But every now and again, I detect a glimmer at the BBC that may well be the dawning of self-awareness. This was Andrew Marr (whose work I admire) writing on Sunday and thinking the unthinkable.
But if it turned out that Mr Gilligan was wrong - because that is the accusation being made in effect, that he sexed up what Dr Kelly said and broadcast an inaccurate report, and then the whole weight of the BBC hierarchy, right up to the governors swung behind him and his judgement - if that turned out to be wrong - and I say if - that would be extremely serious for the BBC all the way up.And this piece from Nick Higham on Monday was revealing, it restates the BBC’s case while providing an insight into the groupthink required to build a house of cards.
For an organisation which sets great store by its reputation for accuracy and impartiality this is potentially immensely damaging. It helps to explain why, ever since Andrew Gilligan's controversial report was broadcast on the Today programme on 29 May, the BBC has so steadfastly resisted government pressure to retract or apologise. There is simply too much at stake.But then, right at the end, Higham goes and gets the fundamental question wrong.
For the BBC the fundamental question is still this: did the two journalists accurately report what Dr Kelly said - even if Dr Kelly himself later denied saying it to the foreign affairs select committee?For God’s sake people! This is not epistemology.
But of course there is a wider question as well. If he did say what Mr Gilligan and Ms Watts alleged, was Dr Kelly right?
Andrew Gilligan wrote a story that might have been the biggest story of his career, if he could have substantiated it but he couldn’t. All he had was a single source, Dr Kelly, whose reliability even the BBC now seems to be questioning.
The story should never have seen the light of day.
The fundamental question for the BBC is: what is Greg Dyke going to do about it?
