This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2016/apr/14/now-newspapers-give-the-john-whittingdale-non-story-top-billing

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Now newspapers give the John Whittingdale non-story top billing Now newspapers give the John Whittingdale non-story top billing
(1 day later)
The papers may have decided that John Whittingdale was a non-story but the tale got a further lease of life in TV news bulletins on Wednesday evening.The papers may have decided that John Whittingdale was a non-story but the tale got a further lease of life in TV news bulletins on Wednesday evening.
Except now the story is that the BBC is seeking to weaken Whittingdale ahead of its charter review.Except now the story is that the BBC is seeking to weaken Whittingdale ahead of its charter review.
That nonsense was aired on the Daily Telegraph’s front page, also featuring in the Daily Mail and in the Sun (of course). They may, however, be more correct in accusing Hacked Off, the organisation that represents the victims of phone hacking, of stoking up the storm.That nonsense was aired on the Daily Telegraph’s front page, also featuring in the Daily Mail and in the Sun (of course). They may, however, be more correct in accusing Hacked Off, the organisation that represents the victims of phone hacking, of stoking up the storm.
The group is among the conspiracy theorists who believe newspapers refused to publish articles about Whittingdale’s relationship with a sex worker because editors don’t want the culture secretary to reopen the Leveson inquiry and/or introduce legislation forcing papers to pay both sides’ legal costs should they be sued.The group is among the conspiracy theorists who believe newspapers refused to publish articles about Whittingdale’s relationship with a sex worker because editors don’t want the culture secretary to reopen the Leveson inquiry and/or introduce legislation forcing papers to pay both sides’ legal costs should they be sued.
Those conspiracists have built on claims by Jim Cusick, a former Independent reporter, that his editor refused to publish his story on the matter for reasons that remain unclear.Those conspiracists have built on claims by Jim Cusick, a former Independent reporter, that his editor refused to publish his story on the matter for reasons that remain unclear.
Aside from the Indy, it is said that three other papers - the Sunday People, Mail on Sunday and the Sun - also failed to publish. On that “evidence”, Labour’s Chris Bryant argues that editors were holding “the sword of Damocles” over Whittingdale’s head.Aside from the Indy, it is said that three other papers - the Sunday People, Mail on Sunday and the Sun - also failed to publish. On that “evidence”, Labour’s Chris Bryant argues that editors were holding “the sword of Damocles” over Whittingdale’s head.
The idea that the editors of four fiercely competitive newspapers conspired together to withhold a story stretches credulity to breaking point. I just do not believe it happened.The idea that the editors of four fiercely competitive newspapers conspired together to withhold a story stretches credulity to breaking point. I just do not believe it happened.
Much more likely is that all of them, having assessed the facts, reached the conclusion that there was no public interest justification in publishing the story.Much more likely is that all of them, having assessed the facts, reached the conclusion that there was no public interest justification in publishing the story.
A former senior executive at the Sunday People told me that during his paper’s deliberations over whether or not to publish, it took counsel from the Labour MP (and now its deputy leader), Tom Watson, a prominent supporter of Hacked Off. He advised against publication on the grounds that it would be an invasion of Whittingdale’s privacy.A former senior executive at the Sunday People told me that during his paper’s deliberations over whether or not to publish, it took counsel from the Labour MP (and now its deputy leader), Tom Watson, a prominent supporter of Hacked Off. He advised against publication on the grounds that it would be an invasion of Whittingdale’s privacy.
The Times’s David Aaronovitch reported that he talked to someone involved in supposedly “suppressing” the story at one of the papers. She told him that “once the main assertions about Whittingdale’s behaviour failed to stand up, they’d been left with a ‘mostly unknown man dates slightly naughty woman’ tale which simply wasn’t strong enough.”The Times’s David Aaronovitch reported that he talked to someone involved in supposedly “suppressing” the story at one of the papers. She told him that “once the main assertions about Whittingdale’s behaviour failed to stand up, they’d been left with a ‘mostly unknown man dates slightly naughty woman’ tale which simply wasn’t strong enough.”
That viewpoint would have been underlined by office lawyers at a period when editors were acutely conscious of the post-Leveson climate of hostility towards unfair intrusions into people’s private lives.That viewpoint would have been underlined by office lawyers at a period when editors were acutely conscious of the post-Leveson climate of hostility towards unfair intrusions into people’s private lives.
But the story, along with photographs, was published online, stimulated plenty of mentions on social media and then got a significant show in Private Eye. All speculated that the press was guilty of dark deeds.But the story, along with photographs, was published online, stimulated plenty of mentions on social media and then got a significant show in Private Eye. All speculated that the press was guilty of dark deeds.
BBC2’s Newsnight felt it couldn’t ignore the story and managed to get a breakthrough by obtaining a lengthy on-the-record statement from Whittingdale. The floodgates then opened... with added conspiracy theories.BBC2’s Newsnight felt it couldn’t ignore the story and managed to get a breakthrough by obtaining a lengthy on-the-record statement from Whittingdale. The floodgates then opened... with added conspiracy theories.
As the Guardian’s leading article noted, the problem with the “range of machiavellian theories... is partly that there is not yet any solid proof to substantiate them.”As the Guardian’s leading article noted, the problem with the “range of machiavellian theories... is partly that there is not yet any solid proof to substantiate them.”
