Hunt was doing Murdoch's bidding from the off. It was after all Hunt who hamstrung the Beeb, by effectively cutting their revenue stream by refusing an increase in the licence fee, and making them pay for the World Service, which had always been paid for by the Foreign Office. Murdoch wanted the Beeb's on line activities to be reduced too in order that his paywall Times operation could be profitable. Apparently Hunt lobbied initially to have the decision over Sky decided by his department too. The whole business stinks of corruption at the highest level. Surely a thoroughgoing investigation by the Fraud Squad or someone with real teeth is required. After all, minutes after Hunt had finished giving evidence, Cameron backed him and said he would not be referring him to the official adviser on the Ministerial Code Sir Alex Allan. How can this guy be effective if the only person who can refer matters to him is biased himself?
Anyway it looks as though Clegg is finally going to man up.
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... estigation

Hunt was doing Murdoch's bidding from the off. It was after all Hunt who hamstrung the Beeb, by effectively cutting their revenue stream by refusing an increase in the licence fee, and making them pay for the World Service, which had always been paid for by the Foreign Office. Murdoch wanted the Beeb's on line activities to be reduced too in order that his paywall Times operation could be profitable. Apparently Hunt lobbied initially to have the decision over Sky decided by his department too. The whole business stinks of corruption at the highest level. Surely a thoroughgoing investigation by the Fraud Squad or someone with real teeth is required. After all, minutes after Hunt had finished giving evidence, Cameron backed him and said he would not be referring him to the official adviser on the Ministerial Code Sir Alex Allan. How can this guy be effective if the only person who can refer matters to him is biased himself?
Anyway it looks as though Clegg is finally going to man up.
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012 ... estigation

BUt Labour were reacting. After what the Sun did to Kinnock in 1992 who can blame them? Labour have often been accused of using spin. But again it was a reaction to the enormous spin machine the Tories used against them. Who can forget the huge posters at the 1987 election showing a soldier surrendering and the caption "Labour's defence policy" certainly not me. It was a disgraceful lie, as was the "double whammy" campaign in 1992. But they got away with it because they had the press on their side.
If anyone went a step beyond the acceptable it was Cameron and Hunt with their witchunt against the BBC after James Murdoch's speech to the Edinburgh TV festival. Which was quickly followed by Cameron attacking Offcom
www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... vidcameron
and then proceed to hamstring the Beeb just as Rupert wanted him to. But for the scandal the Tories would have nodded Murdoch's deal for Sky through without a second thought. He who pays the piper etc.

BUt Labour were reacting. After what the Sun did to Kinnock in 1992 who can blame them? Labour have often been accused of using spin. But again it was a reaction to the enormous spin machine the Tories used against them. Who can forget the huge posters at the 1987 election showing a soldier surrendering and the caption "Labour's defence policy" certainly not me. It was a disgraceful lie, as was the "double whammy" campaign in 1992. But they got away with it because they had the press on their side.
If anyone went a step beyond the acceptable it was Cameron and Hunt with their witchunt against the BBC after James Murdoch's speech to the Edinburgh TV festival. Which was quickly followed by Cameron attacking Offcom
www.guardian.co.uk/media/greensl ... vidcameron
and then proceed to hamstring the Beeb just as Rupert wanted him to. But for the scandal the Tories would have nodded Murdoch's deal for Sky through without a second thought. He who pays the piper etc.

Oborne quotes several Blairite cabinet members who said the same, "What could we do?". But as stated, it's one thing to develop a functioning relationship with a distinct entity known as the "The Media" (which can remain intact despite the worst excesses of such). However, it is quite another thing to work in collusion with the very same to subvert the democratic process as well as blurring the boundaries to the point where it's impossible to tell where one finishes and the other begins.

Again, no one is suggesting that Thatcher and Ingham didn't cultivate an atmosphere of client journalism (the existence of which pre-dates Thatcher by decades - but it took Labour to send it into overdrive). Thatcher didn't make Ingham the third (possibly even the second) most powerful man in Britain as Alastair Campbell was under Blair (and let's not forget that Brown was playing a very similar game in the company of Ed Balls). Consider Alastair Campbell's influence on policy around the time of the Iraq invasion and then tell me - with a straight face - Bernard Ingham wielded the very same power.

