Gilligan admits to 'slip of the tongue'

[demdave]

Andrew Gilligan, the BBC reporter who sparked the cataclysmic row between the government and the corporation, today insisted the broad thrust of his story was true but admitted to a series of mistakes that threaten to undermine the corporation's case.

He said he did not mean to accuse the government of inserting the 45-minute WMD claim into last September's Iraq dossier "knowing it was wrong", describing the phrase as "slip of the tongue".

And he confessed for the first time that his first report on the Today programme had not been as accurate as it should have been.


http://media.guardian.co.uk/huttoninquiry/story/0,13812,1044018,00.html

[J B]

1. The govt asked for capitulation, not correction.

There is a difference; a mere correction was not good enough. The government wanted capitulation and a wholescale castration of the BBC's willingness to challenge the government on any issue of national importance, lecturing it of its special responsibility to report in a manner that would not be embarassing to the Prime Minister or sully the international reputation of his government.

And that is why the BBC dragged its feet.

[Parche]

2. Where's the Professor

SKIPPER!!!!!

[dfong63]

3. incredible

Blair took Britain to war based on a series of huge lies, and they're trying to crucify a reporter who helped bring those lies to public attention, on the pretext that he got some of the details wrong????? does anyone else think that they've lost sight of the big picture?????????

[AP]

4. Among his colleagues, Gilligan has a terrible reputation

and now he's being exposed for his carelessness, and you're defending him.

I'm not asking you to believe this, but THE BBC AND GEORGE BUSH ARE TRYING TO SABOTAGE THE LABOR PARTY SO THAT THE TORIES WIN THE NEXT ELECTION. On Democracy Now today, a CIA agent said that the CIA had planned to stick the 45 minute claim in the SOU Addess AND THEN BLAME THE BRITISH when criticism started to fly. You all think you're discovering information, but you're being played by Rove and Cheney.

We're being led down a path of a 2004 victory for Bush and the destruction of the Labour Party. You all should wise up.

What Blair did to Gilligan is exactly what Clinton should have done to every reporter who told a lie about him from January 1993 to the day he left office. If they're lying or their journalism is totally shoddy, they should be called on it.

[Zhade]

5. Please give me some sources, this needs to be looked into more!

NT!

[AP]

6. www.democracynow.org

listen to today's show. It was unbelievable. It was all about Wilson's wife. Two former CIA agents were interviewed. They were great.

The statement about 'blaming it on the British' was made in a context which didn't allow for dicussion of the implications. Nonetheless, I think the implications are obvious to anyone who doesn't let the media think for them (regardless of whether they think it's helping or hurting Bush).

[AP]

7. http://www.webactive.com/page/407

http://www.webactive.com/page/407

This link is working (I don't think the other one is).

This is the previous day's show only, so listen to it tomorrow.

[dfong63]

8. the bottom line

the bottom line is that Tony Blair did exaggerate the threat of Iraq, he used exaggerations and outright lies to justify a war of aggression in which thousands died. getting to the bottom of that malfeasance should be the govt's focus, rather than crucifying a "sloppy journalist".

What Blair did to Gilligan is exactly what Clinton should have done to every reporter who told a lie about him from January 1993 to the day he left office.

with Clinton, the truth was bad enough. Clinton lied to the American people, he lied under oath, and he richly deserved to be impeached. if his lies had resulted in deaths, like Blair's did, then he was doubly deserving.

[AP]

11. dfong, you're posts are so full of hyperbole and animosity

I don't know if it's worth repsonding to them.

But, lets just dismiss this one briefly. If you're paying attention to the Hutton Inquiry, I think you'll discover that everything in the dossier came from a report provided by a legitimate intelligence source.

If you listened to Democracy, Now, today, you'll discover that there was a CIA plan to blame the British (and sabotage Tony Blair).

The ONLY thing that was true about Clinton from 93 to 2001 was the stuff about Monica. I was talkinga bout all the other lies, from Whitewater to travelgate, to the pardons, etc. etc. There's an entire site, mediawhoresonline.com, devoted to exposing the American versions of Andrew Gilligan.

If the CIA weren't doing such a brilliant job of getting liberals to attack Blair, more people would probably appreciate the similarities betwee RW sabotage of Clinton and this sabotaging of Blair's government.

[WingNOT]

13. Hmmm - high crimes eh ?! Lying about a blowjob...?

"with Clinton, the truth was bad enough. Clinton lied to the American people, he lied under oath, and he richly deserved to be impeached. if his lies had resulted in deaths, like Blair's did, then he was doubly deserving."

Oh do we REALLY have to drag this up again? Methinks you've been watching too much Faux "Utterly without merit" News...

Please explain how the "Clenis" deserved to be impeached for lying about a blowjob ? National security implications abounding here...

What about Reagan's Iran-Contra...?

Dubya's linkage of Iraq, terrorism & going to war over '9/11'...?

I guess you haven't read (or believed if you read) the Clinton Wars ?

[Booberdawg]

16. There should have NEVER been

an investigation nor a deposition over a fucking blow job to begin with!! The Paula Jones lawsuit was a farce and never had a leg to stand on to begin with.

Oh why did I get started with this ..:mad:

[WingNOT]

14. Not sure I'd go as far as you AP...

... but you're right about Gilligan having a terrible reputation.

Private Eye in the UK mentioned this months before the whole affair blew-up. The Eye often is months/years ahead of the press-pack in their reporting.

They were talking about Robert Maxwell being a crook years before his untimely demise.

Jeffrey Archer - laughing stock, listed and disected in detail.

Major & Matrix-Churchill.

The list goes on and on...

Sadly most of you in the states won't have had the chance to read the 'Eye'.... and the website doesn't give very much away for free...

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/

[Spentastic]

18. Just how mental

do you have to be to believe this?

"THE BBC AND GEORGE BUSH ARE TRYING TO SABOTAGE THE LABOR PARTY SO THAT THE TORIES WIN THE NEXT ELECTION. "

The best way to sabotage the Labour party would be to get them to commit British forces overseas on false pretences.

Is Tony stupid enough to have fallen for it?

Tony Blair insisted there was an immediate threat posed by the Iraqi regime. Was this true? Tony claimed there were definitely WMD. Was this true?

Gilligan is indeed a poor journalist and it was obvious that this would happen. With clever deflection the government are ignoring the fact that the U.K has committed an egregious crime.

[AP]

21. You think Bush didn't have a plan if Blair DIDN'T go in?

Spentastic, I would like you to listen to Democracy, Now's program from yesterday.

Try their website, www.democracynow.org, or follow Pacifica's links to archived programming (you'll have to google Pacifica or Democracy Now to find it).

They don't come out and say it, but the two former CIA agents do say enought about, for example, intentionally planted bad evidence, and about intentions to lame blame on the British, to make an sensible person want to reevaluate what they think is going on here.

[Spentastic]

23. Will do

But not now, I'm supposed to be working.

But hasn't the Hutton affair in effect cleared anyone of planting evidence? Unless this "senior" and "reliable" Iraqi source was in fact a CIA plant.

I'm not saying that the above is impossible but unless our intelligence agencies have been bushwhacked (in which case Tony is as good as gone) then it's equally likely that Mr Blair went along with Bush's wishes because he wanted to.

[AP]

25. My theory is, yes, some highly place British intelligence agents

are wittingly or unwittingly tools in the plan to sabotage Blair. The problem wasn't in interpreting the data, it was in the data itself. Of course there's the argument about whether Blair (or the Democrats in Congress) should have known the evidence was crap, but that plays into the second obvious (to me) conclusion.

Of course Blair knew Bush would be gunning for him from the minute Bush was declared the winner of the 2000 election. Why do you think Blair called an early election in the summer of 2001? He HAD to run before Bush got all his sabotage strategies in place. This was brilliant. Had Blair waited until his term ended, 9/11 would have been part of the debate, and it would have been manipulated to hurt Blair badly.

