:-(
A former member
That [the petition] is so silly.
If Greg Dyke really cares about the BBC he won't engage in a guerilla attack on Number 10 from without [the BBC]. Doing that would be as bad for existing BBC management as it would for Number 10.
And don't worry...someone else can run the BBC. Ironically, the man who claimed he wanted everyone to "cut the crap" seems to have done a really good job of creating some himself.
If Greg Dyke really cares about the BBC he won't engage in a guerilla attack on Number 10 from without [the BBC]. Doing that would be as bad for existing BBC management as it would for Number 10.
And don't worry...someone else can run the BBC. Ironically, the man who claimed he wanted everyone to "cut the crap" seems to have done a really good job of creating some himself.
MA
mark
Founding member
While I'd absolutely love to see Greg Dyke reinstated, I have to say I welcome the fact that he's now in a position to be the vociferous critic of the Hutton report that the BBC just simply can't afford to be at the moment.
As long as he doesn't do anything that will harm the BBC - and I honestly can't see that he would - I hope he keeps asking the questions that need to be asked right now.
As long as he doesn't do anything that will harm the BBC - and I honestly can't see that he would - I hope he keeps asking the questions that need to be asked right now.
:-(
A former member
If you really want to put the pressure on Number 10 start asking questions about where the WMD are, ask to see the full extent of government intelligence before the war, ask for a public inquiry into the intelligence, and ask Blair when the troops are coming home.
Keep the focus on BLAIR...but Dyke, Davies and Gilligan have too much BBC baggage to be effective critics, and it would be easy for Number 10 to dismiss them as having an axe to grind. They should take up some other task.
If the BBC really wanted to puruse this:
1. Panorama would have an investigative special which suggested a public inquiry were necessary.
2. Newsnight would start a daily count (e.g., 302 days since Iraq was invaded, and to-date zero WMD found) and update it everyday to keep emphasis on the issue.
3. Question Time would run around the country asking people what they thought about the issue, to keep it current.
4. The Politics Show could serve as a venue for opposition and Labour politicians opposed to the war, or who are willing to raise questions about the quality of decision making.
But, for the love of God, the Hutton inquiry martyrs (Davies, Dyke and Gilligan) will be counterproductive if they kibbutz from the grandstand.
Keep the focus on BLAIR...but Dyke, Davies and Gilligan have too much BBC baggage to be effective critics, and it would be easy for Number 10 to dismiss them as having an axe to grind. They should take up some other task.
If the BBC really wanted to puruse this:
1. Panorama would have an investigative special which suggested a public inquiry were necessary.
2. Newsnight would start a daily count (e.g., 302 days since Iraq was invaded, and to-date zero WMD found) and update it everyday to keep emphasis on the issue.
3. Question Time would run around the country asking people what they thought about the issue, to keep it current.
4. The Politics Show could serve as a venue for opposition and Labour politicians opposed to the war, or who are willing to raise questions about the quality of decision making.
But, for the love of God, the Hutton inquiry martyrs (Davies, Dyke and Gilligan) will be counterproductive if they kibbutz from the grandstand.
SE
These on-line petitions are just pointless, they don't change anything, EVER.
Square Eyes
Founding member
Katherine posted:
Just signed the petition............
These on-line petitions are just pointless, they don't change anything, EVER.
BB
These on-line petitions are just pointless, they don't change anything, EVER.
Well I have set one up and the results will be given to the DCMS.
I would like to take this opportunity to urge you to sign my petition to keep the BBC the way it is on the eve of the closure of the public consultation process on the future of the BBC by the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport).
See my case for urging the DCMS not to make widespread changes to the BBC when its Royal Charter is renewed in 2006 and sign the petition and also leave any comments you wish here:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/handsoffbbc/
The results will be handed to the DCMS before the deadline of March 31, 2004.
Thank you for your time. Please urge your friends and fellow BBC supporters to also sign the petition.
Square Eyes posted:
Katherine posted:
Just signed the petition............
These on-line petitions are just pointless, they don't change anything, EVER.
Well I have set one up and the results will be given to the DCMS.
I would like to take this opportunity to urge you to sign my petition to keep the BBC the way it is on the eve of the closure of the public consultation process on the future of the BBC by the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport).
See my case for urging the DCMS not to make widespread changes to the BBC when its Royal Charter is renewed in 2006 and sign the petition and also leave any comments you wish here:
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/handsoffbbc/
The results will be handed to the DCMS before the deadline of March 31, 2004.
