Fox News yn son am adroddiad Hutton...

Newyddion, protestiadau, trafod

Cymedrolwr: Cwlcymro

Rheolau’r seiat
Newyddion, protestiadau, trafod. Cofiwch, dim ymosodiadau personol. Pwyswch yma i ddarllen canllawiau cyffredinol maes-e.

Postiogan eusebio » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 10:29 am

Boris a ddywedodd:Yn yr un modd mae Greg Dyke bellach yn arwr i lawer, ond yw cyfaddefiad ganddo na fu iddo ymchwilio i sail stori Gilligan nac hyd yn oed gwrando ar y stori tra'n amdiffyn cywirdeb yr adoddiad yn adlewyrchiad o gorff sy'n rhoi cywirdeb ffeithiol ar dop ei agenda?


Roedd Dyke wedi holi Gilligan, oedd yn ei sicrhau fod y darn yn gywir a bod yn gallu profi hynny o'i nodiadau, a'r cyntaf i Dyke glywed am y newid yn stori Gilligan oedd yn ystod yr holi gan Hutton.
Oedd roedd yn gamgymeriad ibeidio ymchwilio'r gwyn yn drylwyr, ond petai Dyke wedi ymchwilio pob cwyn gan y cont Campbell byddai wedi gwneud dim ond ymchwilio :!:
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
eusebio
Cymedrolwr
Cymedrolwr
 
Negeseuon: 7913
Ymunwyd: Gwe 11 Gor 2003 11:56 am
Lleoliad: Ynys Cybi

Postiogan Boris » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 10:44 am

eusebio a ddywedodd:
Boris a ddywedodd:Yn yr un modd mae Greg Dyke bellach yn arwr i lawer, ond yw cyfaddefiad ganddo na fu iddo ymchwilio i sail stori Gilligan nac hyd yn oed gwrando ar y stori tra'n amdiffyn cywirdeb yr adoddiad yn adlewyrchiad o gorff sy'n rhoi cywirdeb ffeithiol ar dop ei agenda?


Roedd Dyke wedi holi Gilligan, oedd yn ei sicrhau fod y darn yn gywir a bod yn gallu profi hynny o'i nodiadau, a'r cyntaf i Dyke glywed am y newid yn stori Gilligan oedd yn ystod yr holi gan Hutton.
Oedd roedd yn gamgymeriad ibeidio ymchwilio'r gwyn yn drylwyr, ond petai Dyke wedi ymchwilio pob cwyn gan y cont Campbell byddai wedi gwneud dim ond ymchwilio :!:


Ond ddaru o ddim hyd yn oed gwrando ar yr adroddiad cyn amddiffyn cywirdeb Gilligan, adroddiad mae ef ei hun bellach yn ddisgrifio fel 'shoddy piece of journalism' sef union gyhuddiad Fox News.

O ran AC - wel be ti'n ddisgwyl gan gefnogwr Burnley.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Boris
Defnyddiwr Arian
Defnyddiwr Arian
 
Negeseuon: 549
Ymunwyd: Iau 16 Hyd 2003 4:03 pm
Lleoliad: Y Gogledd

Postiogan Dylan » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 1:52 pm

dyma adroddiad Gilligan ar y rhaglen Today i'r rhai sydd heb ei ddarllen:

At 6.07am the following was broadcast:

Jon Humphrys (JH): The government is facing more questions this morning over its claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Our defence correspondent is Andrew Gilligan. This in particular Andy is Tony Blair saying, they'd be ready to go within forty five minutes.

Andrew Gilligan (AG): That's right, that was the central claim in his dossier which he published in September, the main erm, case if you like against er, against Iraq and the main statement of the British government's belief of what it thought Iraq was up to and what we've been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that dossier was that, actually the government probably erm, knew that that forty five minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in. What this person says, is that a week before the publication date of the dossier, it was actually rather erm, a bland production. It didn't, the, the draft prepared for Mr Blair by the Intelligence Agencies actually didn't say very much more than was public knowledge already and erm, Downing Street, our source says ordered a week before publication, ordered it to be sexed up, to be made more exciting and ordered more facts to be er, to be discovered.

