ANATOMY OF A LEAK
The Media Guardian's (reg required) report on the way the media handled the leaking of the Attorney General's memo on the war in Iraq omits a number of key facts.
Its headline, "Delays cost BBC Iraq scoop," is just plain wrong.
My understanding is that the Guardian and Channel 4 News received the leaked memo more than 12 hours before the BBC, in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
The memo was leaked to the BBC in the middle of yesterday afternoon and was received in a form which required extensive further checks to establish its credibility.
Once the leaked document was received, a small team of some of the most senior figures in BBC News convened to try to authenticate it, aware that at any point an injunction could have been issued preventing its publication.
With no way of knowing whether the memo was genuine or a hoax, the BBC -- quite rightly -- did not immediately rush the story to air.
But thanks to their head start of more than 12 hours, Channel 4 News and the Guardian were able to stand the story up at 7pm.
Did the BBC break the story first?
No.
Should the BBC have gone to air with a story it had not checked out thoroughly, especially in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry?
No.
Better to be second and right than first and wrong.
The Media Guardian's (reg required) report on the way the media handled the leaking of the Attorney General's memo on the war in Iraq omits a number of key facts.
Its headline, "Delays cost BBC Iraq scoop," is just plain wrong.
My understanding is that the Guardian and Channel 4 News received the leaked memo more than 12 hours before the BBC, in the early hours of Wednesday morning.
The memo was leaked to the BBC in the middle of yesterday afternoon and was received in a form which required extensive further checks to establish its credibility.
Once the leaked document was received, a small team of some of the most senior figures in BBC News convened to try to authenticate it, aware that at any point an injunction could have been issued preventing its publication.
With no way of knowing whether the memo was genuine or a hoax, the BBC -- quite rightly -- did not immediately rush the story to air.
But thanks to their head start of more than 12 hours, Channel 4 News and the Guardian were able to stand the story up at 7pm.
Did the BBC break the story first?
No.
Should the BBC have gone to air with a story it had not checked out thoroughly, especially in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry?
No.
Better to be second and right than first and wrong.
posted by Stuart at 16:01
1 Comments:
Hello, this is my first visit - like your blog very much, please keep it going. Sorry to hear about the evil hacker - I hope he's now crawled back under whatever rock he he lives beneath and won't hassle you again. What a loser.
I think you're right about the BBC - at least I hope you are. I can't bear the thought of a BBC news service that is afraid of 'upsetting' the government.
Post a Comment
<< Home