Daisley binned

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I daresay Andrew Gilligan and Greg Dyke might have something to say about that, amongst countless others.

 

That will be Andrew Gilligan whose evidence was found by an independent inquiry to be unreliable and to have contained systematic inaccuracies? And Greg Dyke who resigned essentially after the BBC Governors lost confidence in him following his internal handling of the Gilligan investigation?

It wasn't Alistair Campbell who got them to leave the BBC. Anyone suggesting otherwise is a massive revisionist.

48 minutes ago, JMDP said:

An incredible post from the deposit loser about Campbell there. I like the part about Campbell not being on record criticising or questioning journalists. Stunning rewrite from the naive wannabe showing his desperation to be right about everything that leaves him making a fool of himself again.

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was:

"We have no records of Campbell complaining about a specific journalist, questioning their suitability to fill the role they do at a specific news organisation."

This is very different from and significantly more specific than:

"Being on record criticising or questioning journalists."

If I say:

"That journalist's piece on Iraq is bollocks. It's factually inaccurate, willfully distorts the truth, and is gutter journalism"

That is very different from saying:

"I wonder is that the stance of the BBC you are expressing in that Tweet?"

or

"This isn't appropriate material for the BBC's diplomatic correspondent to be Tweeting is it?"

[welshbairn]

What part of "They sexed up the intelligence" did Gilligan get wrong? Even Blair told Campbell it wasn't worth going to war with the BBC over because he knew he was right. Independent report my arse.

[Ad Lib]

1 minute ago, welshbairn said:

What part of "They sexed up the intelligence" did Gilligan get wrong? Even Blair told Campbell it wasn't worth going to war with the BBC over because he knew he was right. Independent report my arse.

Well for starters, the Chilcot Inquiry rejected the claim Gilligan made that Number 10, be it the prime minister or his advisers, had been responsible for what he described as the unjustified certainty of the presentations of the report and intelligence put before Parliament. He blamed the Joint Intelligence Committee, which derived evidence predominantly from MI6. Campbell did not "sex up" any intelligence. So Gilligan got that wrong.

Secondly, the Hutton Inquiry absolutely was independent and judge-led.

[welshbairn]

This was the bit of Gilligan's report that annoyed Campbell:

Quote

I've spoken to a British official who was involved in the preparation of the dossier and he told me that in the week before it was published, the draft dossier produced by the intelligence services added little to what was already publicly known. He said:

"It was transformed in the week before it was published to make it sexier. The classic example was the claim that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within 45 minutes. That information was not in the original draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes, because it wasn't reliable. Most of the things in the dossier were double-sourced, but that was single sourced, and we believe that the source was wrong."

Now this official told me the dossier was transformed at the behest of Downing Street, and he added:

"Most people in intelligence were unhappy with the dossier because it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward."

Downing Street ordered the MOD to leak the name of the source, David Kelly. About the same time they admitted that the 45 minute claim was unsubstantiated bollocks. 

 

[Ad Lib]

5 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

This was the bit of Gilligan's report that annoyed Campbell:

Downing Street ordered the MOD to leak the name of the source, David Kelly. About the same time they admitted that the 45 minute claim was unsubstantiated bollocks. 

Except of course the Hutton Report concluded that the MoD was under an obligation to disclose the identity of David Kelly. It did not conclude that Downing Street had "ordered" the MoD to leak the name of the source. Its primary criticism was the non-disclosure of the fact that the leak was being made to Kelly in advance.

[doulikefish]

I see the 'make arse of self" change the topic defence has been deployed

[Fide]

If this thread has taught me anything it's that the party don't start till Ad Lib arrives.

[welshbairn]

I can only think that Ad Lib in defending the independent rigorousness of the Hutton and Butler enquiries is lamenting the halcyon days when such was the power of the Liberal Party that a few words in the right ears could get Jeremy Thorpe off an attempted murder charge and allow Cyril Smith and it seems Clement Freud to get away with continual acts of extreme beastliness. It's the duty of any party to endeavor to influence the press as much as possible, complaining about a toerag like Daisley is about as low a level as you can get on the scale of political interference.

[milton75]

23 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

The SNP has form for this. Salmond did it with Nick Robinson and his nauseating praise for the loonybins that protested outside BBC Scotland during the referendum. It is a concerted attempt to interfere with internal staffing and editorial decisions of independent media outlets by a process of public intimidation and mob mobilisation. By a political party of government.

This is creepy.

Salmond complained about Nick Robinson not because Robinson is an unlikable dick in general (although he is), but because he willfully misrepresented a situation.

With a public broadcaster that is supposed to uphold values and a charter the right to reply to this exists. I do appreciate that you would far prefer that the SNP is misrepresented in all media outlets, instead of the mere 90% of print media as is the case currently, but gnashing your teeth at the few occasions in which it slaps someone like Robinson down really isn't the best use of your redoubtable talents.

[Jamie_B]

I can only think that Ad Lib in defending the independent rigorousness of the Hutton and Butler enquiries is lamenting the halcyon days when such was the power of the Liberal Party that a few words in the right ears could get Jeremy Thorpe off an attempted murder charge and allow Cyril Smith and it seems Clement Freud to get away with continual acts of extreme beastliness. It's the duty of any party to endeavor to influence the press as much as possible, complaining about a toerag like Daisley is about as low a level as you can get on the scale of political interference.