JH: When you say 'more facts to be discovered', does that suggest that they may not have been facts?

AG: Well, erm, our source says that the dossier, as it was finally published, made the Intelligence Services unhappy, erm, because, to quote erm the source he said, there was basically, that there was, there was, there was unhappiness because it didn't reflect, the considered view they were putting forward, that's a quote from our source and essentially, erm, the forty five minute point er, was, was probably the most important thing that was added. Erm, and the reason it hadn't been in the original draft was that it was, it was only erm, it only came from one source and most of the other claims were from two, and the intelligence agencies say they don't really believe it was necessarily true because they thought the person making the claim had actually made a mistake, it got, had got mixed up.

JH: Does any of this matter now, all this, all these months later? The war's been fought and won.

AG: Well the forty five minutes isn't just a detail, it did go to the heart of the government's case that Saddam was an imminent threat and it was repeated four times in the dossier, including by the Prime Minister himself, in the foreword; so I think it probably does matter. Clearly, you know, if erm, if it, if it was, if it was wrong, things do, things are, got wrong in good faith but if they knew it was wrong before they actually made the claim, that's perhaps a bit more serious.

JH: Andrew, many thanks; more about that later.

At 7.32am the following was broadcast:

JH: Twenty eight minutes to eight. Tony Blair had quite a job persuading the country and indeed his own MPs to support the invasion of Iraq; his main argument was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that threatened us all. None of those weapons has been found. Now our defence correspondent, Andrew Gilligan, has found evidence that the government's dossier on Iraq that was produced last September, was cobbled together at the last minute with some unconfirmed material that had not been approved by the Security Services. Now you told us about this earlier on the programme Andy, and we've had a statement from 10 Downing Street that says it's not true, and let me just quote what they said to you. 'Not one word of the dossier was not entirely the work of the intelligence agencies'. Sorry to submit you to this sort of English but there we are. I think we know what they mean. Are you suggesting, let's be very clear about this, that it was not the work of the intelligence agencies.

AG: No, the information which I'm told was dubious did come from the agencies, but they were unhappy about it, because they didn't think it should have been in there. They thought it was, it was not corroborated sufficiently, and they actually thought it was wrong, they thought the informant concerned erm, had got it wrong, they thought he'd misunderstood what was happening.

I mean let's, let's go through this. This is the dossier that was published in September last year, erm, probably the most substantial statement of the government's case against Iraq. You'll remember that the Commons was recalled to debate it, Tony Blair made the opening speech. It is not the same as the famous dodgy dossier, the one that was copied off the internet, that came later. This is quite a serious document. It dominated the news that day and you open up the dossier and the first thing you see is a preface written by Tony Blair that includes the following words, 'Saddam's military planning allows for some weapons of mass destruction to be ready within forty five minutes of an order to deploy them'. Now that claim has come back to haunt Mr Blair because if the weapons had been that readily to hand, they probably would have been found by now. But you know, it could have been an honest mistake, but what I have been told is that the government knew that claim was questionable, even before the war, even before they wrote it in their dossier.

I have spoken to a British official who was involved in the preparation of the dossier, and he told me that until the week before it was published, the draft dossier produced by the Intelligence Services, added little to what was already publicly known. He said: 'It was transformed in the week before it was published, to make it sexier. The classic example was the statement that weapons of mass destruction were ready for use within forty five minutes. That information was not in the original draft. It was included in the dossier against our wishes, because it wasn't reliable. Most things in the dossier were double source, but, that was single source, and we believed that the source was wrong.

Now this official told us that the transformation of the dossier took place at the behest of Downing Street, and he added: 'Most people in intelligence weren't happy with the dossier, because it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward'. Now I want to stress that this official and others I've spoken to, do still believe that Iraq did have some sort of weapons of mass destruction programme. 'I believe it is about 30% likely there was a chemical weapons programme in the six months before the war and considerably more likely, that there was a biological weapons programme. We think Hans Blix down-played a couple of potentially interesting pieces of evidence, but the weapons programmes were small: sanctions did limit the programmes'.