Thank you for your time. Please urge your friends and fellow BBC supporters to also sign the petition.
MA
Rubbish. The BBC has now backed off, thanks to the timidity of its Governors.
Greg has a very important point about how this changes Media law if it is allowed to stand unchallenged. Someone has to make the case if the BBC won't
It would mean no government whistle-blowers, however reliable and however senior, could ever be reported without absolute proof of their case. It would mean the end of all investigative journalism into government, in this country.
If you want a parallel with America, It would mean Watergate could never have been reported.
Marcus
Founding member
Phileas Fogg posted:
If you really want to put the pressure on Number 10 start asking questions about where the WMD are, ask to see the full extent of government intelligence before the war, ask for a public inquiry into the intelligence, and ask Blair when the troops are coming home.
Keep the focus on BLAIR...but Dyke, Davies and Gilligan have too much BBC baggage to be effective critics, and it would be easy for Number 10 to dismiss them as having an axe to grind. They should take up some other task.
If the BBC really wanted to puruse this:
1. Panorama would have an investigative special which suggested a public inquiry were necessary.
2. Newsnight would start a daily count (e.g., 302 days since Iraq was invaded, and to-date zero WMD found) and update it everyday to keep emphasis on the issue.
3. Question Time would run around the country asking people what they thought about the issue, to keep it current.
4. The Politics Show could serve as a venue for opposition and Labour politicians opposed to the war, or who are willing to raise questions about the quality of decision making.
But, for the love of God, the Hutton inquiry martyrs (Davies, Dyke and Gilligan) will be counterproductive if they kibbutz from the grandstand.
Keep the focus on BLAIR...but Dyke, Davies and Gilligan have too much BBC baggage to be effective critics, and it would be easy for Number 10 to dismiss them as having an axe to grind. They should take up some other task.
If the BBC really wanted to puruse this:
1. Panorama would have an investigative special which suggested a public inquiry were necessary.
2. Newsnight would start a daily count (e.g., 302 days since Iraq was invaded, and to-date zero WMD found) and update it everyday to keep emphasis on the issue.
3. Question Time would run around the country asking people what they thought about the issue, to keep it current.
4. The Politics Show could serve as a venue for opposition and Labour politicians opposed to the war, or who are willing to raise questions about the quality of decision making.
But, for the love of God, the Hutton inquiry martyrs (Davies, Dyke and Gilligan) will be counterproductive if they kibbutz from the grandstand.
Rubbish. The BBC has now backed off, thanks to the timidity of its Governors.
Greg has a very important point about how this changes Media law if it is allowed to stand unchallenged. Someone has to make the case if the BBC won't
It would mean no government whistle-blowers, however reliable and however senior, could ever be reported without absolute proof of their case. It would mean the end of all investigative journalism into government, in this country.
If you want a parallel with America, It would mean Watergate could never have been reported.
:-(
A former member
Watergate was not reported because of First Amendment rights.
Watergate, initially, was "a suspicion" not a direct allegation. In fact, the first Watergate story by Woodward and Bernstein was about the arrest of the burglars (Woodward and Bernstein were actually assigned to the D.C. courthouse, not to the White House. When one of the burglars claimed he worked for the C.I.A., the reporters thought they had something interesting on their hands.)
An allegation of wrong-doing at the White House did not come until later, after the reporters had done their own investigating...and consulted much more than one "whistleblower."
Finally, "Deep Throat," the secret Watergate informant, kept his identity under wraps and neither Woodward nor Bernstein has ever seen fit to disclose it (nor has anyone in the U.S. government). Gilligan kept Dr Kelley's name in his notes. You will not find the name of the Watergate informant anywhere in an archive accessible by the public.
Oh yes, one more thing, the publisher of the Washington Post was willing to take the (very real) risk of infuriating the White House and taking political heat from it. And, the editor of the Post, Ben Bradlee, actually took pleasure in doing things like that. (Lyndon Johnson's animosity for Bradlee is legendary.) Relationships like that are a lot different than those between a government and its public broadcaster.
The main point: BBCgate is nothing like Watergate. To say so is to truly make martyrs of Davies, Dyke and Gilligan and to demonise Number 10 and the MoD.
Watergate, initially, was "a suspicion" not a direct allegation. In fact, the first Watergate story by Woodward and Bernstein was about the arrest of the burglars (Woodward and Bernstein were actually assigned to the D.C. courthouse, not to the White House. When one of the burglars claimed he worked for the C.I.A., the reporters thought they had something interesting on their hands.)
