BBC Director General Greg Dyke's decision today to step down follows Chairman Gavyn Davies' resignation on Wednesday, shortly after Lord Hutton's report on “the Kelly Affair” was published.

The pair quit after the most serious claims in Andrew Gilligan's BBC's reports were branded "unfounded". Lord Hutton criticized "defective" BBC editorial controls over defense correspondent Andrew Gilligan's broadcasts on the Today program

His report cleared the government of "sexing up" its Iraq weapons dossier with unreliable intelligence.

For a BBC booster such as I, this is a bit of a bad scene. How are the other Pixies who rely on the Beeb dealing with this? Big deal? No big deal?

__________________
Eudaimonia

jseal---It sort of goes with them telling their journalists,not to
refer to Saddam as the former dictator of Iraq,but as the former
President of Iraq.As you said,previously,the emphasis should be
on "former"!It just contributes to the" gigantic" bias of the media!
It's really,no big deal,because you hear what you want to hear!
It's probably a good thing that it came out. Irish

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

It's big news here, too, jseal.

Key questions still remain about Blair's controversial decision to go to war, given the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

Irish, it does not "sort of" go with them telling their journalists to refer to Saddam by a different noun than FOX news might.

It's not bias, Irish. It was bad reporting.

Bias is FOX news reporting that Bush can do no wrong. This case is about an unfounded report.

It's like when the NY Times was hit badly last year by Jayson Blair's lies in reporting. It seems to be a trend lately. Reporters, as politicians, sometimes embellish.

The Times withstood the blow to its reputation, BBC will, too (especially since it looks like the entire board will resign).

Steph,

Woah! The entire board? I hadn't heard that one.

I was under the impression that the scope of the Hutton report was restricted to the issues raised by Mr. Gilligan's reporting, and the rather intransigent stand the Beeb took under Messrs Dyke and Davies in standing behind what has been judged "unfounded".

__________________
Eudaimonia

jseal---Sorry!I,evidentally mistakenly,thought that YOU were asking,others opinions.I didn't realise,that people with differing
opinions,would be critiqueing mine.I guess, I'm not allowed a
differing opinion.It won't happen again!I thought the question was about the Beeb.I didn't even know that Fox had anything to do with it.Please,consider me corrected! Irish

__________________
Irish---Better to be dead & cool,then alive & uncool!
(Harley Davidson & the Marlboro Man)

Yes, jseal. Here's a link to a Canadian story:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv.../International/

Irish, I'm laughing here. Read your sig and relax. jseal was asking about a resignation because of misreporting. Calling Saddam a dictator has NOTHING to do with this thread.

I've studied journalism and some newspapers (again NOT BECAUSE OF BIAS) use Mr. or Ms. or Mrs. before a name. The argument always comes up - do you end up referring to Hitler as Mr. Hitler.

What Mr.Blair and Mr.Bush and their whole cabintes need after they leave office,(if and when) is a nice long trip down to the ICC for a well deserved war crimes trial. "His report cleared the government of "sexing up" it's iraq weapons dossier with unreliable intelligence." The same thing is going on here with David Kay's admittion that there were no WMD in Iraq but blames our inellegience and not Bush for using the information to go to war.In my opinion,we are witnessing a cover up planned by both governments to pass the buck.

__________________
Sex is one of nine reasons for reincarnation.The other eight are unimportant...Henry Miller

Lakritze,

The allegation that Lord Hutton is involved in a cover up is one which should not be made lightly. While what you have asserted may be true, it would be nice if you provided some details to support your conclusion.

It was the publication of unsubstantiated and unfounded allegations that placed the BBC in this difficult situation, was it not?

__________________
Eudaimonia

Oh jseal, if only it were that simple.
To the vast majority of people in this country 'Hutton' LOOKS like a whitewash. Is he realy saying that Blair, the M.O.D., the cabinet , the J.I.C. and everyone else played no part in this farce.

The B.B.C. made mistakes that is for sure but, there seems to be little dout that some changes were made to the report. Little things like changing the word 'maybe' to 'are' ;and what is worse by a spin doctor.

seaker,

True enough - few things in life are as simple as they seem, but what I think I am hearing is that there CAN BE NO exoneration of the government.

It seems reasonable to me for the BBC, or any other news reporting organization to question the government. Lord Aston said many years ago that power tends to corrupt, and insofar as the BBC, the NY Times, or The Straits Times keep their respective governments on the up and up, all the better for us.

But with power comes responsibility, and that responsibility would also properly be applied to the BBC, NY Times, or anyone who would make “a grave allegation and attacked the integrity of the government” . It seems that over the last few years that the editorial process in several of these institutions has become lackadaisical. Look here in America at the rash of invented reporting which has come to light.

I am sure that neither of us wishes to be misled by the BBC any more than by our respective governments.

This is not to say that the newspapers should avoid investigating the powerful. Not at all – just look at what the Economist did with the French ex-Minister of Finance (I think that was his position). An excellent job! He sued the newspaper for defamation after they ran the story, they stuck to their guns, and WHAM He becomes part of a mega-million dollar settlement!

If a newspaper can be right, it can be wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3437315.stm

To their credit, Messrs Dyke and Davies promptly stood down when the judgment went against their organization. I hope the BBC, which I unabashedly tout to all who will listen, will take this as an opportunity to regroup and improve.

__________________
Eudaimonia

<---- *sits back,.... lights cigarette, smiles and watches* -------^

__________________

PantyFanatic,

Don't forget to turn your dial to Hong Kong.

__________________
Eudaimonia

* BBC apologises as Dyke quits *
Director general Greg Dyke quits as the BBC apologises "unreservedly" for any errors in the David Kelly affair.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/...ics/3441181.stm

* Governors: BBC must move forward *
The BBC governors say it is time for the corporation to move forward following Greg Dyke's resignation.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/...ics/3442023.stm

* Tough time for BBC as Dyke resigns *
BBC political editor Andrew Marr on the Greg Dyke resignation following the Hutton report.
Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/-/1/hi/...ics/3441945.stm

The thing is that the NY Times and the BBC have looked within as did the Washington Post when it was discovered that a reporter who won a Pulitzer had fabricated a source.

I've seen more than one person throw the phrase "media bias" around and it does raise my ire.

The media are not looked on highly but walk a mile . . . also, you have to look at the general population. People buy magazines with J Lo in them.

People will throw around media bias with this case but it is highly serious. Why? I'm not even sure. It's the first time I can ever remember the BBC admitting fault. It's the first time the BBC has been in hot water, is it not?

Not a bad record at all.