DACRE GETTING
FRIGHTENED
It might not have generated many column inches in the
mainstream press, but the Leveson “Rule
13” letter sent to Associated Newspapers, owners of the Daily Mail, has caused significant
discomfort to all concerned there, and especially the legendarily foul mouthed
Paul Dacre, who has been castigated for “failures
of leadership” and of “failing to
acknowledge the [PCC’s] failure”.
Oversee me, c***? F*** that for starters!?!
Fortunately, the matter has been lead item in the Private Eye Street Of Shame section in its last two issues (1323 and 1324), and
so we now know that Leveson has also made the general point that the current
system “failed to provide properly for
adequate oversight of editors”, which of course is the whole point at the Mail: nobody, but nobody, oversees the
Vagina Monologue.
That Dacre is now getting, as the Eye puts it, “uncharacteristically
jittery” can be seen from the attack punditry he has ordered, with today’s
example from Stephen Glover, that most miserable of miserable gits, being typical.
“Leveson,
and how the luvvies (who made millions using the media) should beware what they
wish for” reads the headline, which sums up the predictably tedious
content.
Here, Glover treads the well-worn path of kicking Hugh
Grant, Steve Coogan, Jude Law and Max Mosley. Their activities are held to suggest
that their views don’t really count, and that they may have used the services
of PRs (which, in Daily Mail land,
are by definition “expensive”,
meaning the readers should be jealous because they have lots of money) means
they are courting publicity for their own ends.
This it complete crap: slebs use PRs to field media
enquiries and order their exposure, which is not the same thing. And trying not
to over-expose slebs to the media soon gets the Mail ranting yet more loudly, as we saw last week with their vapid
and thoroughly nasty attack on Jo Rowling
for not giving them an interview. Moreover,
Glover’s insistence on only mentioning phone hacking is telling.
Because it’s not just about hacking: as any fule kno, the Mail was top of the charts with Steve
Whittamore, busted as part of Operation Motorman. The paper was heavily
involved in illegal information gathering. And the Eye points out that Leveson’s Rule 13 letter contains enough
specifics of its own, for instance Jan Moir’s now infamous article on the death
of Stephen Gately.
Also mentioned are “a
defamatory story of no genuine public interest printed about Neil Morrissey”,
and an intrusive piece about Abigail Witchall’s brother. Dacre then failed “to recognise before the enquiry that that
was wrong”. Paul Dacre can order his pundits to write as much attack copy
as he wants, and try and frighten readers with tales of Government regulation,
but ultimately the fault is his, and his alone.
3 comments:
As Hugh Grant pointed out at the weekend, self-regulation for doctors and solicitors works because it is backed up by statute. If the self-regulation fails, statutory regulation can kick-in. What Grant should also have said is that there are thousands of doctors and solicitors, so the chances of a doctor or solicitor having to pass judgement on himself or herself is very low.
There are very few newspapers. People like Dacre regularly pass judgement on themselves at the PCC and, unsurprisingly, find themselves to be pure as driven snow. This isn't regulation.
Guano
Why do people read rubbish like The Mail anyway? Surelt nobody takes anything they say seriously?
I'm afraid they do, anonymous. how many? impossible to say but if the conversations I hear at work and in my local are anything to go by, the figure must be quite high.
dacre drips poison into the minds of his readership 6 days a week.
if ever there was an argument for stat. regulation the content of the mail would trump all others.
Post a Comment