Perils of the short version

The BBC apologises today for creating the "misleading and unfair impression" that money raised by Band Aid was used to buy arms in Ethiopia, after an internal investigation.  

"The investigation has concluded that the programme's evidence did not relate to money raised by Band Aid and Live Aid. However, the programme gave the impression that large amounts of Band Aid and Live Aid money had been diverted. The BBC wishes to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for this misleading and unfair impression. The BBC also wishes to apologise unreservedly to the Band Aid Trust for a number of reports on television, radio and online which went further than the programme itself in stating that millions of pounds raised by Band Aid and Live Aid had been diverted to buy arms. The BBC had no evidence for these statements, and they shouldn't have been broadcast".

It's not a complete climbdown - "Assignment did not make the allegation that relief aid provided by Band Aid was diverted. However the BBC acknowledges that this impression could have been taken from the programme. We also acknowledge that some of our related reporting of the story reinforced this perception. We note that the ruling validates the main thrust of the programme's journalism; that there was evidence from a number of sources that the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front had diverted money intended for famine relief and that some of this was spent on weapons."

There's a certain amount of dancing on pin heads here. There was no doubt that the headline, summary and discussion versions of the Assignment story implied the bulk of Band Aid money had been diverted to arms. But the first response of senior editors was to stand by the specific claims of the programme, rather than review the short versions.   Something a bit like this happened with Andrew Gilligan's reporting on Today, when the short early two way tee-ing up the later full and considered report on the Iraq dossier gave Alastair Campbell the chink in the armour he needed.  But there's also a problem with the use of the word "evidence", when actually the programme carried assertions from sources (however influential or important).   One suspects that, if a reporter was fearless enough, it ought to be possible to demonstrate that some of Band Aid and Live Aid money ended up in the wrong hands in Ethiopia - but how much ?