There is a tension in Britain between isolationism and a desire to have an influence on the global stage. Also, there is the reality of Labour's solid majority (the only way to overcome it is to force it to fight with itself). Had Blair not gone in, he would have been played up as an isoltationist (which is unpopular with center-left liberals) and as diminishing Britain's role in the world (which is unpopular with conservatives). We can see what happens to him for going in -- a wedge is being driven between center-left and far-left liberals over the issue of imperialism and Bush-toadying, and the Tories are playing themselves up as the people who can restore order.

In any event, I think Blair had no illusions about the fact that he was going to be sabotaged either way and that he chose the path which gives Europeans and the Briitsh the most control over their economic destiny (and I think there's no doubt that the US interest in Iraq has a lot to do with trying to control the spigot for economic development in Europe). In the last six years, I think another thing is obvious: Blair's primary strategy for fighting Tory fascism is to build up a middle class bulwark. He is trying to build up as much wealth as possible in the middle class, because (like Chavez) he knows that wealth is political power. So, the strategy the British have taken in Iraq (which is playing itself out in the weekend meeting with Chirac and Schroeder) is the strategy which keeps its eyes on the real prize.

The knock on Blair is that he's a poodle. The Right Wingers always try to spin out the exact opposite of the truth. I think that, in 30 years, historians will be writing books about Blair's courage in the face of an intense campaign to destroy the Labour party and to put the Tories back in power.

[Spentastic]

29. Interesting conclusions

I find it difficult to believe that a couple of million people using their own common sense came to the conclusion that the threat from Saddam was illusory whilst the Government insisted that it was not.

AP I assume that you don't actually live in the U.K? I think you're perception is somewhat flawed. Siding with the U.S has isolated the U.K far more than if we'd stayed at the very least neutral, or sided with our major European partners. As it is we're now distrusted in Europe and Tony is not trusted by his own people.

Also against your theory is Jack Straw's odd announcements. Your theory is predicated on the fact that the right needed Tony to go to war. Why was RWer Straw trying to stop him?

"So, the strategy the British have taken in Iraq (which is playing itself out in the weekend meeting with Chirac and Schroeder) is the strategy which keeps its eyes on the real prize."

That "strategy" killed people. It was not a price worth paying. As for the middle class in the U.K Tony had better be careful. The middle class are fickle. Tony is allowing the right to dictate the agenda and he's failing to counter it or is capitulating (see asylum and crime).

I think in 30 years time Tony Blair's name will be right there next to Neville Chamberlains.

[AP]

40. I think the power of the media shouldn't be underestimated

Why is the CIA's largest budget item paying off people in the media to tell their lies? Because that's how you destroy democracies.

I think you've related the media representation of the perception of the British in Europe. But, I suspect that Schroeder would name his next child Tony Blair in gratitude for Blair carrying the flag for Europe while removing Schroeder from the heat..

Straw is always the guy in this government who goes out on the edge. If you want to make Tories think Labour isn't to easy on immigrants, send Straw out to sound like a fascist. Every government has someone playing this role. Now, I really don't understand all the facts with that Straw thing. I admit that it's confusing. It really was out of left field. Straw seems to always do as he's told, even if it makes him an enemy of every thinking person in Britain, so I find it hard to believe that this was something that he came up with on his own. However, if he does, in fact, have a deeply conservative streak, which is genuinely felt, I can imagine that he might advise Blair to do something which helps Bush (whether Straw arrived at that opinion out of stupidity or by coniving). (And I do think there's enough evidence from Rumsfield that the US would have been happier to be running amok in Iraq without having to give Basra over to the British--then again, Rumsfield probably imagines that the Tories will soon be making decisions about what happens in Basra).

As for the strategy killing people, I say, no. If the British stayed out, the US might have slaughtered more people (and, incidentally, SH slaughtered people too and he ruined lives). Furthermore, do you know how many lives Tories and European conservatives ruin when they're in power. I think trying to keep RW'ers out of power is a mighty noble goal.

Isolationism is the sort of thing that led to many unneccesary deaths in places like Rwanda, Bosnia, and Nazi Germany. It is very important for liberal democracies to engage in liberal foreign policy. With great power comes great responsibility. It would be evil to turn your back, whether it's on SH's evils or George Bush's evils.

Blair is characterized as a Neville Chamberlain TODAY. Tomorrow, I am sure the facts will vindicate him.

[Spentastic]

47. Oh

So all of those Europeans who protested the war are in fact glad that Tony waged it in their name? How stupid of me. Your argument relies on our our E.U partners being fairly ambivalent about attacking Iraq. That would take a fair amount of revision to even make close to true. Tony Blair effectively destroyed the European case by legitimising Bush's actions.

Jack Staw quacks and waddles. No, he's not a duck he's just fooling the Tories by acting like one :eyes:. This is the man that failed to support his own son. The guy is a prize wanker, a professional politician, he has all the integrity of a News of the World reporter. If even he could see that attacking Iraq was wrong, it bodes ill for Tony.

"As for the strategy killing people, I say, no. If the British stayed out, the US might have slaughtered more people (and, incidentally, SH slaughtered people too and he ruined lives). Furthermore, do you know how many lives Tories and European conservatives ruin when they're in power. I think trying to keep RW'ers out of power is a mighty noble goal."

I understand this argument, but I firmly believe it to be fatally flawed. It is analogous to suggesting that the U.K should have joined with the Nazis to ensure that WWII was shorter. If you legitimise actions by taking part in them, you lose the right to criticise the outcome. The U.K can now never take the moral high ground over the U.S. The U.S would have gone it alone. They would have killed more people. They would now be reaping the "benefits" without British help. They would be truly isolated and begging for U.N help, not demanding it. By enabling their conquest the danger to other countries has in fact increased. Good going Tony.

At the end of the day AP you're acting like an apologist. You're more intelligent than that. You sound like Lord Haw Haw.

[AP]

50. Look, the US is afraid of a powerful EU

Blair, Schroeder and Chirac (and every European leader except Berlusconi, probably, because he loses if Europe liberalizes through fair economic competition) are all threatened by the US's invasion of Iraq because it is aimed squarely at Europes ability to fuel economic growth (which, incidentally, was going to be a liberal economic growth). Only Blair was in a safe enough position to look after Europe's interests in Iraq.

You know, this Iraq thing is such a huge threat to Europe that, if it happend 40 years ago, Europe and the US might be at war right now. I



On some levels, I think this is all too obvious, and I feel like I'm repeating myself too much.

If you really think that the UK could have criticized the US, and then left the US on its own in Iraq with no European voice having any legitimate say...all I can say is...wait. I guess we can't go backwards in time and see what would have happened. But we can watch events unfold.

What exactly do you think will happen, and why?

[Spentastic]

52. Short Answer

The U.S would now be mired in Iraq on their own. The world (not only the E.U) would see PNAC for what it is. The Imperial ambitions of the right in the U.S would have been bled out in the desert of Iraq and the U.N would have been begged to involve themselves.

Now the U.S has legitimacy due to the presence of the Brits. There are no indications that they are going to pass power to the U.N. Imperial plans remain undiminished and now threats are being made to Syria.

[AP]

56. I think that almost nothing that has happened in Iraq is unintended

up to this point.

I supsect that the forged documents were intentionally sloppy, I think the attacks on Blair were planned, and I think the mess now was planned.

I think it's all part of a plan to make anti-war Democrats particularly vociferous, encouraging them to nominate and anit-war candidate, who'll pull a big McGovern, while Bush pulls a Nixon. So long as nobody's talking about he economy, Bush will be insulated from the most legitimate criticism of his government. If the only topic discussed is Iraq, Bush will then be able to moderate on the Iraq issue just before the election. American voters will be reassured and will vote Bush.

So, trouble in Iraq is welcomed. Chaos is part of the plan. Legitimacy is irrelevant (but it's part of that peculiar British isolationism vs. desire to be important in the world which makes the British think Bush needed British legitimizing, or that it matters at all).

Anyway, I think Blair and the EU are doing what they're doing because they see PNAC for what it is.

[rjbcar27]

26. AP, why would the BBC want the Tories back?

The Tories are still in no position to win the next election, Labour still has a 5 point lead (roughly) through this debacle, and the Tories keep shooting themselves in the foot announcing wholly ridiculous plans for their manifesto.

