Andy Hall wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 01:50:24 -0000, "IMM" wrote:


"Andy Hall" wrote in message


I guess that if Hutton had flipped the coin the other way and believed
the BBC's position that you would have said that it was a really bad
report??

Yes. Inaccurate reporting, and the poor checks/balances mechanisms to
ensure accuracy, that was exposed by the report. The MOD got a little
rapping for its failure to deal with the media properly. The BBC top brass
failing to act after the reports went out is really a trivial matter,
despite all the board wanting to resign. The reports should never have gone
out in the first place; and that is the big probem.

I hope it tightens up reporting all over, but I doubt it. They get away
with murder. The inaccuracies and total distortions I have read over the
years should not be allowed; one of the reasons I don't read newspapers too
much as they are the biggest offenders. They all have to get their acts
together, especially the TV/radio news people, as they have more influence
than any other.

That wasn't the point I was making. That was if Hutton had come
out against the government position and Gilligan was right would you
have still felt that it was a good report? In other words, would you
have supported the government position regardless of the evidence
either way?


.andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl


Look A HALL why don't you change your name to R S HALL as it would be
more appropriate.
Just in case you're as thick as I think you are that's ARSEHOLE