The official also added quite an interesting note about what has happened as a result since the war, of the capture of some Iraqi WMD scientists: 'We don't have a great deal more information yet than we had before. We have not got very much out of the detainees yet.'

Now the forty five minutes really is, is not just a detail, it did go to the heart of the government's case that Saddam was an imminent threat, and it was repeated a further three times in the body of the dossier, and I understand that the parliamentary intelligence and security committee is going to conduct an enquiry in to the claims made by the British Government about Iraq, and it is obviously exactly this kind of issue that will be at the heart of their investigation.

JH: Andrew Gilligan, many thanks.

Later in the Today programme Mr Adam Ingram MP, the Armed Forces Minister, was interviewed by Mr John Humphreys and in the course of the interview Mr Humphreys put to him the following allegation:

Can I tell you what the allegation was because I think you may have been a little misled on that. The allegation was not that it was concocted by Number 10, the allegation was that a report was produced. It went to Number 10. It was then sent back to be sexed up a little, I'm using not my own words, but the words of our source, as you know. Now, given that, is it possible that …..

AI: Well it's not true that, that allegation.

JH: That isn't true.

AI: No, it's not true. And you know Number 10 has denied that.

33. Also on 29 May on BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast programme at 7.50am Mr Gilligan broadcast a report relating to the September dossier in which he said:

Presenter (P): Good Morning.

A senior official involved in preparing the Government's dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction has said the document was rewritten just before it was published to apparently "make it more exciting". The official said the intelligence services were unhappy with the changes. Let's talk to Andrew Gilligan our defence correspondent.

Hello Andrew.

Andrew Gilligan: Hello

P: This was the dossier published what, last September by the Government?

Andrew: That's right. This is not the famous "dodgy dossier" that was copied off the internet, that came later. This was a much more substantial effort. Parliament was recalled to discuss it. Tony Blair made the opening speech in Parliament, em and, and it dominated the news that day. It was, it's the most substantial statement of the Government's case against Iraq.

P: And what, according to the intelligence services were the problems with it?

Andrew: Well, the draft they originally produced they tell me was actually not terribly exciting, it didn't add very much to what we already knew publicly. What any, kind of anyone who'd followed the story would know publicly, and it didn't satisfy Downing Street and they said eh, look, you know, is there anything more this - can, can we make this a bit more exciting please.

Em, and er, they mentioned a few things which they weren't very happy with and at Downing Street's insistence those were written into the document and one of the main things that em, that they weren't very happy with was this claim that Iraq could deploy its biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes.

Now we now (sic), we can be pretty sure now that that claim was actually wrong. Because if they could deploy within that short a time we'd have found the weapons by now, you know if they were that handy then they would have been more or less lying around er, and easily, easy for the troops to find in six weeks. Em, now, you know, what I thought to be honest was that that eh, that claim was wrong in good faith. Em, but er, what my intelligence service source says is that em essentially they were always suspicious about this claim, they did not want it to appear in the document, they did not put it in their original draft because em most of the assertions in the dossier were double sourced, this was only one source, and they didn't believe the source, they thought he had got mixed up. They thought he had got mixed up between the time it took to assemble a conventional er missile assembly and em aa and the idea that em Saddam had a er weapons of mass destruction missile assembly.

P: So, I mean the implications that the, that Downing Street asked for it to be hyped up to help convince the doubters.

Andrew: Yeah, and, and they're not very happy. I mean the actual quote from my source was "most people in intelligence weren't happy with the dossier because it didn't reflect the considered view they were putting forward" and it was a matter of language and nuance as much as em er as actual detail. But the 45 minutes was very important because it went to the heart of the Government's case that Saddam was an imminent threat.

P: Absolutely. But, fundamentally, the intelligence services did believe, did have intelligence that Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction.