Pretty much this. It's laughable to suggest the likes of Campbell (and Mandelson) didn't go far beyond what Nicolson and Wishart are said to have done here.

Have a read of Andrew Marr's excellent My Trade history of British journalism where he discusses just the type of influence both tried to exert.

Speaking as a journalist, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect you might get complaints to your superiors if someone thinks you're displaying bias/inaccuracy/whatever. It's up to the bosses how they respond though and thats where the real issue lies for me. If STV have been happy for their employees to drive traffic to their website by using certain tactics on social media, they should be backing their journalists on the back of it.

[Ad Lib]

On 8/22/2016 at 18:53, doulikefish said:

I see the 'make arse of self" change the topic defence has been deployed

Except of course it wasn't me who changed the topic. Welshbairn was the one who brought-up Campbell and then specifically the events that led to the Hutton inquiry, not me. I merely responded to those points. Zero marks for the no mark from Peterhead.

[Ad Lib]

6 hours ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

1. Pretty much this. It's laughable to suggest the likes of Campbell (and Mandelson) didn't go far beyond what Nicolson and Wishart are said to have done here.

2. Speaking as a journalist, I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect you might get complaints to your superiors if someone thinks you're displaying bias/inaccuracy/whatever. It's up to the bosses how they respond though and thats where the real issue lies for me. If STV have been happy for their employees to drive traffic to their website by using certain tactics on social media, they should be backing their journalists on the back of it.

 

1. Just as well no one actually said that then, isn't it? I merely pointed out how the tactics were different and disanalogous, making whataboutery excuses void.

2. You can't separate the two though. It takes an intimidator to trigger a capitulation. The mere fact that other politicians do it too isn't an excuse. The nature of the complaints here is also completely inappropriate. If Wishart and Nicolson had problems with anything Daisley published on the STV platform (note, their actual complaints didn't even relate to that, but to comments made on his personal Twitter account) they should have complained through formal channels; not by intimidation tactics on Twitter and a nudge and a wink at a breakfast event.

[welshbairn]

I don't get this outrage that the Twitterfield is sacrosanct and a politician attacking a hostile journalist on it is somehow breaking a boundary, especially when said journo supports the likes of "Brian Spanner", whoever the vile creation is. I also don't see why a private chat to his editor, which is the norm, would be somehow less damaging or less transparent than calling the c**t out on twitter.

[Ad Lib]

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

I don't get this outrage that the Twitterfield is sacrosanct and a politician attacking a hostile journalist on it is somehow breaking a boundary, especially when said journo supports the likes of "Brian Spanner", whoever the vile creation is. I also don't see why a private chat to his editor, which is the norm, would be somehow less damaging or less transparent than calling the c**t out on twitter.

They didn't just criticise him on Twitter. They both directly and publicly connected that criticism to his position of employment. That's the issue.

Complaints about this should not be done through "a quiet word". They should make a formal complaint like anyone else.

[welshbairn]

9 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

They didn't just criticise him on Twitter. They both directly and publicly connected that criticism to his position of employment. That's the issue.

Complaints about this should not be done through "a quiet word". They should make a formal complaint like anyone else.

I'm not sure what formal complaint procedure you're talking about that politicians normally use when trying to influence the media. Direct and public criticism is refreshing tbh.

[Ad Lib]

Just now, welshbairn said:

I'm not sure what formal complaint procedure you're talking about that politicians normally use when trying to influence the media. Direct and public criticism is refreshing tbh.

http://www.stv.tv/info/contact/

[welshbairn]

[Fide]

7 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

1. Just as well no one actually said that then, isn't it? I merely pointed out how the tactics were different and disanalogous, making whataboutery excuses void.

2. You can't separate the two though. It takes an intimidator to trigger a capitulation. The mere fact that other politicians do it too isn't an excuse. The nature of the complaints here is also completely inappropriate. If Wishart and Nicolson had problems with anything Daisley published on the STV platform (note, their actual complaints didn't even relate to that, but to comments made on his personal Twitter account) they should have complained through formal channels; not by intimidation tactics on Twitter and a nudge and a wink at a breakfast event.

You're such a fucking moron, Libbers.  His Twitter clearly stated "STV Digital & Politics Editor". Although, cleverly, thats now been removed.

He ran news stories and wrote news pieces which he linked on said Twitter.

His Twitter was very un-personal, although I see he's now also changed his bio to state "my views do not reflect those of my employer".  Perhaps if he'd done that in the first place, there would have been no issue.

Still, I'm sure you'll keep hammering on, ad absurdum.

[Jamie_B]

So I did something last night that no-one involved in this story has apparently done (or at least published in relation to it) and spoke to an honest to god, real life STV insider. Some massive red herrings being thrown about publicly on this issue from what I gather.

[Fide]

40 minutes ago, Jamie_Beatson said:

So I did something last night that no-one involved in this story has apparently done (or at least published in relation to it) and spoke to an honest to god, real life STV insider. Some massive red herrings being thrown about publicly on this issue from what I gather.

Care to expand a little?