Tutti parlano del rapporto Hutton... Nessuno del rapporto Phillis, assai più importante per le relaz

Il parere di Toni Muzi Falconi

Rispetto al primo abbiamo già discusso a lungo in questo sito nei mesi e nei giorni scorsi e comunque altri dicono la loro anche questa settimana . Mi limiterò a:

riconoscere che il giudice Hutton ha scagionato Campbell dall'accusa di avere 'sexed up' le informazioni (comunque false) avute dai Servizi sulle armi di distruzione di massa e che sono state alla base delle giustificazioni addotte da Blair per l'intervento in Iraq;
ricordare però che lo stesso Hutton sostiene che se il 'sexing up'è inteso come could mean that whilst the intelligence contained in the dossier was believed to be reliable, the dossier was drafted in such a way as to make the case against Saddam Hussein as strong as the intelligence contained in it permitted. If the term is used in this latter sense, then because of the drafting suggestions made by 10 Downing Street for the purpose of making a strong case against Saddam Hussein, it could be said that the Government "sexed-up" the dossier. E in questo senso, Campbell ha fatto il suo lavoro
travasare da un reale 50 ad un virtuale 100% il mio sangue britannico e (right or wrong..) fare atto di fiducia nel giudice Hutton, constatando tuttavia che i sondaggi hanno penalizzato Tony Blair dimostrando che una parte consistente degli elettori inglesi non ha creduto alle conclusioni del rapporto (utile le lettura del commento di Patrick Weever su anti-spin.com);
inorridire di fronte alla campagna politica e mediatica italiana che criminalizza quel pochissimo di giornalismo investigativo rimasto nel nostro Paese... ma è inutile infierire.
Mi pare invece e davvero assai più importante attirare l'attenzione dei visitatori di questo sito l'attenzione su un altro rapporto appena presentato da Downing Street: quel rapporto Phillis che riassume le conclusioni di una inchiesta, durata più di un anno, sulla comunicazione del governo britannico.Lo si può leggere e scaricare dal sito www.gcreview.gov.uk/News/FinalReport.pdfConviene scaricarlo, stamparlo, leggerlo, diffonderlo: mai il nostro lavoro è stato preso così sul serio e meticolosamente investigato da un governo.Ecco comunque il commento pubblico dell'Institute of Public Relations (IPR):IPR welcomes Phillis' findings but says more still to be done 20 January 2004The Institute of Public Relations (IPR) has welcomed the recommendations of the Phillis Review, but says that a Civil Service Act is still required to protect and define the role of government communications.Colin Farrington, IPR Director General, said: "The IPR is generally in agreement with the findings of the Independent Review of Government Communications, chaired by Bob Phillis. "Many of the views and concerns the IPR expressed in its formal submission have been addressed, particularly relating to rules governing the conduct of special advisers. We fully support the recommendation that there should be new guidelines and training to cover all those involved in government communications, including special advisers. However, a Civil Service Act is required to win back public trust through open and honest communications. "Specifically, the Government needs to make it absolutely clear that no civil servant should be directly instructed by a special adviser. Such powers exercised by Alastair Campbell, prior to his departure from No 10, and still-in-post Chief of Staff, Jonathan Powell, should be immediately revoked." The IPR also welcomes recommendations regarding increased transparency in national statistics and the effective use of the Freedom of Information Act. National statistics that are automatically, routinely and systematically made available will help increase public confidence in government and give equal access of information to all political parties. With regards to the Freedom of Information Act, the Institute believes the Government should press ahead with plans to televise lobby briefings in order to help to build public trust.The IPR also supports Phillis' recommendations for ensuring higher and more consistent standards of communications across all departments, and that ‘communications should be taken into account in the process of policy development and delivery, not tacked on as an afterthought'."The results of the IPR/DTI best practice project launched in November last year emphasised the need for better quality training, systematic standards of evaluation and a better understanding of stakeholders across all Government departments," said Farrington. "The IPR looks forward to working with the new Permanent Secretary of Communications to help ensure those objectives are delivered."
Toni Muzi Falconi