Regarding Kelly

The first editorial to get the Kelly affair about right.

Newspaper stories always seem accurate unless you happen to know something about the subject - then all the holes and exaggerations are revealed. Gilligan didn't do anything different than reporters have always done - stretch the truth a wee bit, for effect - but the stakes here were very high. Kelly was savaged by the Blair government, and the Ministry of Defense didn't come to Kelly's aid (neither did BBC, but then Kelly didn't work for them). Caught between the irresistible force of the government and the immovable object of the BBC, and bereft of friends, Kelly despaired. Who wouldn't? But who should shoulder the most blame? Placing the blame mostly on Gilligan seems incorrect, because, unlike Hoon's goons, Gilligan didn't betray Kelly (or did he?).

My concern is that the controversy was so hot that Blair, Hoon et al. had lost all perspective, and that they pushed Kelly forward fully knowing they were going to rip Kelly into teensy-weensy bloody shreds - AND THEY DID NOT CARE IN THE LEAST - because by so doing, they got back at the BBC. Kelly was blind-sided, betrayed, crucified by his employers, the people Kelly had devoted his lifetime serving. As bad as Gilligan has been, especially regarding Iraq reporting, in this case, he wasn't doing much different than journalists always do - stretching the truth slightly. He apparently met his obligations to Kelly - namely, not naming Kelly publicly - but he may have hinted so broadly who his informant was that it was easy for the government to track Kelly down.

As Kelly himself said, "many dark actors."