Welcome back to the new Zelo Street game of Spot The Whopper, where we try to find
the choicest dishonesty about press regulation. And today’s contestant is ...
what’s your name Sir? Fraser
Nelson, I see, a fine Scots name, and you’re ... editor of the Spectator magazine. We’re truly
honoured to have you on the show Fraser, and don’t worry, we won’t mention the
Barclay Brothers too often!
So what’s your Starter for 10, then? “We don’t need politicians’ permission to have a free press in Britain:
it’s a sacred right we have enjoyed for more than three centuries”. Yes,
that’s a fine opening whopper, as nobody is taking away the freedom of the
press, and you won’t find anything on the subject in any sacred text, whatever
your chosen Deity. Good start!
Tell us about the cross-party proposal! “ [It is] proposed to set up a bizarre,
politically-designed regulator”. I can give you extra credit for
that, a real smokescreen that says nothing, and executed in the style of Andrew
Gilligan! “What the government is now
proposing – and the Privy Council is considering – would be illegal in America
where freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment”.
Fraser, you’re spoiling us with the standard of your sheer
brass neck! Alleging that guaranteeing freedom of speech does the opposite is a
fine whopper. Give us another. “It would,
for the first time, allow politicians to set the parameters under which the
press operate”. Bonus points for being really sly there, misinformation
rather than whopper, no press operation would have its parameters set.
“The British press has
just proposed the toughest self-regulation in the Western world, with £1
million fines”. A fine double whopper there, there’s nothing tough about
what the press is proposing, as it’s only a Mark 2 PCC, and we all know just
how useful that was. And I’ll give you extra credit for not mentioning that the
£1 million fines are like Robert Maxwell’s £1 million Mirror bingo payout.
There’s more? “The
newspapers should forget this medieval pantomime and get on with implementing
the new, beefed-up system of self-regulation”. Another good double whopper
there, not admitting that the only reason you don’t like the Privy Council is
that you didn’t get your own way, and that the press’ proposal beefs up
nothing. And not telling that the cross-party proposal is proper
self-regulation!
One final whopper, Fraser? “So if it [Privy Council] does
reject press freedom, as Newsnight
predicts”. Excellent – restatement of previous whopper along with the
dishonest suggestion that the BBC endorses your view! The dishonesty bar really
is being set high this week, and with that, it’s my pleasure to thank Fraser
Nelson for coming along to play Spot The
Whopper! Give the man a big hand!
Can anyone out-whopper that? You betcha, says Sarah. So we’ll be back later.
I love the
ReplyDelete"Would be illegal in America where freedom of the press is protected by the First Amendment”.
A lot of right-wingers (not all but a lot) such as Nelson are against a codified constitution as they have in the US. So it's bit of an own goal really.
As for the ludicrous 300 years of freedom argument, anyone with a passing knowledge of UK social history (No, not Tim Stanley!) would know that the press has been heavily repressed over the years, especially the radical bits (Paine, Wilkes). Why even the Times used to call for the suppression of Chartist newspapers.