[T_i_B]

27. Tories want to sell off the Beeb even more than Blair

Just look at the torygraph's Beeb-watch campaign. The right wing is after the BBC make no mistake about it. What a shame Blair appears to be with Murdoch & the tories on this one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1044416,00.html

To an American, there is much that sounds awfully familiar about Beebwatch - the series launched last week by the Daily Telegraph editor Charles Moore to root out "soft left" bias in the BBC. Moore's determination to inflict daily humiliation on the network coincides neatly with efforts by Rupert Murdoch and the Tory opposition to deprive Britain's great broadcasting institution of its licence fee, just as its charter is coming up for renewal.

At the very least, this campaign aims to intimidate the BBC's management from broadcasting anything that might offend reactionary sensibilities; but its ultimate goal is the crippling, or even the abolition, of the BBC itself.

Moore's tone echoes the American right's incessant whining about "liberal media bias". And while British broadcasting is structurally (and qualitatively) very different from its US counterpart, the conservative agenda in both countries is identical: to stigmatise dissent and to dominate discourse.

[rjbcar27]

28. Exactly.

Auntie Beeb has nothing to gain by helping the Tories back into power IMO.

[AP]

32. It's triangulation

Labour wouldn't mind a BBC with privatized entertainment business which competes with Murdoch.

Of course the Tories want a situation in which Murdoch gets the BBC entertainment business at low cost, or sees it destroyed.

And the BBC wants to either keep their gov't subsidized form, or figure a way to go private in a which makes all the current executives rich rich rich (like RailTrack). Labour is on record for not being interested in that BS again (that was a give away of social wealth that has turned out to be very expensive for society, and very lucrative for a few Tory cronies).

(And note the irony -- part of the reason the BBC might be attacking Labour is because Labour won't let the BBC pull a RailTrack. Meanwhile, 40% of the electorate are ready to bury Labour because they aren't liberal enough.)

I suspect I might be alone here, but, whereas what happened to the railroads makes me sick, I think a public BBC which operates in what should be a free market is just as sick (and I'm talking about entertainment, not news).

Entertainment SHOULD be provided on a free market. And, in any event, it's evil to fund it out of a flat tax.

[AP]

31. Because Labour agrees with EU that it can't justify publicly

subsidizing an entertainment company that competes with private companies unfairly.

The EU has already told the UK that they're going to have to phase out the public subsidy of the BBC and Labour didn't object. It's not the news part of their operations that the EU cares about. It's the entertainment part.

Incidentally, I feel that there's a very close connection between the fact that Working Title (one of the best independant film producers in the world) isn't a huge, successful distributor and producer (like, say, Miramax) and the fact that the BBC competes unfairly with every other entertainment producer in the UK by virtue of it's system of finance (a flat tax on the public).

Labour feels that the economy has more to gain from being a level playing field on which everyone and every company can compete fairly (and be rewarded to the full extent of their talents and contributions), rather than an economy in which flat-tax supported behemouths compete unfairly, and suppress other companies from competing.

Incidentally, I've seen polls which have the Tories neck and neck with labour, whch is a trememdous improvement from Fall 2001 when they were down to level with LibDems (on the verge of becoming a third party).

[rjbcar27]

33. I know that the Licence fee is unpopular with many people

but I feel that the UK public will not be happy about the abolition of the BBC as we know it. The BBC is a huge part of British culture and I for one would be very angry to see its demise.

The second point is that almost all EU directives are tremendously unpopular with the British public and the fact that it's the EU wanting to destroy the BBC would be seen as yet more meddling from Brussels.

People will not soon forget that the BBCs entertainment division has brought us some of the worlds best programming.

[AP]

36. I think you keep the public news service, and privatize the entertainment

You will see a competitive entertainment market in the UK which produces film and tv producers and distributors which rival American companies in Europe AND in the US. Working Title in a competitive marketplace not having to compete with BBC's flat tax subsidy would become very big within months, I bet. I think British people with a little patience would have to be happier having a rational entertainment market than a behemouth BBC stifling competition and draining people's incomes.

Let me see if I can explain this better:

Why didn't the BBC become a huge producer and distributor, rivaling American companies? Because they never needed to really compete to make money. They just got their TV tax money, and that was it. And why didn't Rank compete with American entertainment companies? Why is Working Title still only a producera and not a big distributor? Because the BBC's overwhelming domination of the marketplace left little room for competitors to find toe-holds and grow.

However, the BBC has been rapidly expanding its activities in the last couple years preparing for the transition to privatization. So, bascially, the flat TV tax is a public subsidy so that the BBC can get bigger than any British rival when the inevitable moment arrises. Is that fair? Is it fair that taxpayers are subsidizing a situation that allows the BBC to stifle competion? Markets produce poorer products and create less wealth when competition is stifled.

[Spentastic]

38. Do you have Shares in Working title?

Perhaps they just aren't very good.

[rjbcar27]

39. That's all very well if the BBC was producing crap

but it's not. ITV, Channel 4 and Five are competing with the BBC for viewers and the BBC consistently comes out on top. It's not just television either, it's radio too. BBC radio 2 is the most listened to radio station in the UK, (Radio 1 is utter crap but still) if BBC radio had to advertise for revenue, people would switch off like that.

I understand your argument, but I'm a believer in the BBC as it is.

[AP]

41. It could be better.

I believe the record for viewers for one night and one channel was channel 4 when frasier and friends (and maybe one other American show was on).

You know when was the last time the highest rated night on American TV was a night when two or three British shows were on? Never.

I don't want to get into a fight about this, because it's essentially a fight about whether the public should be asked to regressively finance what is, essentially, a private activity (it's the oppiste of privatizing utilities -- it's like asking the public, by law, to subsidize Starbucks). And it's inevitably going to get into a debate which is the equivalent of saying, 'But Starbucks makes a great coffee." And if you overidentify with "Starbucks", this conversation will get ugly.

Personally, I think it's beyond question that, in areas of the economy where competition results in the best product, you don't want to subsidize one party's competion, and unfairly burden others' ability to compete. You end up with crappier product, and a smaller overall market. More wealth, and more satisfied customers would result from a fair competition on a level playing field.

[T_i_B]

53. Question then

Which programmes of the BBC are not up to scratch then? Go on AP, name particular programmes.

[Spentastic]

55. Perhaps AP sould look at this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/report2002/pdf/facts_broadcasting_stats.pdf

In an "uncompetitive" market people prefer to watch the BBC than other channels showing show from a competitive market.

I guess one has to think "Friends" is the peak of comedic writing rather than "League of Gentlemen".

[AP]

57. How many Americans know League of Gentlemen?

??

[Spentastic]

60. So what?

Friends is better because more people see it? Therefore Friends is better art than Shakespeare?

What drugs are you taking? Can I have some?

The day that the world uses the U.S.A as a barometer of quality / taste is the day I kill myself.

[AP]

63. Hello.. If it's good and it makes money the people who made

it can make more good stuff. And the fact that you can make money off of making good stuff ensures that more good stuff gets made, rather than stupid, cheap reality shows, and dumb game shows.

And I'm telling you, the US SHOULDN'T be the barometer of taste. If there were a more rational entertainment market in the UK, Friends WOULDN'T be the highest rated show ever, and more British programming would be making more money from selling licenses in the US.

[Spentastic]

67. But the BBC

tend not to make

"rather than stupid, cheap reality shows, and dumb game shows."

Much of this stuff because they are not under commercial pressure to do so. The real shite is on ITV and C5.

The fact that lots of people like Friends does not mean all T.V should strive to be like Friends. This is a case of more choice actually equalling less as commercial pressures drive creativity into profitable areas only.

[AP]

70. The economy should be harnessed to create wealth and jobs

It just seems odd that people should be financing, out of regressive taxation, a situation where everything isn't the best, and most produtive product and marekt it could be.

I'm going ot have to admit that the BBC has really been picking up the pace in terms of prodcuing stuff and creating more variety, but basically it's all just a build up so that they're a bigger competitor when they have spin off all the entertainment business. All that is still financed out of a flat tax. So people are basically paying the BBC so that it can stifle competitioin (resulting in a smaller, less competive, less productive entertainment market) down the road.

