BBC journalism in the spotlight

by Nick Higham BBC media correspondent

The Hutton inquiry into the death of government scientist Dr David Kelly has raised some serious questions about the BBC.

So far its reporters, including Andrew Gilligan, its director of news Richard Sambrook and its chairman Gavyn Davies have done their best to answer them.

Monday was the turn of the corporation's director-general, Greg Dyke.

In nearly an hour and a half of close and pointed questioning by James Dingemans QC, counsel for the inquiry, and on occasion by Lord Hutton himself, a clearly uncomfortable Greg Dyke gave the impression of a man impatient with detail.

Greg Dyke appeared to be a man impatient with detail

He gave the impression of being more intent on rebutting an unjustified attack by Alastair Campbell than with establishing the accuracy of a story which had made serious allegations against the government.

It also appeared he either had not asked for, or had not been given, crucial information by subordinates.

One of those questions raised by earlier evidence was this: Why had the BBC defended its journalism so robustly when Andrew Gilligan's own editor had raised serious doubts?

He had questioned, in an internal e-mail, the quality of his original story, calling it "flawed reporting" and marred by Gilligan's "loose use of language".

E-mail not known about

On Monday we discovered the answer: No-one in the upper levels of the BBC had known of the e-mail's existence.

We had already learnt from Gavyn Davies's evidence that the BBC's governors (some of whom had their own independent doubts about Gilligan's story) had not been told about it.

We had other people, including Andrew Gilligan, going through the individual charges and checking them. I made the assumption that our answers were right Greg Dyke

But neither, it seems, were Greg Dyke or Richard Sambrook - even though the two men had assured the governors they were happy with Gilligan's approach.

Indeed Greg Dyke told Lord Hutton he had not known of the e-mail's existence until the first day of the inquiry.

Equally damaging was the revelation that as Greg Dyke and Richard Sambrook drafted a reply to a letter from Alastair Campbell, denying that the BBC's entire coverage of the Iraq war had been biased, they had still made no effort independently to verify the central allegations of Andrew Gilligan's original story.

Greg Dyke told the inquiry he had cancelled his appointments for the day following Campbell's letter in order to support Richard Sambrook and his staff and help them draft their reply.

"Were you not also there to check on whether any of the charges in Mr Campbell's letter might be right?" he was asked by James Dingemans.

"Or did you not see that as part of your function?"

Richard Sambrook had letters from Alastair Campbell

"We had other people, including Andrew Gilligan, going through the individual charges and checking them," Mr Dyke said.

"I made the assumption that our answers were right."

But given the seriousness of the charges and the very strong protests being made by the government, Lord Hutton himself asked, why had he not tried to confirm the accuracy of the story himself?

"Because we were reporting a source," Greg Dyke replied.

"There's a distinction between whether the BBC was saying this or whether this was the BBC reporting a source."

Lord Hutton returned to the question, apparently not satisfied with the answer.

Second letter

Greg Dyke also said he had not replied to a second "private" letter from Alastair Campbell (Campbell's letter to Sambrook had also been released to the press) which was noticeably more conciliatory.

When I look back at that day... I would have stopped and said 'We are in danger here of trying to reply too quickly because we are trying to reply on Alastair Campbell's timetable' Greg Dyke

By that stage he said he thought things had gone too far - the BBC was under ferocious public attack at the Foreign Affairs Committee, at the lobby and in the letter to Sambrook.

But he admitted that with hindsight it was a mistake to have rushed so quickly to defend the original story.

"When I look back at that day, I would like to think that if I was there today I would have stopped and said 'We are in danger here of trying to reply too quickly because we are trying to reply on Alastair Campbell's timetable.'"

Like Gavyn Davies, Greg Dyke made clear that the BBC's response was dictated partly by the feeling that Alastair Campbell's attack had been premeditated.

It was seen as a deliberate attempt to divert attention from Mr Campbell's role in the government's February dossier, the "dodgy dossier".

"One felt old scores were being settled," he added.

Lessons to be learned

Also like his chairman, Mr Dyke was highly critical of Andrew Gilligan's e-mails to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, in which he told the MPs that Dr Kelly had been the source for his Newsnight colleague, Susan Watts.

And he ended by saying the BBC was looking at what lessons might be learnt from the whole affair.

The word hindsight cropped up frequently during the director-general's testimony, as it has during the testimony of many other witnesses Nick Higham

There may be new guidelines on the use of anonymous sources.

"Two-ways" between reporters and presenters on sensitive stories might in future be scripted.

There would be new rules on BBC journalists writing for newspapers.

The word hindsight cropped up frequently during the director-general's testimony, as it has during the testimony of many other witnesses.

If Lord Hutton achieves nothing else, he will have persuaded many in both the BBC and government that things might be managed better in future.