Kelly And Dark Media Games
Kelly Investigation Group
If you consider only the bare facts of the Kelly case and disregard the wild presumptions of the media, it is pretty
clear in which direction they point.
Dr Kelly’s email to a journalist only hours before his death, with its chilling warning of ‘ dark actors playing dark games’, is clearly indicative not of suicide but of murder, and reveals that Kelly was well aware of the danger he was in.
Yet the media interpreted ‘ dark actors playing dark games’ as alluding to the threat of depriving the man of his pension or some other punitive measure. This ought to strike us
as odd, since ‘dark’ is quite inappropriate as a term to describe disciplinary action, no matter how harsh; it is a term
used to denote something that is evil and covert, and it is barely conceivable that the articulate Dr Kelly, whose use
of language was so semantically precise, would have used these words in so careless a manner.
Equally strange is the stark fact that, despite the paucity of evidence to support the hypothesis that Kelly had taken
his own life, no one suggested it might be anything other than suicide. Right from the start and without exception, all
of the press and broadcast media implied – even when it did not explicitly state - that Kelly had been so stressed by
recent events that he had killed himself. No one pointed out the blindingly obvious: that if you are in fear of your
life, you are quite naturally going to be…er…well, stressed.
And no one ventured to suggest that Kelly might – just possibly - have been murdered. That in itself is curious
considering the media’s usual appetite for sensationalism. Make no mistake about it, murder and intrigue make good copy!
But most extraordinary of all is that even before details of how he had died had been released by the police, the media
was planting in the public’s mind the idea that Kelly had committed suicide!
Here’s the BBC, for instance. At 19.54 hrs on 18 July after a body ‘ matching the description of Dr David Kelly’ had been found but before police had released details of the manner in which he had died, the BBC News website updated
a report which ended with the following quotation from an MP:
“He is not used to the media glare, he is not used to the spotlight he has been put under.”
It’s a standard technique in manipulative or ‘persuasive’ journalism: the quotation from a figure of authority
strategically placed at the end of a piece, ensuring that the reader is left with the intended impression - in this case
that Kelly couldn’t handle the stress of being in the public eye and therefore had probably killed himself.
This is what SKY News had to say after Kelly went missing:
“The disappearance of Kelly has raised concern over the way he was treated by MPs…We ask you… [the public]… to say if
you think Dr Kelly was put under too much pressure.”
Note how even at this early stage, viewers are being invited to focus their mind on suicide. They are not being asked to
say whether they think Dr Kelly knew too much for his own good, or whether there were people who might want to get rid
of Kelly. Here’s SKY quoting the Prime Minister, again before the police had released details of slashed wrists:
“Dr Kelly’s death…is an absolutely terrible tragedy…”
Note the use of the word ‘tragedy’: it is a perfectly apt term to describe a suicide, but quite inappropriate to use in
the context of a possible murder.
Here’s what the Edinburgh Evening News had to say on 18 July. This issue went to press after the body had been found but
before there was any information released on how Kelly had died.
“Whitehall insiders said the possible suicide of Kelly would make Campbell’s future….”
Of course, it’s only possible suicide – but why not possible murder?
And this is the Guardian (18 July), even before Kelly’s body had been found, implying that Kelly had committed suicide :
“[Recent events] would put personal pressure on him…the man has been treated in a way that is absolutely inexcusable”.
..[and in another report in the same issue]… “Andrew Gilligan will be feeling worried, frightened and pretty sickened by
the news that…Dr Kelly may have taken his own life”.
When in due course a post-mortem report declared the cause of death to be ‘haemorrhaging from a wound to the left wrist’, nobody acknowledged that evidence for suicide and evidence for murder made to look like suicide is identical. Nobody
pointed out, either, how odd it was that Kelly, a microbiologist who must have been familiar with any number of methods
of killing oneself that were both rapid and painless, should have chosen one that guaranteed unnecessary physical
suffering and a lingering death. From that point onward, presumption became fact and all media debate centred around why
Kelly had committed suicide and who was to blame.
It is a measure of the persuasive power of the media that the majority– with the exception of the few impervious to its
influence – now believe that Kelly committed suicide, and they do so despite all evidence to the contrary. What is
particularly disturbing is the apparent ease with which a whole nation can be made to believe something so implausible.
We knew that Kelly’s mood was upbeat and ‘combative’ hours before he died, that he was looking forward to returning to
Iraq, that he was waiting ‘until the end of the week’ even before forming an opinion on how his committee appearance had
gone, that he was seen smiling as he left for his customary walk (and how in heaven’s name can a man smile just before
he kills himself), that he actually chatted for five minutes with a neighbour during his walk, that he had been
described by a colleague as mentally tough and a man of principle who had endured years of confrontation and harassment
in Iraq, that he was devoted to his wife and family yet left no suicide note …
We knew all this and more, and were nevertheless led to believe Kelly killed himself because he couldn’t handle the
stress. I do not know what percentage but I guess at least a good minority do not believe he took his life. We believed
it purely and simply because the media persuaded us that he did, all of us except those who could see through their dark
linguistic games - those so easily dismissed ad hominem (but not by argument) as ‘conspiracy theorists’.
I do not profess to know the exact nature of the relationship of the British media with the government and Whitehall,
though I do understand and can identify the linguistic techniques of persuasion used to ensure that the people of this
‘democratic’ nation of ours do not think thoughts that could be a threat to the dominant order. The press and the
broadcast media are free only within certain constraints. The D-notice system ensures that the media do not publish
‘sensitive’ government information and refrain from airing views that might incite civil disobedience or challenge the
power of the state; and while it is not legally binding, failure to comply can be costly.
Above and beyond the D-Notice, however, is the absolute authority of the Home Office to circumscribe what material can
and cannot be publicised and this extends not only to newspaper and broadcast media but to publishing firms as well. The
power of the government over the media and the media over the minds of the people is the most effective way of - in
Chomsky’s phrasing - ‘deterring democracy’. That is why, if Kelly was murdered, it will never become public knowledge.
*************
The author invites anyone who is interested in how the media impacts the Kelly story to contact him:
josephdormer @ whsmithnet.co.uk
If you wish to copy me I would also be interested. Rowena
RowenaThursby @ onetel.com
Kelly Investigation Group