I mentioned in a post a week or so ago that I’m doing some research on the Hutton Inquiry for my dissertation on anonymous sources in the mass media.
In that post I wrote that I, for no other reason than just instinct, support Andrew Gilligan — the journalist who broke the ’sexed up’ dossier story — in what he did
Which raised a couple of criticisms, which I’m in no position to respond to as I am, at this present time, very under-educated in the whole affair. Most notable of the comments that came my way was one from Adrian Monck who responded with a quote from a book review on the subject, and suggested that Gilligan had acted inappropriately when dealing with his anonymous source, Dr David Kelly. He makes a strong case.
Well, I’m hoping to put all these thoughts to the man himself very soon. I’m extremely lucky to have Professor Richard ‘Probably-knows-every-journalist-in-the-world’ Keeble as my dissertation tutor, and he quickly passed on a contact number for Gilligan who is, I’m told, expecting my call.
I’d want to talk to this man for hours. Even prior to starting my dissertation, Gilligan had been on my very exclusive mental list of journalists I want to have a pint/meal with
But I know this man won’t have hours. I’ll be lucky to get minutes. So what should I try to talk to him about? If you were in my shoes, what would be your, for the sake of argument, five questions that you’d want to ask?
I would also like to have a pint with Gilligan,I consider that he was maded a scapegoat by the BBC and the government for being one of the few reporters prepared to question the rational for war.
I got the chance to listen to him at the first casualty of war-media and the truth confernec in London,where I have to say he came across as rather a sad figure with an axe to grind.
My five questions
1.If you could turn the clock back,would you have conducted the off the record 6.07 interview on the Today progamme.
2.Does he beleive in the conspiracy theory that journalists were fed disinformation in the run up to the Iraq war.
3.How would he recommend to student journalists to deal with anonymous sources.
4.Does he have regrets about the reportiung of the sex upped dossier.
5.Where does he see his future now in journalism
My
Well since you ask – and it’s only one question really – I’d have to ask him about what Dr Kelly really told him about the ‘chemical tipped’ missiles. From the Hutton transcripts:
AG – “This is him discussing another thing that Blix overlooked. “The 18 chemical missiles”, these were missiles with the potential for chemical tipped warheads although I do not think they actually obtained chemicals, “were reported by Blix but they were downplayed. Blix thought they were leftovers.”"
The thing is Hans Blix didn’t overlook them and he certainly knew the Iraqis had obtained chemicals which they had placed into many of the warheads. The bigger question is whether Blix realised that the ‘missing’ Scuds (and their attendant chemical warheads) might have actually been used up in the 1991 Gulf War and then (underlined!) chose to overlook this fact. The figure 18 comes from UN documents, this actual number is never used anywhere – period, instead it is the sum of twelve and six if you know where to look (and it doesn’t relate to ‘missing’ missiles or the ‘up to 20′ discussed in the September dossier). Only Dr Kelly or Hans Blix would have understood the significance. Dr Kelly told Andrew Gilligan but did he explain any further? If he had, and Andrew Gilligan had completely understood all of this, he (AG) might have gone on the Today programme and said that Saddam had NO Scuds or the strategic capability to attack Cyprus or anyplace else equidistant with CW warheads. But he didn’t, and did the 45 minute thing instead. So did AG understand about the missiles then? Does he today?
There – I think that’s five questions now. Best of luck with it.
With regards
Andrew M.
What’s his shorthand speed? Does he regret not using it for the interview?