Well that was a success, I guess! The other day I asked for a few suggestions for questions I could put to Andrew Gilligan, who I spoke to briefly earlier today.

Some interesting suggestions came forward. Some sarcastic — and rather hard-hitting — ideas sprang up. Which is nice, I do like the dry, sharp wit we journalists seem to share among us. Thanks to Roy Greenslade for elevating the debate by linking to me on his blog.

Most interesting was an email I recieved while I was shuffling round Asda doing a bit of shopping (yes, I check my emails in Asda. And yes, I need help). It was from a former Sunday Telegraph colleague of Gilligan’s.

“I think any paper lucky enough to have him as a defence corr should be extremely thankful,” the email read. “His methods may have puzzled the newsdesk from time to time, but I would trust Andrew 100 per cent on any story. He’s a very decent guy who was put through the mill (an expression that scarcely does justice to what he went through) over a story that we all know now to have been in essence completely correct. He’s a good egg.”

A well-put comment that put things into perspective.

Earlier in the day, I spoke with Richard Keeble who, as ever, dropped everything to help one of his students. Without sounding like I’m scrounging for marks here — not that Richard would be swayed by such efforts anyway — there has never been a moment when Richard hasn’t made every effort to help the students he teaches. His efforts are so energetic, in fact, that he had to dash off after our chat for an appointment with an ostiopath… he hurt his back playing football with students a fortnight ago.

Anyway, I spoke with Richard about what he thought. We flipped between one issue: the validity of a lone source. Every journalism text I’ve read has said to get as many sources as you can. If they are anonymous, then this is doubly important. If you get someone come forward with information, find another two to back it up. If not, you can’t trust it.

But, in practice, this would mean that the truth that came from David Kelly would never have been revealed. Or, at least, not as quickly as it was. Gilligan, in this sense, broke the ‘rules’ of journalism. But as his former colleague reminded me, he was “in essence completely correct”.

Back to the original point: What should I ask Andrew Gilligan?

I have decided on some questions. I think they’re good. Despite some of the suggestions, I’ve opted to not be swayed by all the opinions I’ve heard today. My dissertation is on a certain subject of journalism, and I’ll be sticking to that. Doing so will keep me focused on the task in hand, I hope.