Back on to the news radar has come former Tory chief whip
Andrew Mitchell, and the saga of Plebgate, to the acute discomfort of a
number of Police forces and a not very good attempt by many of those who
scrabble around the dunghill that is Grubstreet to paint themselves as
disinterested bystanders. That’s not what they were when the story first hit
the newsstands.
As I noted
last December, the Super Soaraway Currant Bun was
out of the blocks first, asserting that Mitchell had called the Met’s
finest “f***ing plebs”, with the
obedient hackery of the legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre doubling down on
the accusations by telling that the MP had told the cops “I’ll have your job for this”. Neither title has apologised – yet.
And, while they keep banging on about how independent press
regulation (that is, independent of the press interfering in the process in
order to get the result they want and “mark
their own homework”), none of those papers that were so keen to run the
story last year are letting their readers know that they did no investigation
of their own, or even tried to stand up the story via a second source.
Yes, this was a single-sourced story, and that source was
the Police. This may be usefully borne in mind when reading the self-righteous
outrage of the Mail this morning: “The
more that emerges about Andrew Mitchell and the Plebgate affair, the uglier and
more chilling appears the conduct of the police”. And who was it that
took the story of what Mitchell allegedly said on trust?
The Maily Telegraph
has been equally concerned: “If
we cannot trust the police to behave honestly and with integrity, then a key
element of the citizen’s social contract with the state is fatally undermined”.
So why did the paper wait until it was demonstrated – not by a newspaper
journalist, but Michael Crick at Channel 4 – that Mitchell must have been
fitted up?
And why start harping on about the Police Federation, of
which “three senior representatives ...
closed ranks with their Met colleagues, and may have seriously misrepresented
Mr Mitchell after a meeting with him in his Sutton Coldfield constituency”?
And why not say it directly – the meeting was recorded, they told the press a
pack of lies about it, and got caught out.
There is a part of the press that has swallowed everything
the Police has fed it, and for decades. They have backed the cops even through
the most flagrant miscarriages of justice. They have had no problem with using
them as a single, and moreover trusted, source. As was shown with
Phonehackgate, the press were all too often good friends of the Police. So they
have no room for complaint.
Plebgate is just as
much the press’ problem as it is that of the Police.
Sadly this is a problem where the press never seems to learn. We know from incidents such as Hillsbrough and the Stockwell shooting that police officers have turned tragic mistakes into national scandals by briefing the press with versions of events that protect themselves. And the press eagerly lap this up for a good story rather than wait for any sort of due process.
ReplyDeleteA newspaper falling for a lie someone told them is forgiveable. What is not forgiveable is repeatedly printing off-the-record briefings as fact, never giving these claims any sort of scrutiny, and then blaming everything on the Police when doubts emerge later.
Steve walker has an analysis that backs the police http://skwalker1964.wordpress.com/2012/12/30/definitive-video-shows-plebgate-should-not-damage-confidence-in-police/
ReplyDeleteAnonymous. What about the email sent by a serving policeman posing as a member of the public and claiming to have been a witness?
ReplyDelete