Comments on: What would you ask Andrew Gilligan?

By: Publisher wanted: The New Blogger's Handbook | Dave Lee / jBlog

Publisher wanted: The New Blogger's Handbook | Dave Lee / jBlog — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:31:52 +0000

[...] My disseration was on sources in the media, and I blogged that I wanted to talk to Andrew Gilligan. I asked everyone what they would ask him. The response was phenomenal. In the end up, what started out as a request for a chat ended up [...]

By: Ben

Ben — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:37:02 +0000

What’s his shorthand speed? Does he regret not using it for the interview?

By: Any Qs: Andrew Gilligan « Joanna Geary

Any Qs: Andrew Gilligan « Joanna Geary — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:03:58 +0000

[...] Mr Gilligan, of ’sexed up’ dossiers, weapons of mass destruction and Dr David Kelly fame is being interview by journalism student/blogger Dave Lee. [...]

By: Andrew M

Andrew M — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 23:48:35 +0000

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.

By: Nigel Barlow

Nigel Barlow — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 17:13:49 +0000

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