It must have been something in my drinking water

A wee while ago I made suggestion/posed a question to BBC Newswatch about the handling of a piece of reporting/editorial that had a acquired a bit of notoriety in the blogosphere:

COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?

They have been gracious enough to now reply:

'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'

As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:

It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.

Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.

LAST WORD?:

At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:

I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...