22-07-2003 02:40									#61
	Full PM-box? Change here!

The government is guilty. It's ok when someone in which the government trusts leaks information to the media, but it's completely unfair when the government defends itself and makes the betrayal public. :P

	22-07-2003 03:05									#62
	Support Apolyton

This whole affair reflects poorly on the BBC. BBC is in a permascrum for government money, while trying to maintain your independence (unaccountability). In this situation, if you criticize the government, you have to go all out, so that you become "untouchable" from your enemies in the government. This necessity appears to have fit nicely with the political objectives of some in the BBC.

Indeed, the BBC did exactly what it accused the government of doing--it "sexed up" a story on the strength of a flimsy source. It then ran with the story with top coverage for many days longer than the story was worth. It appears to me that BBC was trying to bring down Blair's government. They have been "sexing up" their stories for at least a half year, and this is just the latest--and hopefully the last--in the series.

The scientist was put in a difficult position by the BBC having sexed up a sex up. He couldn't deliver by saying what he was written to have said. And the government was rightly pissed that he, only knowing a portion of the story, talked out of turn to the press. The government owed him nothing--he put himself in the situation.

Last edited by DanS on 22-07-2003 at 03:22

	22-07-2003 06:05									#63
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by DanS This whole affair reflects poorly on the BBC. BBC is in a permascrum for government money, while trying to maintain your independence (unaccountability). In this situation, if you criticize the government, you have to go all out, so that you become "untouchable" from your enemies in the government. This necessity appears to have fit nicely with the political objectives of some in the BBC. Indeed, the BBC did exactly what it accused the government of doing--it "sexed up" a story on the strength of a flimsy source. It then ran with the story with top coverage for many days longer than the story was worth. It appears to me that BBC was trying to bring down Blair's government. They have been "sexing up" their stories for at least a half year, and this is just the latest--and hopefully the last--in the series. The scientist was put in a difficult position by the BBC having sexed up a sex up. He couldn't deliver by saying what he was written to have said. And the government was rightly pissed that he, only knowing a portion of the story, talked out of turn to the press. The government owed him nothing--he put himself in the situation.

I agree completely, and the story I read in the NYT seems to confirm what you say above and what I believe about the BBC. I think that there was no other good source for the story, and that the journalist took liberties with Kelly's interview. It's a very simple matter for either a journalist or an anonymous source to "sex up" information used in a story attributable only to anonymous sources. At the very least the BBC is guilty of misrepresenting the type of source used in the story, making Kelly seem like a higher level official with more access to classified information than was actually the case.

	22-07-2003 06:52									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I mostly agree with DanS and Sikander.

Only one thing bothers me- having watched Kelly give evidence infornt of the foreign ministry investigative committe, I'm convinced the man was under tremendous pressure and did everything he could to avoid answering questions directly and making definite statements about his meetings, sayings or opinions.

To me it seems like he was doing an incredibly thorough job, avoiding being accused of lgiving false evidence, by making very limited and cloudy comments and statements.


According to what he has told the committe, he did not hold the opinions presented in the BBC report, and had not the knowledge or access to information, to make statements supporting the position presented by the BBC.


Furthermore, unless he has lied terribly or thoguht he would lose his credence, he had no real reason to commit suicide.

Even during the questioning the committe members almost outright told him that they suspect he was not the source, and his name was exposed by someone interested for him to take the heat, instead of the real source.


The single possible explanation that comes to mind, assuming he was truthful in his questioning before the foreign committe, is that he was later summoned for questioning by the MoD and was about to lose his job and credibility, given he had to admit his often, unformal meetings to press, when he told them quite alot of condidencial information.

But, I would suspect, that having met the press many times unformally, he would have been minimally mentally prepared to take the penalty for this action, from the MoD.


So I think it's one of several possibilities.

1. Kelly was the source and his report was 'sexed up' by the BBC.
in that case:
a) kelly could have killed himself due to the fear of penalty by the MoD for leaking information to the press
b) kelly could have killed himself due to the fear of losing his credence, after having been misquoted by the BBC and put udner public pressue.

2. Kelly was the source and his report was given as it was reported.
a) kelly could have killed himself fearing the penalties for the leak
b) kelly could have killed himself fearing his credence, after making statements he later testified he couldn't have known, about the integrity of the 45 minute readyness.
c) kelly was the source and was truthfull and was killed to keep secrets burried.

3. Kelly was not the source
a) he killed himself fearing he would be thought the source and persecuted for it
b) he killed himself fearing he would lose his credence following his tendencies to talk to reporters.
c) he was killed by the real source, who wished the mystery to remain unsolved.

The BBC admission he was the real source rules out option 3c but I don't rule it out completely (though it is quite... unlikely) since the BBC could be protecting their source.



In any case, the BBC statement means that sombody was definitly lying. Either during the questioning, Kelly has tried to downpaly what he really said to the BBC, .... or.... the BBC have really overblown his story, and stubbornly tried to protect their (unjustified) dignity.