David Aaronovitch - Byline Paranoia

Not everyone reading Nick Mutch’s Byline Media revelations concerning Culture Secretary John Whittingdale and his more than year-long relationship with a known prostitute - a story that was an open secret in the Westminster village, yet was repeatedly ignored and then suppressed by much of the press - was convinced that this was a straightforward example of a story published voluntarily and without a pre-conceived agenda.

Total freedom to publish? F***, that's a bit radical

One of those who has become convinced that dark forces are at work is Murdoch shilling taker and conspiracy theory floater supreme David Aaronovitch, whose descent into what looked like rank paranoia was one of those performances that makes Twitter worth the candle. There had to be an agenda at work. Whittingdale was a Tory, so Labour must be behind it. Someone had put Mutch up to it. It couldn’t be mere journalism.

The first sign of delusion came with “A line may be traced from Byline via @peter_jukes and @tom_watson to an interest in Whittingdale”. Wrong. But on he ploughed: “I think we both know how this came about. Watson wouldn’t need to say anything to you”. Yes, Labour MP Tom Watson was manipulating everything by the power of thought alone!

It got worse: “I think we both know that had the man dating the dominatrix been,say, a Labour figure you’d not have published”. See my many and varied posts on Rochdale’s nominally Labour MP Simon Danczuk, some of which have also been posted to Byline. Wrong again. Have another go. “Watson’s target in 2012, as [you] know, was Whittingdale. But the evidence wasn’t there. [You] found a way to get him”. Wrong again.

And Peter Jukes, the target of Aaronovitch’s inquisition, did not publish the Whittingdale item. But now The Great Man changed tack: “I don’t give a flying f who people have consensual legal sex with. Unlike @peterjukes … Has Whittingdale crusaded for sexual morality? If so you or @peterjukes should be able to provide a link”. That’s not stopped the press in the past, and of course it’s about far more than consensual sex.

Then Aaronovitch moved on to implying an agenda, and this was where he lost the plot completely, demanding of Jukes “Are you saying Byline doesn't ever turn down anything offered for publication? Does Byline publish anything submitted?” Writers using the Byline platform do not “offer” work for publication. No-one has to “submit” anything. This isn’t the mainstream press. This is what freedom to publish looks like.

For Aaronovitch, this was truly bewildering. The Great Man was aghast at the idea of writers deciding what to write, and when and where to publish it: “'Individual writers' decide if their own pieces on whatever topic appear on the Byline site?”. Yes. You have a problem with that? “What then is meant by ‘curation’? Who vets for legals? Who says 'this story is not for us’?” It’s still not the mainstream press, David. YOU JUST DON’T GET IT.

Anyone still believing that we have a free press in this country need look no further than David Aaronovitch’s befuddlement to see that not only do we not have a free press, but also that he doesn’t understand press freedom when he sees it. For him there has to be an agenda, there must be submission to editorial control. What a sad fellow he is.