Press Sex Story Hypocrisy

If anything were to stand as an example of the corruption and hypocrisy of so much of the press, it would be their attitude to sex stories. While the small matter of Culture Secretary John Whittingdale and his potentially dangerous more than year-long liaison with a known prostitute is kept out of the papers - as he’s useful to their cause - the tabloids are screaming blue murder about another sexual adventure they cannot report.

Why does this matter? That can be put directly: the complaints being made by some of the press establishment about the Whittingdale revelations are that there is no public interest defence to running the story, and that it’s mere prurience. Meanwhile, today the Sun and Daily Mail are champing at the bit to tell a story that has no public interest defence, because it is about mere prurience. Spot the difference.

Moreover, the Whittingdale story, as I revealed yesterday, has a very good public interest defence, and on two fronts: he’s a Cabinet minister, with access to all manner of sensitive information, and has been sharing his dominatrix friend with a known gangster who was caught with a machine gun in the back of his car. He’s stalling on reform of the laws affecting the press, and they are effectively keeping him in post.

But the man who the Mail and Sun are so desperate to unmask is just a “Married celebrity father” whose partner is a “Top entertainer”. That has not stopped the Super Soaraway Currant Bun whining “Yesterday there was growing anger over the fact the name had come out in a country of America’s 319 million population while the public here is kept in the dark”. Who gives a crap? We all know who it is.

But do go on. “The outing of the couple in the States comes after two Appeal Court judges overturned another judge’s decision not to grant an injunction to the married celebrity couple … This stopped The Sun on Sunday publishing any story about the couple who were referred to by The Court of Appeal as ‘PJS’ and ‘YMA’”. It stopped the Sun on Sunday selling more papers. That is what is also driving the Mail’s indignation.

Publishing an article from the USA with all the bits that we cannot see blanked out, the Dacre doggies carp “Love cheat celeb's name is all over web, making a mockery of UK ruling … The identity of a well-known personality who cheated on their celebrity spouse became common knowledge on social media yesterday – in a mockery of a legal ban on British media naming them”. It’s not fair, right?

The Mail even wheels out unfunny churnalist Richard Littlejohn to blame Europe and Leveson, claiming that if we leave the EU, it won’t happen again (er, no). Censorship is terrible, innit? Except that it’s OK for the press to close ranks and spike any story that might show up their pal Whittingdale. That kind of censorship is just fine. The kind of censorship that the press can control is quite acceptable to them.

I give you our free and fearless press. No, don’t laugh. You’ll hurt their feelings.