Andrew: Yeah, they, they do believe that Iraq had a programme and what my source said was that he believed it was about 30% likely that there was a chemical weapons programme even in the six months before the war, and more likely considerably more likely, that there was a biological weapons programme. But he said the programmes they thought were small and not necessarily an imminent threat and sanctions did limit the programmes and, and eh, you know that, that the the issue is about tone and, er and nuance, ….[Presenter: hmmm] … … it really is as much as anything else and, and really had they said all that in, in the way they wanted to it wouldn't have been nearly as compelling a case.

P: And, and in a word, the intelligence services, do they still believe weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq at some point?

Andrew: They believe there were some. Em, their (sic) not sure what to believe now to be honest, because what they are saying is, em, you know, they were int …, they have been interrogating all these em, all these people that they have captured and, and they are not telling them very much.

P: Thank you very much Andrew.


Y mwyaf 'dw i'n meddwl am y peth, y lleiaf alla i weld beth yn union sydd o'i le ar yr uchod. Nid Gilligan ei hun sydd yn gwneud y cyhuddiad - mae'n dweud bob tro mai ei ffynhonell sydd yn ei wneud. Sy'n gywir.

'Does dim yn ffeithiol anghywir yn yr adroddiad. Ond mae dal yn deg dweud bod Gilligan wedi bod ychydig yn greadigol, am wn i. Ond celwydd? Allaf i ddim gweld un.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Dylan
Defnyddiwr Aur
Defnyddiwr Aur
 
Negeseuon: 3282
Ymunwyd: Maw 12 Awst 2003 7:59 pm
Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Caernarfon

Postiogan Dylan » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 2:00 pm

ac ar ben hynny, dyma memo Campbell at John Scarlett:

Delwedd

edrych yn rhywiol iawn i mi. Ac fel 'dw i wedi dweud eisoes mewn edefyn arall, mae #3 yn uffernol. Newid "sought" i "secured"? Dyna, foneddigion a foneddigesau, ydi "celwydd". :)

edrychwch ar dystiolaeth Susan Watts hefyd. Mae hi'n dweud fwy neu lai union yr un peth â Gilligan ond am ryw reswm 'doedd dim cwyn am hwnnw.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Dylan
Defnyddiwr Aur
Defnyddiwr Aur
 
Negeseuon: 3282
Ymunwyd: Maw 12 Awst 2003 7:59 pm
Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Lleoliad: Caernarfon

Postiogan Boris » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 2:07 pm

Dylan a ddywedodd:what we've been told by one of the senior officials in charge of drawing up that dossier was that, actually the government probably erm, knew that that forty five minute figure was wrong, even before it decided to put it in.


Yr uchod yw'r broblem - ac mae AG wedi derbyn nad oedd yr honiad fod y llywodraeth yn gwybod fod y mater 45 munud yn anghywir wedi dod trwy David Kelly nac neb arall. Celwydd ta cangymeriad?

Ta waeth, y pwynt dwi'n meddwl yw fod cangymeriad AG a'r modd y bu i'r BBC amddiffyn y stori agor y drws i fobl (megis cyfranwr OTT Fox news) gyhuddo y BBC o ddweud celwydd
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Boris
Defnyddiwr Arian
Defnyddiwr Arian
 
Negeseuon: 549
Ymunwyd: Iau 16 Hyd 2003 4:03 pm
Lleoliad: Y Gogledd

Postiogan Boris » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 2:15 pm

Dylan a ddywedodd:edrychwch ar dystiolaeth Susan Watts hefyd. Mae hi'n dweud fwy neu lai union yr un peth â Gilligan ond am ryw reswm 'doedd dim cwyn am hwnnw.


