The David Kelly tragedy has thrust the BBC into the limelight as has seldomhappened before. Emily Bell examines the corporations's role inthe story and how it has conducted itself in the face of enormous pressure
On Sunday morning the BBC finished what it had started. Following a final conference call between the director-general, Greg Dyke, his director of news, Richard Sambrook and the head of corporate affairs, Sally Osman, the corporation put out a statement confirming that Dr David Kelly was the source for defence correspondent Andrew Gilligan's infamous story broken on the Today programme on May 29th.
The BBC does not relish its role at the heart of this story. It does not want to be the organisation which brings down a government. It has had its journalistic practices endlessly scrutinised and criticised, often by a national press whose own hygiene standards are far lower than those of the corporation.
It is an open secret that long before Gilligan dropped his time-bomb of a government dossier made more sexy (like many of the confusing details of this story the words "sexed up" never appeared in his original disclosure), the BBC had been under relentless pressure from Downing Street's communications directorate over its coverage of the Iraq conflict.
Privately, Sambrook and his deputy, Mark Damazer, had seen a daily stream of pressure and complaint about the BBC's reporting, orchestrated by Alastair Campbell, who later described the corporation as having an "anti-war agenda".
Any correspondent who files reports for the BBC which are off-message knows what to expect; either an abusive tirade from Campbell in person or a multi-paged letter complaining to their boss of their lack of journalistic rigour, or sometimes both.
Editors, journalists, Sambrook and Damazer know that it is part of the price for attempting to conduct independent journalism. When a recent academic study found that the BBC had in fact given more airtime to government sources in the Iraqi conflict than any other news outlet it showed up the untenable nature of Campbell's central complaint.
It will be impossible for the BBC not to ask itself questions about its own role in the death of Dr Kelly. Should it have acted differently in relation to Gilligan's original story? Should it have given Dr Kelly more guidance or support in terms of his role in the story once he had been outed as the "mole"? Should the BBC be running uncorroborated single-source stories at all?
Even as Sambrook was negotiating the terms of Sunday's statement with Dr Kelly's family, elsewhere the destructively macho spin standoff continued unabated.
One cabinet minister was allegedly suggesting to Sunday papers that Dr Kelly's name had reached the public domain through a leak from the BBC's chairman, Gavyn Davies. Something which the press already knew to be untrue, as Dr Kelly's name slipped all too easily out of the Ministry of Defence, the very government department which employed him. It was confirmed by Campbell's office which said they were "99 per cent certain" Dr Kelly was the BBC's "mole".
The former minister and communications expert, Peter Mandelson, was busily penning an extraordinary piece for the Observer claiming that it was the BBC's obsession with Alastair Campbell which had caused the tragedy. More spin which prompted an unnamed minister also to remark to the Observer: "Will we never learn?".
The journalistic questions raised by Dr Kelly's death are as profound as the political questions. Internally the BBC did not, as the government suggested, ever waver from backing its journalist or its story. BBC news executives might have been unhappy with Gilligan in respect of an article written for the Mail on Sunday, where he arguably dropped too many details about the source of his story. This resulted in an overdue ban on BBC correspondents penning columns for the national press.
Outside this particular point, the BBC's procedures could have been improved with hindsight, but there are few journalistic organisations which could honestly say they would have been better or even different in the same circumstances.
It was impossible for the BBC to disclose its source - the free flow of information rests on the principle that sources can talk to the press with a guarantee of anonymity.
The promised public inquiry may reveal more about whether Dr Kelly did unilaterally come forward or whether there was pressure from the MoD which the BBC could have alleviated. Was saying anything at all about sources in effect saying too much? This is a very difficult point for a public-service broadcaster which is expected to show greater accountability than the commercial press.
Some might raise the question whether the nature of the original Gilligan story - which was disclosed in a "two-way" discussion on Today rather than in an edited package - was tightly enough edited.
Although the two-way gives the impression of casual discourse, on stories such as this it is highly unlikely that the disclosure would not have been choreographed, possibly even scripted, and that the story would not have been known to the editor. The two-way is often used as a device - ironically - to add impact to a story.
The government would like to see the BBC adhere to its own suggested guidelines of sourcing stories in triplicate, although this is an "ideal" rather than a rigid rule. But to shackle the BBC in the pursuit of original journalism would be entirely wrong so long as the editorial processes bear scrutiny.
The BBC has not as a result of its bruising encounter changed any journalistic practices or issued new guidelines to producers or editors. As it said in its statement on Sunday it will co-operate fully with the public inquiry, although it will not be drawn yet into whether it should abide by the terms of the public inquiry.
As for Gilligan's story, the detail of his discussion with Dr Kelly was known only to the two of them. Whether or not it included any discussion of Campbell may never be fully established; nor will the issue of whether Campbell deserves the apology he so doggedly and tragically pursued.
The BBC has stood behind its story and behind its journalist in a way which is entirely consistent with the operation of free and independent media. Whether it stood by Dr Kelly in a way that would have alleviated his personal torture we may find through the public inquiry.
Andrew Gilligan, who has suffered every journalist's worst nightmare, will be suffering further agonies, as will the civil servants at the MoD and Downing Street. Alastair Campbell, it is widely assumed, will stay only until the outcome of the public inquiry, if that.
The BBC's public stoicism is, however, bound to mask a subtle, even unconscious shift in its own journalistic psyche, and how that will impact on its future coverage may take years to work through.
- (Guardian Service)