I'm surprised you linked to the Daily Torygraph and describe it as 'public opinion'. Since when was it valid for a conservative voice to be 'public opinion'?

Why?
Public opinion is composed of many different voices engaged in a political dialogue/debate on those public issues that matter to people.

Unlike many conservative pundits--eg. Tim Blair's readers who do little more than abuse the person---the Daily Telegraph argues its case in public.

I think you simply wanted to reinforce your case. I think if they held a different opinion to you, as they do on most other issues, you'd had dismissed the Telegraph's view.

Colour me cynical.

Not at all. I referenced an argument from the Daily Telegraph that defended Hutton when I am critical of what he was doing.

You are not reading the text.

My background is philosophy not journalism.

Philosophical culture always works in terms of arguing against an opponent by addressing their arguments. That is how you get a debate going, rather than attacking the person as is done in Australia.

You have to be guarded about a 'Yougov' survey of online respondents only. That aside ABCWatch links to Gilligan's full resignation statement. He basically admits he's resigning because he lied and then goes on to complain about Hutton not believing a lot of his testimony.Funny that

It seems to me that there is a deeper undercurrent here than the BBC vs the Govt of the day. It comes down to a reporter hanging a source out to dry, which is not uncommon in the media. The problem was that Kelly committed suicide over this and given the highly political nature of the time someone was going down over this death. The truth is all attack dog ,tabloid, Watergate conspiracy seeking media, know that there but for the grace of god go they. Consequently, deep down no journo wants to admit their action could be personally resposible for wrecking a life. That's why I don't think the media will ever be comfortable with Hutton's findings. Watch them all chip away at Hutton from now on.

Observa,

I too suspected there are deeper currents in this than just the Blair Govt. versus the BBC.

In the long run Govts don't gain that much from attacking a public broadcaster because it held the Govt to account on crucial issues.

I am suprised by the bitterness of the fight, and suprised by the Fleet Street journalist consensus that Hutton was the appropriate target of criticism.

I suspect the conflict has to do with the media's watchdog relationship to democracy: ie.,this one is really about democracy.

But I'm in no position to judge what that deep undercurrent is.

Your account stands until a better one comes along.