The much awaited Hutton report is an absolute vindication for Tony Blair and a catastrophe for the BBC. So the BBC Chairman has now resigned. Yay! Here is the BBC’s summary of the findings:
* Dr Kelly killed himself because of a severe loss of self-esteem as he felt he had lost people’s trust and as he was subjected to the media glare.
* BBC governors should have properly investigated Downing Street’s complaints as they defended the corporation’s independence.
* Tony Blair’s wish for the dossier to make a persuasive case might have “subconsciously influenced” Joint Intelligence Committee chairman John Scarlett to put the document in stronger words than usual intelligence reports.
* But Mr Scarlett had acted to ensure the dossier was consistent with reliable intelligence
* There was no “dishonourable, underhand or duplicitous strategy” by the government to leak Dr Kelly’s name covertly to help its battle with the BBC.
* The Ministry of Defence was, however, “at fault and to be criticised” for failing to tell Dr Kelly that his identity as the suspected source would be confirmed to journalists who suggested it.
It doesn’t get more definitive than that.
THE NEW YORK TIMES’ NEW BEAT: They’ve discovered a new species that they’re featuring in Science Times and elsewhere in the paper. And they even have a new reporter for it specifically. The new species is called a “conservative.” New York Times editors and reporters have long heard that such creatures exist, but, under the new aegis of Bill Keller, are determined to actually find a few. They’re even going to talk to some on the phone! There’s no limit to the lengths to which the NYT will go to provide the most comprehensive treatment of the world for their readers.
MORE ON SCANDINAVIA: I’m guilty of an error in my posting about same-sex registered partnerships in Scandinavia. I thought they were open to gays and straights. They’re not. Straights have the option of another marriage-lite option, opposite-sex cohabitation (“samboerskap” in Norway, “samboskap” in Sweden, “samboskab” in Denmark), as well as old-style marriage (“ekteskap” in Norway, “äktenskap” in Sweden, “ægteskab” in Denmark). The cultural significance of these institutions is bound up in language and cultural expectations, which is why it is difficult to make crude cross-cultural claims. RPs, however, are still not marriage (which is the critical point) – and don’t have all the rights that married couples have. They have a different name and are more like California’s civil unions but not as generous as Britain’s civil partnerships. This gets a little confusing after a while. And that’s the point as well: by creating a smorgasbord of civil options for gays and straights in different ways – civil unions, registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil partnerships, marriages, etc – the clarity and social power of marriage is deeply diluted. That’s what makes me a conservative on this issue. Some gays disagree with me on this – especially on the left. What’s striking is that the traditional right is now in alliance with the left on supporting all sorts of marriage-lite options in order to prevent marriage for gays. The right worries that gays will contaminate marriage; the left worries that marriage will contaminate gays. What a consensus!
The Dish 