That's a little crazy.

[Spentastic]

78. No it isn't

If you view entertainment as a pure commodity your argument would have some validity. However art is purely subjective. One mans Monet is another mans dot picture. The BBC by nature of its funding can explore the fringes and cater to a wide audience.

The BBC is widely acknowledged to be the best at some things. Popular opinion agrees. Sporting coverage on the BBC out performs other channels and their nature documentaries are excellent. The arts are well represented as are minority interests.

No other provider comes close.

Privatise, privatise, privatise. That's the new mantra. T.V, what's next the NHS, of course it is.

[AP]

81. If you think it's so important to British culture to have Murder She Wrote

on five days a week...well, that's your business as a British person.

[Spentastic]

86. And the deregulated U.S market provides what

When animals attack world stupidest policemen?

[AP]

88. Two things.

There's already lots of discussion here about how media consolidation reduces competition and results in crappier TV production. ABC has made consistently miserable TV since Disney bought ABC.

A few big private monopolies in the US are just as bad as a few big public monopolies. But at least if they're private, you just suffer from crappy product. It's not like the government is going to fine you if you're caught watching TV without paying your regressive TV tax which finances the TV production.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THE BBC IS TOTAL CRAP. I'm just saying it could be better, it could be more economically and socially productive, and it could be fairer to the competition.

Another thing, the US has a million different shows because there are so many channels. There's a little something for everyone. But even at the low end, there's more money in a making the show so that you can actually produce something more entertainging (compare the British and American versions of blind date, for instance).

[AP]

61. There's lots of great British TV

Ali G and Alan Partridge, for example, are brilliant .

My point is that, if there were a rational entertainment market in the UK, these programs would make more money, and, perhaps, be shown on TV in the US (rather than having to be remade for US TV, if shown at all in any form).

[T_i_B]

64. I know a few in the DU louge that know it.

You would be suprised what British TV shows people on here know. BBC America does a very good job of showing this stuff to DUers. The only annoying thing is having to expain to people that Graham Norton is actually on Channel 4 in the UK and not the BBC.

Anyway, I'm just trying to picture you in Royston Vasey AP. :evilgrin:

[AP]

59. The Book Group was the only good thing on British TV in last 3 years

and that was written and produced by an American. And, because the ecnomics of British TV are so bad, she burned out after two seasons.

[Spentastic]

62. Er?

Now I can call you a liar.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen written by anybody, anywhere.

Not even IMO. Just

"The Book Group was the only good thing on British TV in last 3 years"

As an example of critical thought it rather sums you up.


By the way when were Ali G and Alan Partridge filmed?

[AP]

68. You're calling me liar because you don't like my taste in TV?

You're grasping at straws.

How long do you want to play this game? If you don't think I know enough about the UK what more do you need to know?

Are you afraid that I do know something?

I really don't get it. Discredit my arguments if you want. But discrediting an anonymous internet poster's biography is ridiculous.

[Spentastic]

76. No you wrote

"The Book Group was the only good thing on British TV in last 3 years"

That AP is an opinion.

If you wish to play 20 questions I'm happy to.

[AP]

80. You're calling my opinion a lie?

And what do you think is guiding my opinion? That's right. My taste.

So you're calling me a liar because you don't like my taste in TV?

Isn't that grasping at straws.

You were probably all set to call me liar, you jumped a little too soon out of the starting block there, eh?

[Spentastic]

83. No

You stated it as fact. You are now backtracking.

"The Book Group was the only good thing on British TV in last 3 years
and that was written and produced by an American. And, because the ecnomics of British TV are so bad, she burned out after two seasons."

You didn't say it was an opinion did you? Further more you extrapolated from your unsubstantiated opinion, using this anecodotal "evidence" to suggest that it demonstrated the failings of the British media market.

"There's lots of great British TV
Ali G and Alan Partridge, for example, are brilliant .

My point is that, if there were a rational entertainment market in the UK, these programs would make more money, and, perhaps, be shown on TV in the US (rather than having to be remade for US TV, if shown at all in any form)."

Now since these programs are still on British T.V what is it to be?

You're as in to spin as the guys you so admire. Grasping at straws? I think not.

[AP]

92. You're just embarassing yourself.

When is a comment like that ever construed as anythign but an opinion?

As for the rest, I can't keep repeating my points. If you don't get what I'm saying, I guess I'm just not explaining it welll enough.

[Spentastic]

94. Am I bollocks.

For example

The government knowing it was wrong inserted the 45 minute claim.

and

In my opinion, the government knowing it was wrong inserted the 45 minute claim.

As for the rest of your "points". In my opinion I know more about the U.K because I happen to live there. In my opinion, you are over reaching.

[AP]

98. You are totally entiteld to your opinion.

However, if you're discounting my opinion ONLY because you think I don't live there...well, do you think that's a good enough reason?

I could just as easily say I discount your opinion because you've never lived anywhere else, or because you don't have the benetif of having been an outsider looking in.

Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, you and I both know that you disagree with me simply because you have some very firm opinions which NOTHING would shake. Say I do live in the UK, you still wouldn't believie me. You're trying to find reasons not to agree with me, and you really need something don't you, because it's not enough just to say my arguments are bad, or whatever. You need a little more than that.

Incidentally, the probelm with every culture is that, to replicate its hold or power or whatever, it has to convince people of certain things. I think it's very much a part of the British culture to have the powerful convince the masses to do things against their best interest by encouraging them to divide themselves on the left. It's alwasy the far left end of Labour which destroys Labour. They've done this overa and over again. It's why you had a century of one term labour leaders until Blair. Now the right is encouraging the left to do it again, and the result will be a Tory PM if the right is successful. Perhaps if you could get a view from the outside you'd be able to see the mechanisms the right uses to achieve this. You could start by looking more closely at the things Bush has done to sabotage Blair.

[Spentastic]

103. Well how magnanimous!

Yes AP I'm well aware of the small "c" conservative nature of the British public and I'm always happy to hear outsiders views on what you believe is going on. Believe it or not AP some things I agree with you on. I believe you're slightly off the mark with Mugabe and I don't see how that fits with you admiration for Blair, but basically as far as Africa goes I believe we broke it and we're not trying overly hard to fix it.

I have a different opinion. Tony Blair IMO is a triumph for the right as he will destroy any effective left wing opposition. This is not a good thing. Tony has got very "with us or against us lately" and that is not constructive. The Tories don't have to win, in effect they already have.

[AP]

105. Bush wouldn't be going to all the trouble if there wasn't something

valueable to take from the masses in the UK.

In the US, Bush desperately had to win in 2000 because Clinton had built up so much wealth in pension funds, and had driven up wages (which were cutting into profits too much) and people put a lot of money into real esate -- it was a big pot of gold, and the Republicans coveted it.

There has been an 800 billion dollar shift from surplus to deficits in the last three years. I don't know what the actually number is, but I'm going to guess that that 1.2 trillion dollars over three years has gone right into the pockets of Bush cronies -- and that's largely just in regressively accumulated tax money (breaks for the rich and contracts for Haliburton). If you add in the 401(K) money which mostly went into corporate insiders' pockets, and the friendly asbestos legisltion etc., , oh, and don't forget the unemployment and downward pressure on wages which, along with friendly tax laws, represent all the new "profit" companies have gotten this year (which allows them to inflate their stock values temporarily), we're talking about a HUGE transfer of wealth. It might rival the S&L crisis, which was the last big Republican reverse Robin Hood handout to the wealthy cronies.

I think the UK is engaged in a similar moment. I don't think you can deny that 97-03 has been a great time to be middle class in Britain. I think things are just to the point where now there's something to steal from people, and the Tories are coveting it, and Blair is standing in defense of the people. (Not to mention all those international corporations in London who might think the have more to gain by getting on the Bush crony bandwagon.)

Look at it this way, Bush is using Iraq to give 87 billion to haliburton, right? Everybody's complaining about the dossier. Right? Well, I could be totally wrong about this, but does Blair have his own Halliburton? And I don't mean, do you believe that Blair is doing this for BP. I mean, is there concrete evidence that Blair is using this event to transfer wealth to the pockets of any private company? This isn't speculation here. We can see the money going to Haliburton and Bechtel.