An allegation of wrong-doing at the White House did not come until later, after the reporters had done their own investigating...and consulted much more than one "whistleblower."
Finally, "Deep Throat," the secret Watergate informant, kept his identity under wraps and neither Woodward nor Bernstein has ever seen fit to disclose it (nor has anyone in the U.S. government). Gilligan kept Dr Kelley's name in his notes. You will not find the name of the Watergate informant anywhere in an archive accessible by the public.
Oh yes, one more thing, the publisher of the Washington Post was willing to take the (very real) risk of infuriating the White House and taking political heat from it. And, the editor of the Post, Ben Bradlee, actually took pleasure in doing things like that. (Lyndon Johnson's animosity for Bradlee is legendary.) Relationships like that are a lot different than those between a government and its public broadcaster.
The main point: BBCgate is nothing like Watergate. To say so is to truly make martyrs of Davies, Dyke and Gilligan and to demonise Number 10 and the MoD.
MA
Yes but under the Hutton ruling, the New York Times could never have printed anything that they could not prove.It would all have remained secret. That was the point Greg was amking. You have to report well sourced stories as often stories like this bring about the truth.
And DR Kelly was quite right, the dossier was sexed up.
And can I correct one thing, The BBC is not the Governments public broadcaster. It is independent under a Royal Charter. The Government has absolutely no role in running it, Unlike VOA in America.
Marcus
Founding member
Phileas Fogg posted:
Watergate was not reported because of First Amendment rights.
Watergate, initially, was "a suspicion" not a direct allegation. In fact, the first Watergate story by Woodward and Bernstein was about the arrest of the burglars (Woodward and Bernstein were actually assigned to the D.C. courthouse, not to the White House. When one of the burglars claimed he worked for the C.I.A., the reporters thought they had something interesting on their hands.)
An allegation of wrong-doing at the White House did not come until later, after the reporters had done their own investigating...and consulted much more than one "whistleblower."
Finally, "Deep Throat," the secret Watergate informant, kept his identity under wraps and neither Woodward nor Bernstein has ever seen fit to disclose it (nor has anyone in the U.S. government). Gilligan kept Dr Kelley's name in his notes. You will not find the name of the Watergate informant anywhere in an archive accessible by the public.
Oh yes, one more thing, the publisher of the Washington Post was willing to take the (very real) risk of infuriating the White House and taking political heat from it. And, the editor of the Post, Ben Bradlee, actually took pleasure in doing things like that. (Lyndon Johnson's animosity for Bradlee is legendary.) Relationships like that are a lot different than those between a government and its public broadcaster.
The main point: BBCgate is nothing like Watergate. To say so is to truly make martyrs of Davies, Dyke and Gilligan and to demonise Number 10 and the MoD.
Watergate, initially, was "a suspicion" not a direct allegation. In fact, the first Watergate story by Woodward and Bernstein was about the arrest of the burglars (Woodward and Bernstein were actually assigned to the D.C. courthouse, not to the White House. When one of the burglars claimed he worked for the C.I.A., the reporters thought they had something interesting on their hands.)
An allegation of wrong-doing at the White House did not come until later, after the reporters had done their own investigating...and consulted much more than one "whistleblower."
Finally, "Deep Throat," the secret Watergate informant, kept his identity under wraps and neither Woodward nor Bernstein has ever seen fit to disclose it (nor has anyone in the U.S. government). Gilligan kept Dr Kelley's name in his notes. You will not find the name of the Watergate informant anywhere in an archive accessible by the public.
Oh yes, one more thing, the publisher of the Washington Post was willing to take the (very real) risk of infuriating the White House and taking political heat from it. And, the editor of the Post, Ben Bradlee, actually took pleasure in doing things like that. (Lyndon Johnson's animosity for Bradlee is legendary.) Relationships like that are a lot different than those between a government and its public broadcaster.
The main point: BBCgate is nothing like Watergate. To say so is to truly make martyrs of Davies, Dyke and Gilligan and to demonise Number 10 and the MoD.
Yes but under the Hutton ruling, the New York Times could never have printed anything that they could not prove.It would all have remained secret. That was the point Greg was amking. You have to report well sourced stories as often stories like this bring about the truth.
And DR Kelly was quite right, the dossier was sexed up.
And can I correct one thing, The BBC is not the Governments public broadcaster. It is independent under a Royal Charter. The Government has absolutely no role in running it, Unlike VOA in America.