The premise behind Peter Sellers’ last Pink Panther film – that an ageing Mafia boss orders a hit to
demonstrate that he is “still strong”
– will be familiar to those observing events at Northcliffe House, where the
legendarily foul mouthed Paul Dacre has dispatched his henchman Stephen “Miserable Git” Glover over
the top in an attempt to kick away the credibility of Guardian man Nick Davies.
What the f***'s wrong with kicking the f***ing Guardian, c***?!? Er, with the greatest of respect, Mr Jay
Why the Vagina Monologue should have waited so long before
going after the man who brought us Flat
Earth News, the go-to book on the machinations of those who scrabble around
the dunghill that is Grubstreet, and which contains a singularly revealing
chapter on the Daily Mail and its
editor, may not at first be clear. It is because Davies’ profile is about to go
far, far higher.
The latest book from the man who brought Phonehackgate to a
wider audience, Hack Attack, examines
the Murdoch empire, its rotten tabloid underbelly, and its come-uppance at the
Hacking Trial. This, in itself, was not sufficient to cause the boiling magma
of Dacre’s volcanic hatred to blow, but when George Clooney decided to make a
movie based on the book, the eruption was immediate.
Much of Glover’s screed is down to his usual tedious
standard: first he praises Davies, then slowly but surely builds a mountain of
misinformation, which includes disputing Flat
Earth News’ claims about the Daily
Mail’s inherent racism, claiming that Davies’ sources were “unnamed” and therefore by implication
unreliable. But he misses the obvious corollary.
Were Davies to be spreading falsehood about the Mail, it would have been easy for the
paper, with its resources, to take him to the cleaners. No such action was
taken, and for the good reason that Davies could stand up those allegations.
Glover’s case then effectively shoots itself in the foot when he makes his clincher
the Milly Dowler hacking and the subsequent closure of the Screws.
First, he suggests that the voicemail deletion angle was key
to this story, but it was not: it was not
covered until the seventh paragraph of the original article. From that he
riffs “If Davies had got the original
story right, the NoW might still be published”. But an
email from the month before that story appeared says otherwise.
Simon Greenberg, then News International’s director of
corporate affairs, said to Rebekah Brooks regarding the Screws “This is why we should
consider the shutdown option ... Is the brand too toxic for itself or the
company? I believe it is. Unparalleled moments need unparalleled action. You
could be the person to save the Rubicon deal”. The Rubicon deal was
the bid for all of BSkyB.
Glover’s article is undone by the mystical art known as “five minutes’ Googling”. Dacre’s attack
on Davies is built on sand. He fails to show that he is “still strong”.
Suspect Glover is not very happy about comments about himself in the book apart from the Mail#'s part in Operation Motorman(not as yet revealed officially Mr Caplan sit down please!).
ReplyDeleteAll rather a bit like Kelvin Mackenzie trying to compare himself with Ann Diamond on the truth stakes at the Leveson Inquiry when their evidence "diverged".
Ann Diamond and Nick Davies v Stephen Glover (for Dacre) and Kelvin MacKenzie (for Murdoch).
Proper journalists as against salesmen for "news"papers? I leave you to judge.
Still at least they got a mention unlike her who shouldn't! Must be so upsetting. Hah!
Funny enough, just a scroll on the comments section prove that their attack has failed flat. Because even their own readers are standing for Nick Davies on this issue.
ReplyDelete@ Tresor
ReplyDeleteSure they're Daily Mail readers and not anonymous "others"?
Not so much shame attached to having your attention drawn to online articles?
Must admit I was drawn into reading that in the DM because of the headline which intriguingly described Davies as "discredited ". I got halfway before I realised the author wasn't going to support that with anything discrediting.
ReplyDelete@ Rob
ReplyDeleteYes they're Daily Mail readers with their names plain their for everyone to see.
I have to read an article before I make any comment about it, even if it's in the Daily Mail.