Journalist union backs Gilligan
Inspector Jack Regan | 28.01.2004 16:29 | Culture
So Andrew Gilligan gets the blame. Shoot the messenger. What a waste of public time and money the enquiry has been. What a whitewash. It has since come to light - without any shadow of a doubt - the dossier was grossly 'sexed up' and used to dupe public and politicians to go to war. The question should now arise WHY has Hutton failed to see the blindingly obvious. And why has he still failed to declare his membership of the masons?
Union threatens dispute if BBC fails to back Gilligan
http://www.nuj.org.uk/front/inner.php?docid=662&doctypeid=8
January 28 2004
THE NUJ will take "whatever action is necessary" to protect its member Andrew Gilligan if he is sacked or disciplined by the BBC, the NUJ said this morning.
Amid reports that the Today Programme defence correspondent is to receive stern criticism in the Hutton Inquiry report, General Secretary Jeremy Dear, pledged the NUJ’s “complete support”.
Jeremy Dear said: "Our reaction would be to immediately back him, to represent him at any subsequent hearings, and to argue with our members that they should take whatever action is necessary to protect his position.
“This could include industrial action."
"Any investigative journalist performing a public service has to feel that they are being supported. The worst thing that could come out of the Hutton report would be for journalists to become timid in the face of government attempts to manipulate the news agenda.
Lord Hutton's report is expected to slate Andrew Gilligan for failing to check his story with the Ministry of Defence, and to describe his allegation on the BBC Today programme that the government probably knew the 45- minute claim to be wrong as "unfounded".
Jeremy Dear said: “Whatever failings there were in just one of Andrew’s reports – and he did no fewer than 19 on that first day alone – there has never been any doubt that his story was in the public interest.”
Andrew Gilligan has nominated the NUJ as his official representative in the consideration of Lord Hutton's report.
http://www.nuj.org.uk/front/inner.php?docid=662&doctypeid=8
see also http://www.reuters.co.uk/newsPackageArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=447776§ion=news
Inspector Jack Regan
Homepage:
http://freespace.virgin.net/peter.culley/sweeney.htm
Comments
Display the following 4 comments