Iain Dale has introduced compulsory comment registration on his weblog. It’s on a trial basis, he’s pledged to give it more of a chance than he did last time, he clearly recognises the way in which the all-comers system was.…..

To be honest, the reason I posted this is because — if it is AG — anonymously commenting on your own behalf sucks (as does talking about yourself in the third person).

And the Hutton Inquiry website has most of the evidence you need to form your own opinion, whether you agree with Lord H or not.

Of course it’s a very sensitive issue for him, Adrian. On one sense, he’s being blamed by some for a man’s death. On the other, he presumably believes in his story and that he’s been unfairly judged. That, presumably, is why he can’t keep silent.

Just because he made mistakes, that doesn’t mean he no longer has the right to speak to a larger truth that so many in the media ignored. That’s the sense I get from what he wrote, frankly. It’s entirely possible that he made regrettable mistakes while still being factually correct.

Back when Gilligan was researching the “dodgy dossiers”, it was abundantly clear to many in the press that government claims were significantly at odds with reality. If Gilligan is judged in a less harsh light by the public than by some of his collegues, then I would argue it is because at least he had the chutzpah to say that the emperor had no clothes.

“I teach journalism, so everything I do is an academic exercise.”

Of course. Who here isn’t interested in the academic side of journalism? But that said, I would argue that there is a place for trying to build uncritical, reasoned channels of communication, even in the world of academia. Establishing the facts should always come before judgement.

Adrian, if I had — or thought I had — Andrew Gilligan commenting on my blog (albeit anonymously), my initial reaction would be to try to draw him into the discussion in a more official sense, so that maybe I could hear his side of the story and maybe learn a bit more. You seemed more intent in counting coup than in creating a meaningful dialogue.

“But I do reserve the right to contest attempts at rewriting history — and I don’t think that’s a pointless pursuit.”

I don’t think that the article rewrote history, as much as it showed another side of the history. History is not a one-sided entity.

“I don’t respect what he did over Hutton professionally, and I haven’t heard anything from him since that has made me change my mind.”

I don’t have a lot of appreciation for what I heard Gilligan did, as depicted by what I consider to be a somewhat biased source — the government’s report. Likewise, I, too, haven’t heard anything from Gilligan since that would make me change my mind… but I would argue that perhaps he hasn’t been given much of an unobstructed chance to speak his mind. Academics have the benefit of time and reflection to make sure they get the story right… or at least “more right” than the media, which establishes truth within a rather limited timeframe.

Before I judged Andrew Gilligan too harshly, I would prefer hearing him speak for himself. As an academic, I would take full advantage of the somewhat rare opportunity to have the time to reflect upon such serious stories.

Unfortunately, I think you may have may have missed that opportunity.