No, in fact, I believe, Blair is doing this to make sure that the EU and UK economy doesn't tank, and can't be manipulated by the US (which is the US's usual ploy in places like Argentina, Venezuela and Chile when the liberal governments are more interested in making the majority -- rather than the wealthy minority -- of their citizens wealthier, happier, and healthier).

I know it's a shite state of affairs when the difference between a liberal and conservative is when you have a different attitude about who should get richer, the rich or the people who are working hard. But the right wing is extremely powerful, and if the left doesn't fight battles against them, recognizing that the ONE thing they're interested in is money, then we might as well all call it a fucking life, and roll over for the fascists. If we can't recognize that politicians like Blair and Clinton, imperfect though they may be, are the only ones putting their necks on the line for us in this battle, and are using strategy which could actually lead to victory, and if we can't recognize that, if we destroy them, our last defenses are gone, then we're doomed.

Just my opinon.

I could be wrong.

[Spentastic]

111. I disagree AP

Strongly. But thanks for the time spent expanding on your hypothesis.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. AP, your beliefs about UK TV watching are wrong

For instance,
"The 100th edition of Never Mind the Buzzcocks was watched by 3.4 million, a new run of Shooting Stars had 3.3 million, and another new series of The Kumars at Number 42 was watched by 3.7 million. The 90-minute slot averaged more than one in six viewers from 9pm.

The Kumars had twice the audience of Channel 4's Frasier, which returned for a 10th series with just 1.9 million, one in 10 of the audience at 10pm."

from http://media.guardian.co.uk/overnights/story/0,7965,870156,00.html

Frasier, Friends and other American shows pull in regular audiences, but never get as popular as British comedies.

A case can be made that since the EM spectrum is public property, it is better to have a publicly run company using it than a private one. Your case for the BBC getting out of film production is much better (and a similar case can be made for BBC publications, with their dubious free advertising on the BBC), though I think your optimism
that British producers would suddenly flower the moment the BBC stopped seems unfounded.

[AP]

87. I believe the record for a single night of TV viewing in the UK

was one night in 2000 when something like 20 million people tuned into a least one of the three American shows which were on C4 on a Friday night (it might have been two American shows and one british show like Graham Norton or Smack the Poney or something like that). I think one of the shows peaked at 15 million viewers (it was either Fraser or Friends). In any event, it was a big deal, and it was discussed in the papers for a couple days afterwards.

I believe you are citing current ratings, and Friends and Fraser are getting a little stale, and their are more choices now than there were 3 years ago.

And if you don't want to talk TV, should we talk about movies?

[T_i_B]

89. I think your facts may be wrong AP

Last I heard the record was something like 30 million of us watching an England match, the Euro 96 semi-final I think. I suggest you recheck your figures and inparticular take a good butchers at the viewing figures for football & soaps.

[AP]

95. Looking in the Guardian Archives....

This isn't it, but I thought it was interesting...

January 18 1999

After a week when BBC1's share dropped below 30 per cent for the first time, British TV executives will be looking nervously across the Atlantic at the fate of the big American television networks. After years of fighting the fragmentation of audiences, ...

[T_i_B]

102. Link please

Nothing personal, but whenever I reference the grauniad, I am expected to provide a link by my fellow DUers. And quite rightly so too!

[AP]

107. www.guardian.co.uk

I used the archive search funciton, with "Frieinds" and "Frasier" and "Million" as my search terms.

[muriel_volestrangler]

109. which gives just that paragraph

and a broken link. So how do you think it's relevant to this discussion? What it seems to be saying is that the BBC fears it will go the same way as the producers of "Friends" and "Frasier", eg losing market share to the cable/satellite channels.

I think you don't have a complete view of the TV market in Britain, and that has affected your arguments.

[muriel_volestrangler]

93. Any reference for that at all?

Anyway, I'll trump it with over 20 million for "Only Fools and Horses" (already referenced in the BBC viewing figures someone else posted, but here's another reference):

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/12/27/ntv27.xml

The regular high audiences always go to the prime time soap operas, EastEnders and Coronation Street. I doubt you'll ever find a year in which the most popular comedy on British TV was American.

[Oggy]

96. 24 Million

Xmas 1996.

But I will take your 20 million and raise you to 33 Million

<snip>
The largest national audience in British broadcasting history to date watched the final of the World Cup 1966 in which England beat West Germany 4-2 at Wembly. It is estimated that over 33 million people watched the final.
<snip>

http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htmlB/britishprogra/britishprogra.htm

Must point out that this is just an estimate.

[AP]

99. Non-sporting events. In the context of the argument...we're talking about

entertainment products. Scripted TV shows. Sticoms and Dramas.

I could get 30 million Brits to watch England-Argentina if I emceed it filmed it with a coupld hand held video cameras.

[AP]

97. I'm gonna guess this was a prime-time, non-sporting event record

...

[Oggy]

101. Actually no

We have this game over here called "football", and anyway every nation in the world enters this competition called the world cup. It happens every 4 years. So in 1966 well we won. Its all we ever bloody go on about every bloody world cup. The prime time, non sporting event record as stated above was Only fools and horses. Which I have to say looks a bit old these days, but it is still nice to see it, bit of a comfort blanket of a TV program. No breaks for adverts which is my favourite thing about the BBC. I don't want my daughter to be commercially brainwashed when she's older, so I'll have more BBC on in the house I should think.

[Spentastic]

35. Hello Mr Murdoch

The subsidy enjoyed by the BBC does allow it to compete unfairly with media producers who would wish to FOX news our airwaves. Public subsidy allows the BBC to produce high quality, innovative dramas and documentaries that would not be produced by other media organisations. By virtue of the EVIL (er? hyperbole anyone) "Flat tax" the BBC can take liberties that private enterprises never can. This in my opinion is a good thing.

Labour is going to throw the BBC to the wolves. Economically this may make sense but the point about being left of centre is that economics do not dictate everything. The Tories will do the same thing and that surely means that Labour are kind of on the wrong track.

Working Title seem to be doing quite well actually and It's arguable whether they'd see the BBC as direct competition.

AP I don't get it. You profess to hate the Tories but you seem to like some of their positions.

The railways and the BBC are similar. There is an argument to be made that some things should not be subjected to market forces if QUALITY is to be maintained. The railway sell off was an unmitigated disaster. What makes you believe the BBC is different?

[AP]

42. A couple things.

The news is generally fantastic in the UK. The news should be removed from commerical influences. Protect the news.

However, there would be BETTER drama and comedy in the UK if there were a free market. The BBC does get to throw it's weight around thanks to the TV Tax, and there is certainly no end of writing teams who are willing to endure poverty for years before they get a hit (and then they burn out because there isn't enough money in British TV for producers to hire big, smart writing teams like they do in the US).

The US has its own problems thanks to the lack of competition coming from media monopolization (and, currently, the bad economy). But, extremely lucrative shows like Friends are simply not possible in the UK, because the economics don't work for the independant producers who come up with the great, novel ideas.

[T_i_B]

43. I don't think that the news is going to be protected

If the politicians decide to sell off the BBC AP. Indeed the prospect of being able to faux-ify the news is the prize that both Blair & the tories are after.

And if you want free market TV, how do you rate the programmes on Rupert Murdoch's Sky? Surely they would be better than the ones on the BBC if your theories were true? And in any case, if your ideas were to be put into pratice a little twat by the name or Murdoch would almost certainly be monopolizing our airwaves faster than you can say shopping channel.

[AP]

46. All the EU members complaining about the BBC have public news

so it'd be a little hypocritical of them to tell the UK they had to get rid of theirs.

Labour tried to sanction Sky for their war propaganda (playing music with shots of bombs dropping). I hardly think they would want more of that if they're actually threatening to revoke Sky's license for doing that.

Sky doesn't have big enough market penetration to justify big budget shows, perhaps. In any event, I don't think it's a coincidence that C4's America night was among the highest rated nights in British TV history.

