Why the sultans of spin are vilifying a BBC journalist

The joke among journalists used to be that each time Downing Street made one of its shrill attacks on Andrew Gilligan, his salary went up by £5,000. The publicity seemed to do him no harm at all. But after the vitriolic campaign against him over the past two days, the laughter is wearing thin.

With their backs against the wall over accusations about the "dodgy dossier" on Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, Alastair Campbell and New Labour loyalists are lashing out at the BBC and Mr Gilligan in particular.

Yesterday, Phil Woolas, a former union press officer and new Deputy Leader of the Commons, accused Mr Gilligan of misleading the Commons Foreign Affairs Committee investigating the Government's compiling of the dossier.

In a letter to the BBC's correspondent, Mr Woolas said: "It is perfectly clear that the stories that you broadcast, on the basis of a single anonymous source, were not true and I really believe you should apologise rather than force your defenders like [Richard] Sambrook [head of news at BBC] to compound the misleading statements you have made."

The sole purpose appears to be to personalise the matter and isolate Mr Gilligan. In fact, at least half a dozen other journalists have been told by members of the security services of deep misgivings about the way in which the Government manipulated information.

I should point out that Andrew Gilligan has been a friend for several years. Most recently we were in Baghdad together during the war. But it is not just his friends who are deeply perturbed by the Government's campaign of vilification against him. This is not just a matter of the "boys sticking together".

By focusing on him, the Government is trying to divert attention from the questions it should answer on how intelligence was manipulated to suit the agenda on war, and who was responsible. Will Mr Gilligan be worried by the onslaught? He should be. He has his enemies - not least within the BBC.

One accusation, made by BBC colleagues, is that he tries to make straightforward stories controversial. If the criticism succeeds in damaging his credibility, it would become untenable for him to work in his current field.

Mr Gilligan finds it ironic that the sultans of spin of New Labour who specialise in non-attributable briefings - often against ministers - are now attacking him for receiving information on the same basis.

In many ways, Mr Gilligan is a card-carrying member of the establishment - Cambridge, The Sunday Telegraph and the BBC. His trouble with New Labour began in 1999, soon after he joined the BBC, when one of his reports suggested that attempts to codify the various EU treaties amounted to a constitution for a European superstate. Downing Street called him "Gullible Gilligan". Since then his irritant quotient rose by reporting leaks such as official reports on the British Army's performance in Kosovo and the holiday Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence, took before the Iraq war.

His work from Baghdad especially irked No 10, and "Gullible Gilligan" became "Saddam's Stooge". How well he does now will depend on whether the BBC is ready to stand up to Downing Street.