The standoff between BBC chair Greg Dyke and the Blair government over the so-called 'dodgy dossier' is significant not only within the context of the war on Iraq, but also for press freedom as a whole.

The BBC's coverage of the US-UK coalition efforts in Iraq amounted to little more than propaganda, and yet its stand on the dossier remains courageous. It is, so far, a triumph for the democratic concept of the 'fourth estate' – an independent and critical press. Indeed, no one will be watching the skirmish more closely than media mogul and Labour lapdog Rupert Murdoch.

The problem, at the moment, involves a matter of journalistic integrity: the BBC says its claims that the dossier on alleged WMD was "sexed up" are based on an intelligence source that it guaranteed anonymity in exchange for information. Blair is demanding the name of the individual without which, he says, the claims hold no weight.

Anonymous sources are always a problem for journalists – though they are useful in instances such as these, they are best avoided since they undermine the credibility of a story. Giving the name of an anonymous source would mean breaking the trust that exists between reporters and their sources, especially if they have been courted over time.

What Blair has done is shift the focus of the scandal into the journalistic arena. Whether this means the whole thing will be swept under the carpet remains to be seen, but what's certain is that the BBC has punted some serious questions about the Iraq war into public debate, and while the tabloids rally around Blair, the BBC is coming out tops.Bo Whiting,

Ontario, Canada