And I shouldn't have to be repeating my argumetns: Triangulation. BBC wants one thing. Murdoch wants another, And Labour wants a third. Being that this is a fight over the hugely lucrative media industry, and the media is how you get informed about this, don't expect to have an informed opinion.

The only reason I know about this is because I was going through the daily reports from the EU a few years ago and read their paper on the public media in the UK. I've never seen this reported on in the UK. Regardless, the EU outlined a very persuasive, liberal argument for why it was uncompetive for the UK to subsidize the BBC to the degree that it does.

[AP]

44. Incidentally, this is one of the ways I don't get the British.

Yes, easy to monopolize industries like the trains and utilities should not be privatized. For exaclty the same reason, industries which benefit from competition and profit motive shouldn't be private. Why accept less? Why accpet poverty just because of some sentimental attachment to the BBC, which regressively taxes you for the opportunity to provide you with a less competitive enttertainment industry. Of course, Americans don't mind, because if the British fixed this market irrationality, more British products would be making money for Britain in America and in the UK. They don't want that.

And don't even get me started on the fact that the British love their cheap university tuitions but don't care that it costs almost the same to go to some polytechnic and to go to Oxford and Cambridge, Meanwhile, Oxford and Cambridge get half of the education budget. So, essentially, 99% of british students are subsidizing superior, cheap educations for the privileged 1%.

Incidentally, the reason you think I sound like a Tory is probably the same reason you don't understand what Blair is doing.

I think what I'm saying is the liberal thing. I'm talking about creating wealth for people who work hard to get it (and this rewarding of work means that people will actual do things that helps society progress forward), Conservativism is about figuring out how to make sure people who have money now can not have to work to keep it and get more.

[muriel_volestrangler]

110. TV firms told to back UK film

By an amazing concidence, that has just turned up on the BBC website:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/entertainment/film/3119544.stm

"The MPs, sitting on the House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee, particularly called on the BBC to invest more in British film.

The committee's report into the UK film industry also said tax breaks introduced to encourage British film-making should be kept in place. "

We better maker clear, when we say 'Labour', if we mean Blair and his close allies, or the wider party, or what. In this case, the Committee has a majority of Labour MPs, who may or may not agree with Blair. The government Arts Minister said:
"We must fight the corner for our domestic film industry - ensuring it gets the support it needs in a globally competitive market". This does sound as if Labour government policy is for public support for this private industry, but it's not clear if that means through the BBC or not.

[tlb]

9. From the time the Guardian ran the list of actual changes to the dossier

it was clear that Gilligan and the BBC were in the wrong on this one. That many here have recently decided to hate Tony Blair doesn't change that.


BBC defenders here cite it is the gold standard for honest reporting. And then try to justify and excuse their version of Jayson Blair.


Even if it IS Tony Blair, the BBC knew the weaknesses of Gilligans story and should have fully apologized weeks ago.

[AP]

10. Thanks for commenting on this.

Yes, the Guardian has done some good, bad and mediocre reporting on this issue. But they had on particularly bad story, early on. They reported that there were seven (I believe it was) changes. They gave only two examples, which were downright silly (a "was" to a "were" kind of thing) and then they characterized the other five changes as highly damaging, but they didn't see fit to explain them. Clearly, if they were listing the other changes because they were sillier than the two they did list.

It was shockingly bad journalism.

Blair was right to call out Gilligan on this issue.

[w4rma]

12. In my opinion Gilligan did his job well.

It was *not* shockingly bad journalism. Blair is liar and Gilligan is playing a major role in bringing Blair down. Gilligan got some details wrong that noone really cares about except those who want to nit pick at him in order to save Blair/Bush.

In my opinion Gilligan did his job well and did what great journalists are supposed to do. And he did it even though any minor error could cost him his job or even (a remote possibility of) his life.

Gilligan blew the whistle on that SOB, Blair.

[WingNOT]

15. w4rma - IMHO both sides were in the wrong (in varying degrees)

I'm in no doubt myself that the '45 minute claim' was misleading and has subsequently been proven false.

HOWEVER, the intelligence community believed it at the time - which some would say is logic-chopping - and I agree to a certain extent.

The problem is the double-standards of the Government attacking the BBC for only having a single source for Gilligan's accusation - when their '45 minute claim' was a single source itself.

Listening to actors' renditions of an intelligence witness during the Hutton enquiry was revealing about the standards of the intelligence community when he put forward the view that a single source was considered normal practice for supporting a claim !

[AP]

17. Don't confuse the issue.

Gilligan wasn't single sourcing the question of whether there was 45-minute capability. He was single sourcing the claim that the dossier was sexed up. Gilligan made claims that certain people had certain motivations that they didn't have. Keeping in a single sourced piece of information may be imprudent, but the fact is, unless the intelligence agent providing the information was sexing up the informaiion, it wasn't 'sexed up', and, in any event, the people he accused of having the motivation didn't have the motivation.

It's one thing to report a fact (that something was single sourced) and it's an entirely different matter to impute motivations on certain actors. Maybe the real story is that Blair couldn't allow the US to go in alone. Maybe the real story is as Clinton tells it -- that SH is a real threat, but every single good piece of intelligence is being ignored becasue people have been set up so that Labour fails. Who knows. But the real story wasn't as Gilligan tells it. And siince when he Democrats felt that truth doesn't matter so long as the ends are (falsely) perceived to be good?

And doesn't anyone wonder how Gilligan became so associated with an issue about which one CIA agent said to another CIA agent, "don't worry, we're going to blame the British for it"?

[w4rma]

19. The issue is more important than whether a journalist used 1 or 2 sources

Blair did everything he could to help Bush get his invasion of Iraq. Tens of thousands of people are DEAD. Hundreds of thousands of people are maimed and wounded and sick. Because Bush and Blair invaded Iraq and on top of that they had no reasonable plan of occupation and reconstruction.

These folks couldn't care one whit about whether this journalist used 1 or 2 sources on something or any of the other nit-pics you've put up against Gilligan, AP.

This whole opperation is FUBAR. People lost their lives. Blair should lose his job.

[AP]

20. You see, that's the version of the story one would want to sell if your

intereste were in sabotaging Blair (and, I think, we are fast approaching the moment when that could be rationally concluded from the facts).

And I still think the truth matters.

[RapidCreek]

77. Personally....my interest is in sabotaging Blair.

He sabotaged me and a whole lot of other people. The result of which has caused a whole hell of allot more pain and death than anything the BBC or Mr. Gilligan ever did. Does that escape you? Blair, a Prime fucking Minister bares no responsibility to check his sources but Gilligan and the BBC do, eh? My that is really something...you hold the BBC to a higher standard than you hold the Leader of the UK.

What it boils down to is intention.....Was it Gilligans intention to mislead? Was it Blairs? Therein lies the rub. There is a difference between making a mistake and intentionally telling lies. Making a mistake is just that...the same can be said of lieing. When one makes a mistake it is called a mistake....when one intentionally spreads fabrication that is called NOT TELLING THE TRUTH. So your assertion that truth matters should be directed at the man who failed to tell it....Not the man who bravely attempted...mistakes included...to point out this failure.



RC

[AP]

85. Yesterday, I heard a former CIA officer say that one CIA officer

told another CIA officer not to worry about claims in the SOTU address because they were going to blame it all on the British.

Now, the CIA doesn't have a press officer who comes out and states CIA policy. The CIA implements its policies through other avenues. So, if you see something happen subsequent to a statement like that being made, like we've seen with Gilligan, you have to start worrying about motivations.

I, personally, feel that there might be a motivation by the BBC and Gilligan, and the NY Times, which is FAR more sinister that Blair's motivation.

[RapidCreek]

91. Ok, I'll bite...

What would that be?

RC

[AP]

100. A Tory elected PM.

Hello. Do we all have short term memory loss. Who were Bush pere's best friends in the UK? Who were their mutual best friends in other parts of the world? Why did they all like each other?

[muriel_volestrangler]

104. AP, please give a coherent argument

why the BBC should want the Conservatives back in power. Until the Gilligan piece, the Conservatives have consistently been the most critical of both BBC news coverage, and the licence fee system.