'Mwy neu lai' yn bwysig pan ti'n son am gael at y gwir Dylan. Dwi ddim am ail bobi Hutton fan hyn achos fel dwi di deud mi fyddwn wrth fy modd pe bai'r adroddiad wedi bod yn gytbwys - dwi o'r farn fod y BBC wedi gwneud cangymeriadau ond fod y llywodraeth wedi gweithredu mewn modd anghyfrifol iawn. Serch hynny, ddaru Susan Watts ddim honni fod y llywodraeth yn gwybod fod y rhybudd 45 munud yn anghywir ac ddaru hi ddim cefnogi datganiadau AG. Gan mae David Kelly oedd wedi 'briefio' y ddau, sef AG a SW onid rhesymol felly yw casglu fod AG wedi gwneud cangymeriad neu ddweud 'celwydd' os ti'n elyn i'r BBC.

Dadl am Fox ddyle hwn fod nid Hutton. Yr oll dwi di ddadlu yw fod 'Opinion Piece' Fox News er yn OTT yn cynnwys datganiadau ffeithiol gywir am 'gangymeriadau / celwydd' y BBC.

O ddewis, rho'r BBC i mi cyn New Labour UNRHYW ddiwrnod. Ond gofyn i mi os yw'r BBC yn wynach na gwyn ac fy ateb pendant yw nac ydynt - ddim o bell ffordd.
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Boris
Defnyddiwr Arian
Defnyddiwr Arian
 
Negeseuon: 549
Ymunwyd: Iau 16 Hyd 2003 4:03 pm
Lleoliad: Y Gogledd

Postiogan Cwlcymro » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 2:36 pm

Yr oll dwi di ddadlu yw fod 'Opinion Piece' Fox News er yn OTT yn cynnwys datganiadau ffeithiol gywir am 'gangymeriadau / celwydd' y BBC.


Mi ellith unrhywun roi rhei datganiada ffeithiol mewn hefyd. Be am....

"Boris is one of the main Tories on Maes-e, he is leftie-slaughtering, Mr Howard-bumming freak who's words are contested by every other person. Of course he has been proven wrong every time he speaks from his fat,hairy arsehole"

Ma na rei datganiada ffeithiol yn fanna toes, ond ma dal yn ddarn echrydus o newyddio, a'r unig reswm dros neud newyddion fela ydi i newid barn pobl efo celwydd a propoganda. :winc:
Wales? Whales? Do you mean 'da fish, or them singing bastards?
Cwlcymro
Cymedrolwr
Cymedrolwr
 
Negeseuon: 2874
Ymunwyd: Sul 15 Meh 2003 1:12 pm
Lleoliad: Caernarfon

Postiogan Boris » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 3:16 pm

Cwlcymro a ddywedodd:
Yr oll dwi di ddadlu yw fod 'Opinion Piece' Fox News er yn OTT yn cynnwys datganiadau ffeithiol gywir am 'gangymeriadau / celwydd' y BBC.


Mi ellith unrhywun roi rhei datganiada ffeithiol mewn hefyd. Be am....

"Boris is one of the main Tories on Maes-e, he is leftie-slaughtering, Mr Howard-bumming freak who's words are contested by every other person. Of course he has been proven wrong every time he speaks from his fat,hairy arsehole"

Ma na rei datganiada ffeithiol yn fanna toes, ond ma dal yn ddarn echrydus o newyddio, a'r unig reswm dros neud newyddion fela ydi i newid barn pobl efo celwydd a propoganda. :winc:


Dwi'm yn credu mod i wedi dadlau yn wahanol. Pe byddai dy ddisgrifiad hyfryd yn waith newyddiadurol yna fe fyddai yn warthus, ond fel sail i farn unigolyn dwi ddim yn gweld llawer o broblem.

Ti'n gwylio This Week efo Andrew Neil bob nos Iau?

Fel rhan o fformat y rhaglen ceir 'polemic' gan unigolyn fel sail i drafodaeth. Gan amlaf mae'r polemic yn ddewisiol iawn o ran ffeithiau, ond dyna'r pwynt 'it's an opinion piece'.

