The Hutton Report

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

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

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?

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.

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

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
I think in the fullness of time Hutton will prove to be Campbell's finest achievement -- the government was facing huge and difficult questions from a disgruntled public and parliament about being seemingly duped into going to war and somehow it all got reduced to an argument about some dodgy reporting by the BBC.

---

Seconded. On the button.

And the 'fullness of time' seems to be about now for most people I know.

However.....

1. Michael Howard's accusation was that Blair mislead the public when he said to journalists on a flight in July that he had not authorised the strategy to deal with the release of Dr Kelly's name. Sir Kevin Tebbit's evidence to Hutton seemed to be pretty clear that Blair had chaired the meeting that approved the Govt's strategy. But this was not an issue addressed by Hutton. So Blair has still not answered Howard's point and Howard has nothing to apologise for...yet.

2. It would be interesting to see the additional evidence submitted to Hutton by the Govt in 'rebuttal' of the earlier submissions by other witnesses. This has not been made public.

3. I am surprised that even though it is reported that Alistair Campbell's diary stated that the priority was to get Dr Kelly's name into the open and to f*** Mr Gilligan, the Report still clears the Govt.

Eric,

quote:

---

Originally posted by ejl:
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.

---

To the best of my knowledge it was not a trial and Hutton was not empowered to apply any kind of sanction against the government or the BBC. How does this restrict press freedom?

As for the selection of Hutton, I assume that if a legitimate alternative mechanism existed the BBC would have made a big deal about why it was not used. Maybe I missed it (as I go through phases of avoiding all news coverage for several days at a time) but assuming I didn't it seems to be a constitutional matter, with no new implications for press freedom.

quote:

---

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.).

---

Nobody suggested it.

quote:

---

The reasonable standard is warranted assertability, not truth, and the distinction is important.

---

This really isn't the issue. I don't believe for a moment that the journalists responsible for most of the crap broadcast daily by the BBC have any more difficulty than I do in distinguishing between statements of fact [i.e. what you would call examples of warranted assertability] and the kind of statements of opinion that they routinely present as fact. I would be interested to know what their defence is for what they do. My guess is that they would claim the average citizen is intelligent enough to know the difference, which clearly is not the case.

It is very difficult for us to do anything about the privately owned media but at least with the publicly owned BBC I think the public has every right to demand the highest standards of journalism from the BBC, and the BBC has no right to hide behind spurious arguments about freedom of speech. Otherwise why have a publicly funded broadcaster at all?

quote:

---

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.

---

It is absurd to imply that a journalist of any integrity could be repressed by Hutton. I'm sure a lot of journalists now feel unhappy and defensive - and so they should, as far as I am concerned. The fact is that senior BBC staff made a serious mistake in defending an indefensible broadcast. Nothing could have made the BBC apologise had this not been the case. And nothing could have made the BBC heads who resigned do so [bar ousting by their BBC colleagues] unless they thought it was the right thing to do.

Finally, I hope this whole affair will result in the BBC cleaning up its act and providing us with the objective news service that we pay for. They have shown they know how to do it in the award winning [I think] children's news programme Newsround, which for many years was a paragon of objective, if simplified, reporting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeremyD:
The fact is that senior BBC staff made a serious mistake in defending an indefensible broadcast.

---

The fact is that senior government ministers made a serious mistake in launching an indefensible war.

That's the issue - all this Hutton stuff is an attempt to divert attention from that point.