Just the reverse in fact. Political reality made the launch of Leveson part two in the wake of the phone hacking trials unlikely. Similarly, the government appears to have accepted another reality: the overwhelming majority of newspaper and magazine publishers have refused to comply with the royal charter it cobbled together to create a new form of press regulation.Just the reverse in fact. Political reality made the launch of Leveson part two in the wake of the phone hacking trials unlikely. Similarly, the government appears to have accepted another reality: the overwhelming majority of newspaper and magazine publishers have refused to comply with the royal charter it cobbled together to create a new form of press regulation.
Instead, it is giving the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) the chance to show its merits. And that is not Whittingdale’s decision, but one largely taken by the prime minister, David Cameron.Instead, it is giving the Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso) the chance to show its merits. And that is not Whittingdale’s decision, but one largely taken by the prime minister, David Cameron.
But, even if we regarded the non-publication of the Whittingdale affair as a sign of a popular press cleaning up its act, it would appear that times haven’t changed after all.But, even if we regarded the non-publication of the Whittingdale affair as a sign of a popular press cleaning up its act, it would appear that times haven’t changed after all.
So Whittingdale’s embarrassment was compounded with belated silly and salacious coverage in some papers on Thursday. The Sun ran with a spread, “Whit lashed” (geddit). The Daily Mirror’s front page, “Dominatrix Tory faces sleaze probe”, was supplemented with a spread claiming that Whittingdale will face an inquiry for breaching parliamentary rules over failing to declare a trip to Amsterdam paid for by MTV.So Whittingdale’s embarrassment was compounded with belated silly and salacious coverage in some papers on Thursday. The Sun ran with a spread, “Whit lashed” (geddit). The Daily Mirror’s front page, “Dominatrix Tory faces sleaze probe”, was supplemented with a spread claiming that Whittingdale will face an inquiry for breaching parliamentary rules over failing to declare a trip to Amsterdam paid for by MTV.
The Daily Star weighed in with nudge, nudge stuff: “Yes, yes, yes minister” on page 1 and an inside spread headlined “Whiplash minister is told to withdraw” (geddit again?).The Daily Star weighed in with nudge, nudge stuff: “Yes, yes, yes minister” on page 1 and an inside spread headlined “Whiplash minister is told to withdraw” (geddit again?).
Even the Times couldn’t resist a pun “Labour lashes out at Whittingdale”. But its leading article was sober and sensible. The link between Whittingdale’s political and private lives was built “on the flimsiest of evidence”.Even the Times couldn’t resist a pun “Labour lashes out at Whittingdale”. But its leading article was sober and sensible. The link between Whittingdale’s political and private lives was built “on the flimsiest of evidence”.
It urged No 10 to stand firm and keep Whittingdale in his post, pointing out that he has “vexed Hacked Off” by shelving a second Leveson inquiry, protecting newspapers “from the outlandish proposal that they be forced to pay legal costs even in libel cases they win”, and allowing the industry to set up Ipso.It urged No 10 to stand firm and keep Whittingdale in his post, pointing out that he has “vexed Hacked Off” by shelving a second Leveson inquiry, protecting newspapers “from the outlandish proposal that they be forced to pay legal costs even in libel cases they win”, and allowing the industry to set up Ipso.
The Telegraph agreed that Hacked Off had reason to make much of the story but was more exercised by the BBC’s promotion of the tale across its bulletins:The Telegraph agreed that Hacked Off had reason to make much of the story but was more exercised by the BBC’s promotion of the tale across its bulletins:
“We had, therefore, the bizarre spectacle of the very people who usually consider such stories to be prurient and intrusive insisting that the tabloids should have published this one. Their hypocrisy simply takes the breath away.”“We had, therefore, the bizarre spectacle of the very people who usually consider such stories to be prurient and intrusive insisting that the tabloids should have published this one. Their hypocrisy simply takes the breath away.”
It concluded with a cheek question: “Has there been a conspiracy between the corporation and Hacked Off to damage Mr Whittingdale? Perhaps Newsnight would care to investigate.” It concluded with a cheeky question: “Has there been a conspiracy between the corporation and Hacked Off to damage Mr Whittingdale? Perhaps Newsnight would care to investigate.”
The Sun argued that the BBC’s interest in the story was part of “a well-known vendetta against the culture secretary for his sensible efforts to trim the licence fee.”The Sun argued that the BBC’s interest in the story was part of “a well-known vendetta against the culture secretary for his sensible efforts to trim the licence fee.”
And the Mail, unsurprisingly, agreed: “The Oscar for egregious hypocrisy goes to… the trouser-dropping luvvies, posturing lawyers and third-rate academics of the anti-newspaper campaign group, Hacked Off.”And the Mail, unsurprisingly, agreed: “The Oscar for egregious hypocrisy goes to… the trouser-dropping luvvies, posturing lawyers and third-rate academics of the anti-newspaper campaign group, Hacked Off.”
And, it added, “while we’re handing out Oscars for hypocrisy, let’s not forget the BBC. After gloatingly reporting Leveson’s attacks on press intrusion, it now shamelessly breaks the Whittingdale non-story - treating it like the biggest scandal since the Profumo affair.”And, it added, “while we’re handing out Oscars for hypocrisy, let’s not forget the BBC. After gloatingly reporting Leveson’s attacks on press intrusion, it now shamelessly breaks the Whittingdale non-story - treating it like the biggest scandal since the Profumo affair.”
I really don’t think the BBC has much to answer for, but Hacked Off may have scored an own goal.I really don’t think the BBC has much to answer for, but Hacked Off may have scored an own goal.