The position of the BBC as a whole has not changed much in the last few years; the one political change was that both the current Director General and Chairman are both Labour supporters.

[AP]

106. Triangulation.

It's above, but I will repeat it briefly.

Obviously, the tories are in the service of the Murdoch. However, the tories are also perfectly willing to sell off pieces of any bit national heritiage or any public asset if they can make a profit off of it for their cronies. (Witness the rail lines -- an abomination of epic proportions -- the cost to public wealth and progress will be immense).

Labour is much less likely to let the BBC structure change in a way which means easy profit for anyone's cronies. Labour also is on board with the general principles of the EU -- no government subsidies for private industtries, or public industries providing private functions (and we're talking entertainment production, not news, and not utilities). However, the most they're going to do for the BBC is delay as a long as possible the inevitbable day when the UK can no longer subsidize entertainment production (who knows what form this will come in -- maybe they'll still have state funded TV, but they wont get the vertical monopoly production-distribution chain, and maybe they'll fund it out of progressive income tax).

Judging from how sentimental people are about the BBC, Labour would probably prefer that it was dismantled by the Tories, because people are kinda silly and they'd be angrier about the symbolism if Labor took it apart than by the fact that it'll be a giveaway by Tories of a system built up by tax dollares for bargain basement prices (ie, transfer of weatth).

Murdoch would probably like to buy or destroy BBC assets. I'm sure he doesn't like competing with them in their current form, and he certainly wouldn't like to compete with theme if they were broken up like the telephone company.

The BBC just wants to keep its public subsidy as long as possible, but, in the meantime, prepare for the day when their production activities go private. So they're spending all their TV tax money pushing Film Four out of business, building up their licesing activity in America (you know, they no longer broadcast on short wave to the US because they don't want to hurt the market for the World Service on the NPR stations carrying it -- is that why you pay your TV tax?).

See all the conflcting interests?

I think the one thing you can't deny is that this struggle about Iraq and the media is over something much much bigger than what the media represents it as being. It's about who's going to be super rich and politically powerful about 10 years from now. And of all the dogs in the fight, the one that is most interested in protecting the interests of a majority of the people in the UK is Labour. And I know I probably just made about 25 Brits slap their foreheads, but I think it's pretty obvious that this is the case. They're aren't perfect, but they're our dog.

[muriel_volestrangler]

108. AP, your argument still seems all over the place

As you say, The Tories' interests coincide with Murdoch, and other private companies.
You then say that Labour is less likely to change the BBC to a 'for profit' structure, and might delay the privatisation of the entertainment production arm (note that the BBC does carry plenty of programmes produced by independent companies), and that Labour would rather the dismantling happened under the Tories - ie that they want to keep it together while they are in power.
You say Murdoch (allied with the Tories) would like to buy or destroy bits of the BBC.

So where is the reason that you think the BBC wants a Tory government? All your arguments are that the Tories are far more likely to break up the BBC than Labour. Is it that you think that those who control BBC news output will make millions from the breakup? If so, how? Or is it the BBC entertainment producers who'd make the millions? If so, how are they helping to bring in a Tory government?

The view I have, along with, I think, most people, is that the BBC, especially the news side, want to keep the licence fee, and the current setup. If they wanted to be privatised, they'd say so.

The arguments about the file industry are different. Maybe the BBC should stop producing feature films, because it's not part of broadcasting. I don't think that its activities are that harmful to other producers though - the film market is a lot more flexible than broadcast TV, so an extra competitor doesn't just take audience from the existing suppliers. It adds audience (if the product is good).

About your references to the EU wanting to end the licence fee, and Labour acquiescing to that: do you have any references? I've never heard of it before, and haven't found anything about it so far.

[T_i_B]

22. Hello WingNOT

How is the Labour party at the moment? Are people suitably pissed off at Blair? Everyone I know seems to be REALLY fed up with Blair at the moment. Every time I bump into a fellow leftie I keep hearing how they plan never to vote labour again! At least not until you lot grow enough balls to ditch Blair.

How does "new" labour expect people to belive them on domestic issues when it is all too apparent to all but the most die hard war-hawk that Blair has not been exactly a model of truth on the key issue of peace and war?

[Spentastic]

24. Oh God no!

TiB we're going to have to be very careful. It's entirely possible that New Labour and the Lib Dems will split the centre / left of centre vote and guess who will profit?

The problem is that Tony's destruction of the Labour party is almost complete. There's not a left wing thinker of worth left in the inner circle. Yes we have record employment levels but a substantial number of jobs are being created in the public sector which is then in turn being contracted out via PFI with minimal terms and conditions.

Tony Blair is Bill Clinton. This is how the "third way" works. You give up all your principles to win an election. You follow and never lead. You talk the talk while waddling in quite a different manner. Unfortunately, people see through the miasma of lies and spin and decide if they are going to be dictated to by right wingers they may as well vote for unashamed ones as opposed to pretenders.

[WingNOT]

34. Hello TiB too :-)

Actually in all honesty I wouldn't know - as may be evident from my absence here in the last few months I've had precious little time to devote to politics !

Actually I was hearing people say "I'll never vote Labour again" all through Blair's 1ST TERM.

How does "new" labour expect people to belive them on domestic issues when it is all too apparent to all but the most die hard war-hawk that Blair has not been exactly a model of truth on the key issue of peace and war?

I'm not sure there's an easy answer to THAT one... perhaps its Gordon Brown ?! lol

I'd love to get back into the fray full-time... but sadly the outside world is demanding my attention...

CYA :-)

[T_i_B]

37. I actually thought Blair's 1st term got a better reception

I remember how firmly the media's lips seemed to be planted on Blairs arse when he first came to power, and I can remember that over time most people seemed only to like Blair as a least worst option what with the tories being in the mess they were in then (and still are in now quite frankly.) Still, Blair bashing was not all that common I found. There were still people willing to stand up for Blair back then outside of the westminster village.

However, in Blair's second term "new" labour has pretty much lost its way. It is very difficult indeed to find anyone with a nice word to say about Blair now. Right wingers still think that Blair being too nice to those pesky foreigners and lefties tend to take the view that Blair is a war criminal. Both sides think that "new" labour is arrogant, out of touch and institutionally prone to lying.

To cut a long story short, "new" labour is no longer new. it's past its sell by date, it stinks and it's time for REAL Labour to takew the stage once again and to restore public trust in government & politics.

[Briar]

45. Classic New Labour Spin Operation

I agree. The Kelly/Gilligan story was one of major national importance and blew the whistle on Blair's dishonesty and bad faith. If Gilligan had not filed it, we would not know exactly how far the so-called intelligence evidence had been spun and hardened into an excuse for a war which Blair had decided on many months before the publication in September.

Let's not forget the essentials here. First, the 45 minutes claim was a dubious one. Secondly, all the claims about WMD including the 45 minutes claim have been proved to be wrong. Thirdly, on the basis of these false claims, the UK went to war alongside Bush and tens of thousands of people are now dead. As a consequence of this we all now live in a far less safe and fair world.

The whole Hutton sideshow was set up to distract attention from these truths. To spend as much time analysing Gilligan's story as if it had been the cause of tens of thousands of deaths and all the consequent disruption were his fault is a moral absurdity.

But it is what the government wants. Thanks to this charade, Blair supporters can spin their specious arguments and shift the blame to their hearts' content. The content of this thread is a good example of the dishonest games being played on the back of Lord Hutton's encouragement of this fundamental deception.

There is no moral equivalence between Blair's deliberate falsication of the case for war and Gilligan's tongue slips. To waste time debating Gilligan and the BBC when it is Blair and his government which should be scrutinised and condemned is to play the government's game.

And already the next phase is being planned. Blair's attack dog Gerald Kaufman, whose well known and irrational hatred of the BBC did not prevent the government from making him chair of the House of Commons' Committee responsible for the media, is even now shrilly demanding the resignation of just about every person in the Beeb responsible for protecting it from Government aggression. We are now closer not only to letting Blair escape with his lies unpunished, but to seeing the British media reduced to the passive and compliant state of CNN and Faux News.

