±±¾©Èü³µpk10

Each day a new surprise and the best is yet to come, with the appearance next week of the prime minister.

What a pleasure it has been to see how various newspapers have managed to report the proceedings entirely through the prism of their own political prejudices. Perhaps one day there should be an inquiry into that sort of thing and a review of the accuracy of some of the papers that have been condemning, so joyfully, the BBC's fall from journalistic grace.

Clearly the irony is lost on them that the BBC is in trouble now because of the importation, to a modest degree, of newspaper-style scoop chasing where proof and certainty are often elusive goals.

And yet, as we approach what is presumably the halfway point in the inquiry, the remarkable thing is just how little of real substance has actually changed.

There have been a plethora of insights into the inner workings and machinations of government and the confirmation, if any is needed, that the BBC is a nest of vipers with everyone trying to protect their own backs.

It was always obvious from the outset that Andrew Gilligan had probably gone that dangerous bit too far in claiming that the government had inserted the '45 minute claim' and had done it probably knowing it to be false.

It is equally clear that the BBC governors were absolutely right to reject in robust terms the generalised attack on BBC journalism, and in particular its coverage of both the preparations for, and conduct of, the Iraq war.

Perhaps, in retrospect, they might have been wiser to have also distanced themselves a little from some of the language of the original Gilligan broadcast, which was already being heavily questioned by the time they met to deliberate. Sometimes something that looks like arrogance actually is arrogance.

The outcome of the Hutton inquiry is already clear. Virtually everyone involved will be criticised for a less than perfect performance and the only doubt is over who will receive most lashes.

So far as the BBC is concerned, the message ought to be clear already.

The corporation must not give up on investigative journalism even if this means continuing to employ the occasional troublesome newspaper hack.

It was always completely crazy to launch such a controversial story that went to the heart of the integrity of the government as an unscripted live 'two-way'.

Such an item should have been carefully constructed in advance with every word tested by senior editors. The notion that such an issue could be tackled, at least initially, in the form of a jolly chat with John Humphreys is ludicrous.

The flaws should not, however, obscure the fact that this was an important story to tell - whatever Hutton finally decides.