Ond roedd adroddiad AG yn datgan ffaith, ac yn ôl ei gyfaddefiad doedd dim sail i ran fwyaf dadleuol ei ddadl. Nid opinion piece oedd cyfraniad AG ond darn o newyddiaduraeth. Mae 70% + yn dweud fod ganddynt ffydd yn y BBC felly pryn di'r mwyaf peryglus? Opinion piece OTT Fox ynteu newyddiaduraeth honedig gywir y BBC?
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Boris
Defnyddiwr Arian
Defnyddiwr Arian
 
Negeseuon: 549
Ymunwyd: Iau 16 Hyd 2003 4:03 pm
Lleoliad: Y Gogledd

Postiogan Macsen » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 3:16 pm

Cwlcymro a ddywedodd:
Yr oll dwi di ddadlu yw fod 'Opinion Piece' Fox News er yn OTT yn cynnwys datganiadau ffeithiol gywir am 'gangymeriadau / celwydd' y BBC.


Mi ellith unrhywun roi rhei datganiada ffeithiol mewn hefyd. Be am....

"Boris is one of the main Tories on Maes-e, he is leftie-slaughtering, Mr Howard-bumming freak who's words are contested by every other person. Of course he has been proven wrong every time he speaks from his fat,hairy arsehole"

Ma na rei datganiada ffeithiol yn fanna toes, ond ma dal yn ddarn echrydus o newyddio, a'r unig reswm dros neud newyddion fela ydi i newid barn pobl efo celwydd a propoganda. :winc:


Mi oedd framwaith be ddywedodd FOX yn 'wir', ond y disgrifiadau oedd yn afiach, fel galw Gilligan yn anti-american ac pro-iraqi a BBC yn 'frothing at the mouth anti-american'. Afiach. Fel mae Cwlcymro yn pwyntio allan uchod, mae yna wahaniaeth rhwng dweud y gwir mewn ffordd call, a ail eirio'r gwir mewn ffordd sy'n gwneud i'r gwir edrych yn lot gwaeth nag ydi o.
Rhywun yn ymosod ar y Gymraeg? - Rhannwch Why Welsh.com!
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Macsen
Defnyddiwr Platinwm
Defnyddiwr Platinwm
 
Negeseuon: 6193
Ymunwyd: Maw 12 Awst 2003 8:01 pm
Lleoliad: Penrhiwllan/Waunfawr

Postiogan Macsen » Gwe 06 Chw 2004 3:20 pm

Boris a ddywedodd:Ond roedd adroddiad AG yn datgan ffaith, ac yn ôl ei gyfaddefiad doedd dim sail i ran fwyaf dadleuol ei ddadl. Nid opinion piece oedd cyfraniad AG ond darn o newyddiaduraeth. Mae 70% + yn dweud fod ganddynt ffydd yn y BBC felly pryn di'r mwyaf peryglus? Opinion piece OTT Fox ynteu newyddiaduraeth honedig gywir y BBC?


Ti wedi camddeall, Boris. Ma 70% o bobl ym Mhrydain yn credu bod y BBC yn dweud y gwir, ond yn America FOX yn prif ffynhonell newyddion mwyafrif o'r bobl. Os ydi nhw yn llyncu'r clwydda ar gor ddweud afiach yma mi fyddan nhw'n troi'n wrth BBC ac yn wrth brydeinig. Welaist ti ddim sut droesan nhw'n erbyn y Ffrancwyr jyst am fod FOX wedi dweud wrthynt am wneud? Mi esi ar chat room americanaidd ddoe a roedd pawb yno'n sydyn iawn yn meddwl bod y BBC yn dweud clwydda'n aml a bod newyddiadurwyr prydeinig i gyd yn plygu'r gwir.
Rhywun yn ymosod ar y Gymraeg? - Rhannwch Why Welsh.com!
Rhithffurf defnyddiwr
Macsen
Defnyddiwr Platinwm
Defnyddiwr Platinwm
 
Negeseuon: 6193
Ymunwyd: Maw 12 Awst 2003 8:01 pm
Lleoliad: Penrhiwllan/Waunfawr

NôlNesaf

Dychwelyd i Rhyfel a Heddwch

Pwy sydd ar-lein

Defnyddwyr sy’n pori’r seiat hon: Dim defnyddwyr cofrestredig a 6 gwestai

cron