[AP]

48. I hope you're getting paid for that.

You're using all the catch-phrases that the right want attached to Blair and you offer as fact what is clearly being revealed by the Hutton inquiry to be conjecture.

Meanwhile, I think anybody with a pulse should be able to observe what's going on and see it for what it really is.

[Spentastic]

49. So all of us the live in the U.K are deluded

And you are right?

How could I have been so blind?

[T_i_B]

51. Thank you Spentastic

It would be nice to see Another Poodle actually come over and live here before he arrogantly lectures us on these matters. A huge part of why we dislike Blair is that we actually have to live under his policies.

If you think Blair is so bloody good AP then why don't you emigrate over here? You might actually even understand us then!

Nah, on second thoughts that would involve listening wouldn't it? And AP ain't too good at that, much like his political masters.

[AP]

54. I feel sorry for you.

[Spentastic]

58. A hearty British

FUCK OFF! YOU PATRONISING WANKER

I feel better now.:)

[Oggy]

65. Well argued my fellow Brits

For my pennies worth, I'd just like to point out that for £116 per year ( TV licence cost) you get total UK coverage for TV/Radio/Web based news. All local communities are represented extremely well through the Radio network. Now look at the service you get from the biggest enemies of the BBC, "Skymurdoch" from £140 per year. 5 lousey channels, with no community benefit.

AP the BBC is a bit more than a piece of commercial meat, it is a part of the fabric of our country.

[LivingInTheBubble]

116. I agree

Its worth it to have a media outlet that can worry more about content and less about investors/advertisers.

I have Sky (satellite) and Cable TV and yet still mostly watch the terrestrial channels as they have the best content.

[Briar]

71. If this

comment is directed at me, and if it is (as I read it) implying that I am not giving my own opinions but have been paid to attack Blair on behalf of others, I must say that I am disappointed to see such a low standard of "argument" on this board. In my experience, it is the right which resorts to ad hominem attacks on the integrity of the opponent, not the left.

[AP]

72. Read it this way:

There are lots of people with lots of money trying to plant the seeds in people's minds which have given root in your post.

If I worked for one of those public relations firms which are trying to plant those seeds, and I saw your post, I'd think to myself, "money well spent."

[T_i_B]

73. And of course you are not brainwashed AP

Oh heaven forbid that anyone who tows the Blair party line should ever be completly brainwashed and unable to think for themselves without some spin doctor telling them what to do. Why nobody who still supports Blair would ever be like that! Because as we all know ALL Blairites are the only truly rational people in british politics. And not one "new" labour MP is in it for power at any cost so STOP SAYING THAT! :eyes:

[AP]

75. Those last two posts were mostly the product of me hearing

yesterday that a CIA agent was told "don't worry, we're going to blame the British" in relation to justifications for going into Iraq, and because I've heard that the CIA's largetst budget item is paying off journalists and paying for media.

So when the CIA says "we're going to blame the British", you wonder, 'hmm, how?" and then you start looking at everything that's happening and you say, "oh, that's how!!!"

[Briar]

79. so now

you are accusing me of being a weak minded victim of brainwashing. That is still an ad hominem attack intended to undermine my argument by attacking me, not a rebuttal of my points.

[AP]

82. You're really eager to move down that ad hom. path, aren't you?

Actually, I'm just sythesizing a few facts regarding opinion-moulding and noting how they find their expression in the opinions of average people. It's not just you, so don't take it personally.

[Briar]

90. This underestimates

"average" people.

[T_i_B]

112. AP can whine and evade all he wants

"new" labour's tactic of "triangulation" (or to but it more accuratly capitulation) is losing Blair votes faster then you can say Peter Mandelson. If "new" labour carries on iwth this insane and faulty logic then they can kiss goodbye to a damm sight more than just Brent East.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3121336.stm

The Liberal Democrats have snatched one of Labour's safest seats with a victory in a key north London by-election. Sarah Teather won the Brent East poll by more than 1,100 votes, overturning a 13,047 majority

The 29% swing from Labour to the Liberal Democrats is the largest for almost a decade, and is being described by commentators as one of the most stunning turnarounds in British electoral history.

Commentators are linking the Labour defeat with Tony Blair's decision to go to war with Iraq, and anger among the party's traditional voters over the involvement of the private sector in public services.

[AP]

113. "Whine"? This is what I said would happen.

Blair was between a rock and a hard place. Either way he was going to be sabotaged. This --labour losing -- is the manefestation of the sabotage.

[Spentastic]

114. But

Your argument dictates that the Tories gain ground. They didn't they got stuffed.

Please don't tell me the Lib Dems are some secret right wing army.

[T_i_B]

115. Still in denial AP?

The tories failed so completly to gain ground that there have been renewed called for Dimwit-Smith to go. and please don't try to lie about the Lib Dems being a bunch of right-wing 5th colummists. The Lib Dems won by running to the left of labour Howard Dean style.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/19/utory.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/09/19/ixportaltop.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=84303

Former Tory Cabinet minister David Mellor has called for party leader Iain Duncan Smith to go in the wake of the party's third place finish at Brent East.

Mr Mellor, whose disillusionment with the party leader prompted him to let his membership lapse, said: "Almost anyone with experience could do a better job. This by-election proves that the Tories have no future while Iain Duncan Smith remains leader.

"This result is pay-back time for a summer of inactivity and futility by Duncan Smith. For more than six weeks during the holiday period while the Government was in turmoil at home and abroad, Duncan Smith said nothing, only emerging to give an interview about the joys of fly fishing.

"It is now self-evident that Duncan Smith is utterly incapable of offering the kind of leadership the party needs to cease to be an irrelevance, which this morning it is."

[RapidCreek]

74. Indeed

Let's keep a little scorecard shall we? Gilligan vs. Blair on the bullshit meter. I'd say Mr. Blair is winning hands down. How about you AP? Gilligan and the BBC should apologize to Blair for inaccuracy but Blair should not apologize to the world for lying us into a goddamn war, eh? Sorry chief...in the scheme of things what gilligan did was inconsequencial....and if it brings to light Blair's intentionally crafted lies, misdirection and lapdog mentality it has served an invaluable purpose.

I have to wonder....are inaccuracies pushed by Murdoch and his crew of morons met with the same sentiments you aim at Gilligan and the BBC? You know...what allot of folks might call propaganda? I would hazard to guess that quite a few more people have died as a result of Mr. Murdoch's broadcasts of false pro-war propaganda supporting Mr. Blair's lies...than Mr. Gilligan's pointing out the very real fact that Blair is a lier.

The CIA convincing people to attack Blair has nothing to do with the destruction of the Labor Party. Blair and the Parties rather obvious efforts to cover up lies...which resulted in the death of tens of thousands of people do, however. If Labor were truly concerned about the future health of the party, they would out Blair for the lying complicit lapdog that he is and hand him a vote of no confidence.....and apologize to the UK for allowing him to go on as long as they did, while making every effort to assure the British public that he and those who he felt compelled to lie for, are NOT indicative of the values of Labor.

RC

[robbedvoter]

30. Bummer! I thout you meant Whistle Ass! Misleading title!

[emad]

66. The latest angle on this one is that Gilligan is a covert chum of

Cherie Blair's dodgy masseuse friend Carole Caplin, who recently had her vip security pass confiscated in a Whitehall security sweep. She has gone on record as saying that she felt she was being 'hounded like Dr Kelly' and was privy to 'all the dirt on No 10'.
Last weekend, her publicist Ian Monk dumped her, hours after a reported million pound kiss n tell book deal went sour.
Caplin has gone on record as saying she thinks her phone and emails were being tapped and her bank accounts scrutinised.
Yesterday, London's Evening Standard accused her of being a 'fantasist' - just like Blair's spinner Tom Kelly said of Dr David Kelly.

[Oggy]

69. Well....

She is a bit loopy to be fair. So to be called a 'fantasist' is probably not as obviously a slur as when Tom Kelly said of Dr David Kelly ( who was already held in high regard ).

[MostlyBlackCat2]

117. Wow. I wonder how the Skipper felt about that!

just throwing a bit of levity out there for Friday.