Sunday, February 22, 2004
Being a hardcore sceptical, when I first heard the news about the Hutton report I thought… they got me. I’ve followed all this case through BBC and probably my opinion was conditioned by that obscure organization.
Still through BBC, the news was that the criticisms were all directed to the broadcaster and none to the government. Still sceptical, I thought this black and white reporting was due to the succinct breaking news format, and a careful reporting on a self-sensitive matter.
Afterwards, it became clear that the result was indeed contrasting. I thought that the judge had focused exclusively on the events surrounding the death of Dr Kelly. I thought the opposition had been to optimistic to expect that the judge would look at fact in a comprehensive way.
Finally through the papers, I’ve realized that the Hutton report didn’t only clear the government of the responsibility of making the scientist name public, but also went on to say that the government did not sex-up the security report. Meaning it didn’t stay with the Kelly’s death matter. It went on to accuse BBC of, and advising not to, systematically attack the politicians.
I remembered then the infamous use, in a security report, of an Internet 10-year-old academic paper on Iraq. I also remembered the intense correspondence between the government and the intelligence services. I decided then, as most Britons, that the BBC is miles away from the government in terms of credibility and that the report was too partial.
Everybody praised Hutton as a impartial referee. He has proved the admiration wrong.
