Live on TV: The Beeb

If he could have, Alistair Campbell would have wept tears of joy as he gloated over Lord Hutton8217;s strictures against BBC on the Kelly affair. Instead, he resembled a goat. A miserly goat who cannot be generous even when he feels like a million bucks. Blair8217;s remarks, Wednesday, in a live Parliamentary telecast, were equally uncharitable, However, after BBC apologised, he agreed to 8216;8216;draw the line8217;8217; under the entire affair. Which is why he8217;s Prime Minister and Campbell an advisor, former at that.

Watching BBC since Andrew Gilligan8217;s May, 2003 story in which he claimed Kelly believed the Government had exaggerated Iraq8217;s WMD threat, has been exhilarating and sobering. You felt admiration for BBC8217;s Director General Dyke and the Board of Directors led by Davies who withstood almost arrogantly Campbell8217;s onslaught and refused to name Gilligan8217;s source, irritated by Campbell8217;s sulky schoolboy appearance on a private TV channel to whinge about BBC. There followed the government8217;s public naming of Kelly as the source and his appearance before a Parliamentary Committee. It8217;s a horrid way to describe him but he looked like death in TV excerpts and few should have been shocked by his subsequent suicide.

A man took his life because he told the truth as he saw it although, technically, he should have remained silent. BBC8217;s Gilligan 8216;sexed up8217; what Kelly said to him, the government disgraced him. That8217;s the human dimension to this case which has got lost in Hutton8217;s indictment of BBC.

That BBC knew what lay ahead was clear from its special edition of Panorama, three days before the release of Hutton8217;s report. At the end of 90 fascinating minutes, you did not know whether to praise BBC or bury it. My notes, written while watching it, read thus: 8216;8216;Gilligan is the fall guy for BBC8217;s own lack of checks and balances8230; Hutton will indict BBC so it is preempting8230; making public amends in advance to restore public confidence in it8230; not letting Blair Govt. off the hook 8230; an indictment of two institutions ?8217;8217;.

The show revealed BBC8217;s omissions and then, having disarmed us with such rare candour, launched a subtle counter-attack by pointing out leads Hutton refused to follow. This strategy continued after the Hutton Report was released: journalists from newspapers like The Times, professors of journalism, Ministers, etc., criticised BBC on BBC and then the anchor Nik Gowing would slip in the joker: 8216;8216;Would you say the government got off lightly?8217;8217;

BBC took the issue and itself very seriously: Hutton, and the subsequent resignations of Davies and Dyke, were headline news on the World channel the next few days, ahead of events in Iraq, Middle East, or Asia. Hard Talk raised the one issue that didn8217;t receive much attention: Dyke and Davies were Labour appointees. Consequently, they felt they had to be holier than the grail and, in the event, defended BBC more stoutly than the truth. Would such a situation have occurred in India? No, said Mark Tully, an old BBC India NDTV 24X7. We agree: would the head of Prasar Bharati ever oppose the Government? Would our media organsiations allow, invite, encourage such criticism?

As BBC debated Hutton8217;s report, CNN relayed live, the Senate Arms Services Committee meeting which saw a certain Mr. Kay, US chief weapons inspector who had lately resigned, admit there were 8216;8216;intelligence failures8217;8217; on Iraq8217;s WMD programme, 8216;8216;We were all wrong8217;8217;.

David Kelly and David Kay: the coincidence and timing could be more than ironical.