END TIMES FOR HARDING
Following on the news that the settlement between News
International (NI) and the twinkle-toed yet domestically combative Rebekah
Brooks is
almost £11 million came the “resignation” of Times
editor James Harding, not of course that Rupert Murdoch engineered the
departure to take attention away from his empire’s largesse towards his former
favourite. Perish the thought!
Rupe’s editors down the years have known that their
proprietor will not hesitate to sack editors he does not deem sufficiently
effective, loyal, or inculcated with the necessary mindset. Harold Evans, who
lasted just the one year at the helm of the Times,
failed his master on the last two of those tests, and it seems Harding failed
the same tests, but not in the same manner.
Harding, according to Andrew “Brillo Pad” Neil, whose time in the hot seat at the Sunday Times gives him a particularly
intimate insight into such matters, was “way
too liberal [and] wishy-washy for old
Rupe”. And, as Neil also opines that Murdoch hates Young Dave, that signals
a requirement for a replacement who will put the firm stamp of Conservatism (with
a capital C) on the paper.
So far, so predictable, but there is another reason for
Harding to be given the boot at this time, and that is his informal appointment
as the contact with 10 Downing Street over editors’ responses to the Leveson
Report. As
the deeply subversive Guardian has
noted, those talks were “about how to
create a body to certify the work of the press regulator that would be set up
by royal charter”.
My hunch is that Rupe wasn’t happy with the idea of a royal
charter, and that he would see it as yielding ground towards those wanting to
see self regulation that is completely independent of editors and owners. On
top of that, Harding embarrassed his proprietor with
the unnecessary “outing” of blogger
NightJack, a case that was only concluded recently (the Times lost).
So Harding’s penalty points finally got him banned. But what
is also worryingly familiar about his departure is that the rest of the Fourth
Estate appears to be reverting to the culture of Omerta which so typified its reaction to the emerging scandal that
was Phonehackgate. Then, it was the Guardian
and later the Indy that allowed
journalists to report the case. All other papers kept schtum.
Once again it is the Guardian
which has both reported Harding’s departure, and
given his statement on the matter in full. The sites of the Mail and Telegraph – and thus far also the Indy – have said nothing. But the BBC has reported the story, and
many journalists have disseminated the news over Twitter. The old ways do not
work. Maybe those old ways also include
Murdoch’s approach to this affair.
No comments:
Post a Comment