- Peter Horrocks
- 22 Feb 07, 03:52 PM
Last weekend, excerpts from a book by former ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ reporter Robin Aitken were published in a Sunday newspaper (). He wrote that being a Tory in the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ was "the loneliest job in Britain", and claimed that the ideal at the heart of the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, that it should be fair-minded and non-partisan , had "all but disappeared".
Naturally I disagree with Robin on this. But tonight I'm taking the plunge and discussing with him and others whether the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is institutionally biased (). I'll let you know how I get on.
Peter Horrocks is head of ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Newsroom
- Mike Rudin
- 22 Feb 07, 12:54 PM
I suppose it had to happen. First weβre accused of being spies. Then weβre told weβre getting our orders from others.
But then came an even more outlandish conspiracy theory suggesting there were two versions of the 9/11 programme which was broadcast last Sunday. Conspiracy piles on conspiracy.
Ian Crane, Chairman of the 9/11 Truth Campaign for the UK and Ireland, a source had told him that we were in a βin a quandary over which version of 9/11: The Conspiracy Files will be put out to airβ.
He alleged: βOne version is a well-balanced piece of investigative journalism, whereas the alternative version is a hit-piece, intent on portraying 9/11 Truth Campaigners as nothing more than a lunatic fringe group.β
And the story was picked up on the Alex Jonesβ website Prison Planet with the headline ββ
Only trouble is there werenβt two versions, no-one bothered to check with us and, what's more, we worked very hard to make sure the programme was fair and balanced.
Behind it all there seems to be a concern that we wouldnβt run a story supporting a conspiracy theory if we found convincing evidence. That couldnβt be further from the truth.
First, there was no editorial interference in the programme whatsoever. Second, if we had found convincing evidence of a conspiracy before 9/11 no one could have held us back from broadcasting such an important story.
We didnβt find anything conclusive proving the conspiracy theories. Instead we found a lot of evidence which supported the official version and contradicted the various conspiracy theories.
Where there was some evidence of a conspiracy after the event to cover-up intelligence failures, we included that , together with an interview with Senator Bob Graham, who co-chaired a Congressional Inquiry into 9/11.
I know the 9/11 Truth Campaign in the UK and Prison Planet in the USA, among others, are encouraging their supporters to write in. And itβs great to see so many comments on the blog. They make fascinating reading and contain a lot of interesting information.
However, our opinion poll carried out by GfK NOP did not find much support for the underlying conspiracy theory. In a telephone poll of a 1000 adults we asked:
βAttacks were made on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon on September 11th 2001, commonly known as 9/11. It is generally accepted that these attacks were carried out by βAl Qaedaβ, however some people have suggested there was a wider conspiracy that included the American Government. Do you, yourself, believe that there was a wider conspiracy, or not?β
16% people believed the American Government was involved in a wider conspiracy as against 64% of those questioned who did not believe that. The rest said they did not know.
In fact of the official accounts of the deaths of Princess Diana and the British Government scientist Dr David Kelly. Almost one in three (31%) people questioned believed the car crash that killed Princess Diana was not an accident, 43% agreed it was an accident, and the rest did not know. Almost one in four (23%) people questioned believed the government scientist Dr Kelly did not commit suicide as against 39% who believed he did commit suicide, with the rest unsure.
And this Sunday, series will examine the many questions that surround the death of Dr David Kelly and reveals new material that challenges the official account of his death.
Mike Rudin, series producer of Who's Watching You and The Conspiracy Files
The Guardian: "The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ Trust is set to indicate whether its international website will be allowed to run adverts." ()
Marketing Week: "SNP politicians are lobbying for an independent Scottish Broadcasting Corporation to replace the ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ, if the nation wins independence." (no link available)
The ΒιΆΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external internet sites