Moreover, Thatcher didn't do away with the age-old mechanism of expressing government policy in the carefully controlled environment of parliament as opposed to leaking "bad news" whenever she felt like it to a network of client newspapers only too willing to drop it onto page thirteen.

If this had been written in the New Statesman or such I doubt anyone would blink an eye. But if Peter Oborne (who whilst writing for a Tory paper cannot be described as a fan of the modern Tory party) is hawking a book there simply must be an agenda. Have prejudices now reached such a depressing point where a person's [iperceived[/i affiliations are more important than the words that come out of his mouth? Using the traditional method of fixing someone's politics I'd say I'm further to the Left than almost everyone here. Does this mean I should only read the words of like minded journalists? I'd call this an unhealthy re-enforcement of ideas - something akin to what you'd find in a fascist dictatorship or a cult.

In any case, accusations of anti-Labour bias by Oborne seem somewhat daft given the following endorsements on page one:

[i"...Oborne charts the inexorable rise of professional politicians and their unhealthy engagement with the media"[/i -- Paul Routlege (who should know, given his ties with Gordon Brown).

[i"A brilliant anatomisation of the reality of the contemporary situation"[/i -- Guido Fawkes

[i"A powerful and troubling study"[/i -- Nick Cohen.

[i"Brilliantly analyses the emergence of the all-party British nomenclature that has formed ... and shows how it serves the interests of this new political class"[/i -- John Gray.

and a host of others (spanning the entire spectrum from Left to Right).

Oborne quotes several Blairite cabinet members who said the same, "What could we do?". But as stated, it's one thing to develop a functioning relationship with a distinct entity known as the "The Media" (which can remain intact despite the worst excesses of such). However, it is quite another thing to work in collusion with the very same to subvert the democratic process as well as blurring the boundaries to the point where it's impossible to tell where one finishes and the other begins.

Again, no one is suggesting that Thatcher and Ingham didn't cultivate an atmosphere of client journalism (the existence of which pre-dates Thatcher by decades - but it took Labour to send it into overdrive). Thatcher didn't make Ingham the third (possibly even the second) most powerful man in Britain as Alastair Campbell was under Blair (and let's not forget that Brown was playing a very similar game in the company of Ed Balls). Consider Alastair Campbell's influence on policy around the time of the Iraq invasion and then tell me - with a straight face - Bernard Ingham wielded the very same power.

Moreover, Thatcher didn't do away with the age-old mechanism of expressing government policy in the carefully controlled environment of parliament as opposed to leaking "bad news" whenever she felt like it to a network of client newspapers only too willing to drop it onto page thirteen.

If this had been written in the New Statesman or such I doubt anyone would blink an eye. But if Peter Oborne (who whilst writing for a Tory paper cannot be described as a fan of the modern Tory party) is hawking a book there simply must be an agenda. Have prejudices now reached such a depressing point where a person's [iperceived[/i affiliations are more important than the words that come out of his mouth? Using the traditional method of fixing someone's politics I'd say I'm further to the Left than almost everyone here. Does this mean I should only read the words of like minded journalists? I'd call this an unhealthy re-enforcement of ideas - something akin to what you'd find in a fascist dictatorship or a cult.

In any case, accusations of anti-Labour bias by Oborne seem somewhat daft given the following endorsements on page one:

[i"...Oborne charts the inexorable rise of professional politicians and their unhealthy engagement with the media"[/i -- Paul Routlege (who should know, given his ties with Gordon Brown).

[i"A brilliant anatomisation of the reality of the contemporary situation"[/i -- Guido Fawkes

[i"A powerful and troubling study"[/i -- Nick Cohen.

[i"Brilliantly analyses the emergence of the all-party British nomenclature that has formed ... and shows how it serves the interests of this new political class"[/i -- John Gray.

and a host of others (spanning the entire spectrum from Left to Right).