The Hutton inquiry has treated the British public to a classic performance from Alastair Campbell, who is quite an operator, writes Pete Lunn
Only Alastair Campbell could do it. Accused of doctoring the dossier on Iraqi weapons to justify war, he told the Hutton inquiry on Tuesday that a note in his diary showed he wanted it toned down. Others may have been tempted to "sex up" intelligence reports, but Alastair suggested a cold shower.
It was classic Campbell. Tony Blair's communications director didn't just deny the story, he said the opposite was true. After months of denials, he still produced a revelation. Within minutes it decorated the corner of 24-hour news screens and was a headline for print agencies. Brilliant, it has to be said.
Campbell is often described as the ultimate spin-doctor. This is misleading. The main weapon in the dark art of spin is trade with the journalist - exploiting their ambitions. If a hack gives you a hard time, give them less information, don't return calls, leave them to explain to their editor why they missed the line in a rival's copy. Reward loyal writers with occasional exclusives.
This is not Campbell's game - though some Labour colleagues are master players. He's more old-fashioned; a big-hitting prizefighter of a press officer, whose trademark is to turn defence into attack. I first encountered the man and his new Labour spinning team while working in the BBC TV newsroom. It was not unknown to get a call during bulletins, demanding retractions before credits rolled.
Tony Blair's 1996 conference speech as opposition leader had the misfortune to coincide with the O.J. Simpson verdict. Campbell watched O.J. hit the top of our six o'clock news. Before going to air, the editor of the nine o'clock bulletin received a lengthy fax: surely he wouldn't decide that the main speech of the year, by the next prime minister, was less important than the fate of a celebrity hardly known this side of the Atlantic? A solid counter-punch, though we were leading with Blair anyway.
Nine years on, the Hutton inquiry has found Campbell's appetite for telling the BBC how do its job very healthy. The head of news, Richard Sambrook, was last week asked to take the inquiry through the history of complaints from Mr Campbell. The reply was arch: "You will understand, I hope, if I don't go through every single one."
Telephoning the Prime Minister's press office is a unique journalistic experience. The answer to a simple question ("Are you going to do X?") can be disarmingly terse. I have been told: "That's not the line today." "I wouldn't go for that angle if I were you", and "Are you really thinking of running that?"
The strong implication is that your story is rubbish. Note that there is no actual denial, which would allow the story to be "The government has denied . . ." A new phrase entered British politics in recent years: "The non-denial denial". It's a clever strategy. Instead of talking about the government, you are probed for any professional insecurity and end up defending ever having dialled. You are reminded that you have weaknesses, too. So when Alastair Campbell attacked the BBC, strongly, in public, it was a fair guess that he needed to defend himself and would inflict wounds. Like all involved in this unfortunate affair, he could not possibly have foreseen the apparent suicide of Dr David Kelly that led to this public inquiry. But calling BBC reports lies is strong stuff, intended for others to pursue.
The BBC line had appeared resolute and enjoyed some support in the press. Last week, even sympathetic observers admitted it fell apart.
Two reporters, Andrew Gilligan (Today, BBC Radio 4) and Susan Watts (Newsnight, BBC2), produced notes. Dr Kelly had told them Campbell wanted to include the claim that Iraq could deploy weapons of mass destruction in 45 minutes. This was Gilligan's exclusive. Watts told the inquiry she could "discern the difference" between gossipy remarks and considered opinion. Ouch.
Gilligan had already admitted mistakenly labelling the 45-minute claim "wrong", when he should have used "questionable". An e-mail surfaced from his editor, Kevin Marsh, calling his reporting "flawed". Watts criticised Sambrook for seeking her source to help corroborate Gilligan's story. Why did it need corroboration?
Tuesday added pain. An e-mail popped up, from Gilligan to an opposition politician, suggesting questions to ask Dr Kelly in a parliamentary committee - crossing the line between journalist and activist.
Fairness and balance require allegations to be put to the accused before a story runs, especially if the source is lone and anonymous. Gilligan didn't call No 10. It's contentious whether he spoke to anyone in government about it.
Campbell saved some flourishes for this. It was "unbelievable", displayed "lack of ethics", tabloid newspapers wouldn't do it. He ended: "I still, to this day, find it extraordinary that anybody in the BBC can defend that."
Off the record, senior BBC staff have told me they can't. They say Campbell's attack will damage BBC journalism - more caution, stricter guidelines, policed by nervous bosses. The prizefighter is ahead on points. But a judicial inquiry is an arena unlike that of the media game. Both sides can lose. Lord Hutton interrupts counsel to voice his own questions. He asks repeatedly why Dr Kelly's name was released by inviting journalists to guess it. Responsibility for this is going round Whitehall like a ticking bomb. Blair, Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, Campbell, all have distanced themselves. No one can explain.
A cynical explanation? Release the name in a statement and the front pages all carry the story. But if only those who guess correctly get the scoop, others won't prioritise a day-old story. Overall, attention is reduced.
The government will suffer if Hutton decides Dr Kelly's welfare was sacrificed to pursue a fight. The inquiry may recall Alastair Campbell. As a journalist, I hope it does. Susan Watts reported a good source saying the government was obsessed with finding intelligence to support its claim that Iraq posed an immediate threat. Campbell penned no complaint, telling the inquiry this report was "wholly different". Really? The key allegation, lack of objectivity, is the same. It's a harder report to attack though.
• Pete Lunn is a former BBC journalist and editor of NewsTalk 106