the law, technically.

eric, can you please give a few examples of "warranted assertability" in the context of journalist reporting in general and the current issue in particular.

enjoy

ken

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rasher:
...Here, the BBC is financed by what is essentially a tax, and therefore is accountable like no other press.

---

...and it is precisely because of this that I am happy to pay my license fee in the hope that the BBC will continue to ask awkward questions of the government of the day. Funding "directly" from the pockets of the audience has many advantages, as it theoretically allows the BBC's income to exist outside the gift of government. Of course, in practice, this is far from the case, but it is better than many alternatives. It is rumoured that Fox News was the first to announce the outcome of Bush's coup, effectively sealing it beyond doubt in the minds of that seemingly impotent electorate. That there is even a whiff of suspicion around that is IMHO the finest justification for retaining the current imperfect funding method for the BBC.

More generally, we expect them to ask probing questions on our behalf, as that is at least a part of what we pay them for. It is surely right that the everyday actions of government should be routinely subjected to minute scrutiny, even if the spotlight used to penetrate those machinations is of the narrowest beam the government can get away with. I for one would feel distinctly short-changed if Hutton's conclusions affected in any way the BBC's zeal in persuing answers. ISTM all governments become sleazy if allowed to, and the more questions that are asked, the lower the risks involved in electing them.

Best;

Mark

Ken,

Here's an example of warranted assertability contrasted with truth, from the second sentence of an article in today's Guardian:

quote:

---

The law lord, who acted as umpire in the fatal row between the BBC and the government over the Iraq WMD dossier, will give evidence to the House of Commons public administration select committee.

---

The statement that Hutton will give evidence is (presumably) warranted, but neither we nor the Guardian know that it is true, because it hasn't happened yet, and it might not.

This is a trivial example, but most of what's published in papers is like this; it's fallible (might be false), but justified in some way or another, and to some degree or another.

The demand to publish only the truth elminates the possibility of publishing justified but possibly false claims, and it is, as this example shows, an absurd demand.

Eric