Why the BBC is the real story in Blair's 'sexing up' row

Comment by STEVE RICHARDS*

Like most conflicts, the war between the Government and the BBC is more complicated and multi-layered than it seems.

At first sight it might seem a besieged Government is turning on an easy target to divert attention from its follies over Iraq. I suspect that will be the instinct of most readers: here is a predictable twist, the scheming spin-doctor attacks the noble BBC. Not surprisingly, many in the media have also seen the story in those terms.

I was opposed to the war against Iraq and still believe Tony Blair made a series of misjudgments that have damaged his credibility in Britain and parts of Europe. I also regard some of the BBC's journalists as the best, while a few of its managers almost explode with agonised integrity.

Yet I more or less entirely agree with Alastair Campbell's onslaught against the BBC. I would go further and argue Campbell's broader analysis highlights a serious flaw in the corporation's journalism.

On the specifics of the charge that Campbell "sexed up" the intelligence material, the BBC has introduced a whopping great red herring. This is not only the view of the apoplectic Campbell, it is the verdict of senior opponents of the war.

Robin Cook is almost as cross with the BBC as Campbell. "It's very important we don't get distracted into the argument about deception and sexing up," he said last week.

From what I can gather, Campbell will be able to show the controversial dossier was not "sexed up" in the way the BBC reported. This is also Cook's view.

The key questions are different: why was the intelligence wrong, and why did Blair choose to believe the most alarmist reports?

The answers may be highly damaging to the British Government. The Foreign Affairs Select Committee has been on a wild goose chase, while paying less attention to these more serious questions.

It would be wrong for senior BBC figures to convince themselves Campbell is attacking them as a diversionary tactic.

The BBC broke the story and the Foreign Affairs Committee decided wrongly to focus on this issue, at which point Campbell had little choice but to respond to the allegation.

Senior ministers and officials, not just Campbell, are furious with the BBC. You might think they are affecting anger because they support the Prime Minister on the war in Iraq. Not so. Some admit privately that other aspects of Blair's approach to the war were flawed. They do not believe one of the flaws was sexing up the intelligence in the way the BBC suggested.

So why did the BBC choose to make the sexed-up claim at such a high volume? That precise question is for the BBC to answer, but here are some broader points, partly based on my experience of reporting politics for the BBC for several years.

First, we need to deal with another red herring. The BBC is not biased in favour of political parties or in its approach to specific issues. Campbell was wrong to allege that its coverage was anti-war. From my experience, the BBC goes out of its way to avoid being partisan and to report issues fairly. That is almost part of its problem.

The real issue is the BBC suffers from a bias of a different sort and all politicians should be aware of it, including Tories who wrongly detect a left-wing prejudice.

Parts of the BBC choose to work on the assumption that politicians and their advisers, especially spin-doctors, are up to no good. They begin by being biased against all politicians and their advisers, convincing themselves this is a form of impartiality. How can we be biased if we treat them all like bastards?

Some affect this machismo because they think it will impress their bosses. Others are highly intelligent people fascinated by politics. They want to make waves in the same way newspapers do. But they cannot take a stand on policies or mount an attack from the left or the right.

Newspapers have a variety of ways to make waves. The Sun may decide to take on Blair over the euro. The Independent will have a go at him over the war. Others might attack or praise the Tories' proposals for the NHS. The BBC cannot do this.

Even privately, the discussions of senior BBC figures are often limited to banal observations on the nature of a political performance: "I thought Blair was brilliant dealing with the anti-war audience on Newsnight."

"I disagree. I thought he looked nervy and exhausted."

They comment in a vacuum, like civil servants. Some of these frustrated onlookers revel, therefore, in related stories about process.

Another distorting factor comes into play. The BBC is never knowingly understaffed in its coverage of politics. As well as having some brilliantly dedicated correspondents and editors, the BBC is full of managers in ill-defined jobs trying to look busier than they really are.

This can lead to a sense of panic and hyperactivity that is not justified by what is going on. That is why the volume on some stories is louder than it should be.

My hope is BBC chairman, Gavyn Davies, and director-general, Greg Dyke, sense there are genuine issues which need addressing.

* Steve Richards is an ex-BBC staffer.

- INDEPENDENT

Herald Feature: Iraq war