The inmates at Northcliffe House hate any other media
organisation getting a story before they do, and if it’s the hated BBC, they
become positively incandescent in short order. So when the Beeb got an
exclusive on the raid, earlier this year, of Cliff Richard’s place in
Berkshire, there was faux outrage. Whatever it was, he couldn’t have done it,
because the BBC is always wrong.
So it
was no surprise to see yesterday’s Mail
On Sunday rant “Sir Cliff: I’ll Sue
The BBC ... Star to demand damages after TV news crew filmed abuse inquiry
Police raiding his home”. But, as Captain Blackadder might have observed,
there was only one thing wrong with this idea – it was bollocks. To no surprise
at all, the story does not contain one word from Cliff.
This means he has not said “I’ll sue the BBC”. The best the MoS
can manage is to quote “Friends”, who
“say Sir Cliff is now determined to
launch a concerted fightback”, and that “One legal expert said last night that the level of intrusion meant Sir
Cliff would have a ‘strong case’ and added that the BBC would struggle to mount
a public interest defence”. And that’s that.
So, mindful of the lack of substance in its sister paper’s
splash, the Daily Mail has
run with the story – showing that this is a co-ordinated hit by both
weekday and Sunday title – but talk of legal action is qualified: “it
was claimed Sir Cliff, 74, is
preparing to sue the broadcaster over its live TV coverage of the search of his
home ... The singer is expected to seek
damages for breach of privacy”.
Claimed and expected by the Mail’s sister paper, that is. But onwards and, er, onwards, eh?
Instead, the daily title switches to the emails that have been obtained through
Freedom of Information (FoI) requests. “How
the BBC colluded with police to spin their way out of trouble over raid on
Cliff”, readers are told. Yes, two people agreeing a course of action via
email is collusion.
“Top executives at the
BBC worked frantically with police behind the scenes to spin their disastrous
coverage of the raid on Sir Cliff Richard’s home, it emerged last night ... The Corporation was plunged into a huge row over
its cosy deal with police after it was allowed privileged access to a search of
the singer’s £3million Berkshire home”. Bullshit. There was an email
discussion. That is all.
Moreover, the Mail
clearly has no problem if it is another newspaper – well, apart from the deeply
subversive Guardian, of course – that
does the deal with the rozzers. What has the Beeb done wrong here, apart from
got in before the press had a sniff? It wouldn’t be such a heinous crime if the
Mail had received the tip-off. In
fact, it wouldn’t be a crime at all in those circumstances.
One rule for the Mail, one for everyone else. No
change there, then.
3 comments:
I wondered why this came up in Nick Ferraris LBC show this morning.
Anything that obsesses the Mail - no matter how peripheral to current news events - always seems to makes it into Ferraris show.
Funny that.
The Murf
LBC = daily mail radio
Not being in range of local London radio stations, it was quite some time before I cottoned on to the significance of the Ferrari N radio interviews featured on the Private Eye CoAc page.
Post a Comment