Lord Hutton is anything but indepenent. It's like asking Justice Scalia to inquire into the dealings of Dick Cheney ...oops! I guess that is happening already.

What I object to the most, though, is that the Hutton report is based on an inquiry into the suicide of David Kelly, and has somehow been twisted into support for Tony Blair's actions with regard to the Iraq war. You'd think Lord Hutton found WMD's in Iraq, the way the Blair spins the tale.

Unfortunately, most people are strongly on one side or the other regarding the war, and will use anything they can to promote their view, no matter how hard they have to twist it.

While a side issue of the story quoted here is clearly the writer's support of Blair and concern that public support was eroded by the Gilligan story and the BBC's support of it, but my concern here and the parts I quoted are in regard to the BBC itself, upon which I think the writer voices legitimate concerns.

I saw the word "exposed" in the title so I thought that the BBC or Lord Hutton might be showing some boobs so I had to click on it.

Sorry!

The american media has yet to wake up from its night of frothing jingoism- when it does i might, just might, listen to some right wing rant from someone who doent actually listen to- let alone pay for the BBC -

I am not sure who you are talking about Brett, but I read the BBC website everyday, listen to its radio frequently, and feel pretty confident in agreeing with the overall characterization offered up by Britain-resident and former BBC employee Baker.

I am also not certain what the U.S. media has to do with the matter at hand, but the U.S. media - other than very obvious exceptions like Fox News, most talk radio, Washington Times, and various magazines - generally shares the BBC worldview. You clearly don't watch or read or pay for American media.

Eric, my poorly made point was that Baker and Hutton used an investigation into the suicide of a weapons expert as an opportunity to sling mud on the reputation of a vocal opponent of Blair's policies. They each make a very opinionated attack on the BBC and proclaim it guilty of being biased for offering sometimes unpopular alternative points of view.

I think each news organization is going to be naturally biased towards the point of view of its primary audience. American media will present a predominantly American viewpoint, Russian media will present a mostly Russian viewpoint, and the BBC's angle is usually in line with the majority British view. The fact that they also offer alternative perspectives is an argument against bias, in my opinion.

Any western news organization that suggest the government of Israel may make mistakes will be accused of anti-semitism. Showing a defect in the policy of an American administration brings a claim of being anti-American (unless it's the Clinton administration), as though the country and the current elected officials are the same thing. Generally, if a reporter says something that we disagree with, they must be biased, according to some critics.

Baker's claim seems to be that he doesn't want to hear the other side of an argument. Don't mention any problems with attacking Iraq, as that must make the report pro-Saddam/Muslim and anti-British/American/Christian. Keep quiet about innocent Palestinian victims, because that might make people question some actions of Sharon, and an attack on Sharon is an attack on all Jews, evidently. A Palestinian child being shot by an Israeli soldier should not be reported, because some might begin to think of Palestinians as a diverse group of humans, rather than all being potential suicide bombers.

It's like 1984 newspeak. Waging war becomes "a pursuit of peace" and one officially approved viewpoint becomes "fair and balanced".

I don't buy that argument. Tell me why the information in a report is incorrect. Don't tell me it shouldn't be reported at all because it isn't popular. If a news organization consistently makes incorrect reports, then I'll decide for myself what their bias is. Everyone has a bias, but some try to make up for it by showing additional opinions, and others just insist that their bias is the only truth.

Any time someone uses undefined and meaningless labels such as 'liberal' or 'conservative' to attack a point of view, I assume that the arguer can't articulate a logical criticism of the viewpoint, so they try to sling mud to keep people from even looking at it. That's how I see Baker's article and Lord Hutton's report. Opinionated, mudslinging cover-ups, rather than reasoned, fact-based reports.

Okay, thanks. I guess my difference is that I don't see it as a medai putlet's obligation to balance out the rest of the media, but to strive to be as balanced as possible itself, and I don't see the BBC as that. I see the BBC approximately as Baker sees it.

Re the Hutton report itself, I am not sure what is being whitewashed. He found that the charges in the original BBC report were unfounded - people can disagree with the conclusions of the report without it having been a "whitewash."