piers morgan

"The pictures of British troops torturing Iraqi prisoners were, indeed, probably phoney. Not obviously, not without supporting evidence, but still duds. The MoD and army, after a fortnight's investigation, shout as much from the rooftops... But was the case fully made? By no means. Morgan was hanging on, seeking 'incontrovertible evidence' of falsehood when his board caved in under him. And the difficulty is that the army, up to the moment the boom was lowered, had produced only assertion. Military police inquiries were - and are - continuing." ('End of the Piers show, Morgan lived by the sword, but did not deserve to be stabbed in the back', Peter Preston, The Observer, May 16, 2004)
http://www.medialens.org/alerts/2004/040519_Tails_And_Dogs.HTM
And this is what is so staggering about the media's indifference to Morgan's sacking - even though the case had not yet been satisfactorily made, an editor of a major UK newspaper was sacked in response to pressure from, of all institutions, the army.

After the Hutton inquiry had finally done for Andrew Gilligan and his bosses, Noam Chomsky made the only point that mattered:

"The idea that the state - whether hiding itself beyond a judge's robes or not - should even have a voice in whether a journalist's report was 'unfounded' is utterly shocking, an indication of remarkably low level of respect for freedom of speech and reverence for authority. Just for laughs, can you imagine an inquiry into whether a press report praising state or corporate power was 'unfounded'?... Lord Hutton can 'consider' what he likes, but it is not the role of the state to decide which of several interpretations to give to a phrase in a news report. This merely underscores the scandalous nature of the proceedings." (Chomskychat, www.zmag.org, January 29, 2004)