So, now we know the truth about Greg Dyke, ex—Director General of the BBC, who resigned in disgrace following the Hutton inquiry's findings which severely criticized the BBC's editorial management. 

Today, as reported by Tom Mangold in the London Evening Standard, it has emerged that in July of last year, while Greg Dyke was still head of the BBC, he had an outburst in which he told friends that he was contemplating spending three million pounds of his own money, to start a new political party in order to unseat Tony Blair as British PM.

One of Greg Dyke's closest friends, Melvin Bragg said:

It's true; he did say that he could form a new political party to challenge Tony Blair on the simple basis that it would bring about a change of leadership

The most astonishing aspect of this, of course, is that the DG of the BBC is meant to be totally independent. We are always being told that the BBC is supremely balanced and impartial in its coverage of the news, but these revelations concerning Greg Dyke's comments about supporting a political campaign against Tony Blair, prove once and for all that the BBC is indeed a politicized broadcaster, and is anything but independent. It also confirms the feeling many have had for a long time that the BBC is in fact, institutionally biased.

The idea that an acting head of the BBC had openly discussed a political movement against the British Prime Minister is incredible and will cause even more permanent damage to the BBC, than has already been achieved by the findings of the Hutton inquiry.

It could also explain why Tony Blair, and his Director of Communications, Alistair Campbell, had such difficulties obtaining the detraction from the BBC, in regards to the erroneous report by Andrew Gilligan on Radio Four's Today Program, which led to the suicide of Dr Kelly, the British WMD expert.

It also makes a complete mockery of Greg Dyke's comments to his staff in an email when he resigned as BBC Director General. In the email he says:

Throughout this affair my sole aim as director general of the BBC has been to defend our editorial independence and to act in the public interest.

One can only laugh at that statement in the light of today's revelations. The fact of the matter, is that Greg Dyke was about as independent as Saddam's old Minster of Information.

The only difference it seems is that Greg Dyke wasn't batting for his own government, but instead batting against it and the Prime Minster.

If that isn't embarrassing enough, perhaps readers recall that Greg Dyke lashed out at commercial US media networks for being pro—American during the Iraq War.  

In a speech he gave last year while picking up an award for broadcasting excellence (contain your laughter), at the International Emmys in New York, he had this to say:

News organizations should be in the business of balancing their coverage, not banging the drum for one side or the other

Obviously Mr. Dyke doesn't follow his own advice or he wouldn't have been ranting about funding a new political party to take out Tony Blair.

He also said that balance was:

something which seemed to get lost in American reporting during the war

Of course, something got very lost during your tenure at the BBC Mr. Dyke: Something called independence.

If Greg Dyke had any humility at all he'd give that award back, because as we now know, he was the last person on earth that deserved it.

posted Michael   04 15 04