From the David Kelly inquiry today:
"I felt under some considerable pressure to reveal my source. I also felt the purpose of that was to help corroborate the Andrew Gilligan allegations and not for any proper news purpose," she told the inquiry.

"I was most concerned that there was an attempt to mould them so that they were corroborative which I felt was misguided and false."

That's a quote from BBC news editor Susan Watts describing how her bosses twisted her arm to make her twist her story in support of their defense of the BBC's idea of objective journalism.

All the leftist newspapers were shouting this morning that Susan Watts had corroborated Gilligan's claim about Alastair Campbell. I won't bore you with the details. By this afternoon when she had finished her testimony begun yesterday, we learned that she was pretty pissed off not only with her bosses but with all the frothing dailies who had got it exactly wrong in their morning reports. The Guardian and Independent at least have stories up now about this.

What's that thing they teach you at journalism school? That it's inadvisable to ignore certain qualifiers when referring to a statement made by the subject of your report? Take "not" for instance. As in "David Kelly did [not] in fact say that the 45-minute claim was inserted at Alastair Cambell's insistence." Would you agree that leaving out "not" changes the meaning of the statement in some important way?

Steve | 17:19 |