Wednesday, 12 July 2023

Sun Admits No Public Interest

When John Whittingdale was found to have been dating a known sex worker, that in itself was not a story: what was a story was the potential for him to be compromised, blackmailed. Likewise disgraced former alleged Prime Minister Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson attending Bunga Bunga parties at the Lebedev’s place in Italy wasn’t a story. The potential for Kompromat was.

Victoria Newton - the invisible editor

That was the public interest justification for running those stories. Another would be if the law was being broken, and here we come to the Sun’s pursuit of an as yet unnamed BBC presenter, which is still being flogged half to death at the same time as the Murdoch press’ hero, Bozo, has failed to pony up his WhatsApp messages to the Covid Inquiry. Which is breaking the law.

The problem for the inmates of the Baby Shard bunker, and especially those on the thirteenth floor, is that, as the law stands, the presenter’s privacy, and lack of public interest, leaves them in one of those very difficult positions. So, all along, the inference has been that illegality took place, with the latest throw of the Murdoch dice being a possible breach of lockdown laws.

That’s because the Sun has now backed away from alleging the presenter previously broke the law: “Sources at the Sun are now distancing themselves from this line and claiming the story was not really about potential criminal activity. Instead, they suggest it was more about concerned parents trying to stop payments to a vulnerable child with a drug habittells the Guardian.

Hence the paper now scratching around trying to stand up a claim that the presenter may have broken lockdown law. It looks increasingly as if the Sun is trying to secure a public interest defence before the lawsuits hit. The Murdoch goons have effectively admitted that they did not bother to contact the young person (or “vulnerable child”) directly before publishing.

The Guardian again: “The 20-year-old’s lawyer has said the Sun’s story is ‘rubbish’, alleged they were not approached for comment prior to publication, and insisted they told the Sun last week that the story was wrong … A Sun spokesperson did not return a request for comment on whether the newspaper had made any direct contact with the young person - or whether they had attempted to do so”. Single source, selective source use.

Could it get worse? But you know what’s coming: “It is unclear whether the Sun has seen the underlying evidence relating to the payments or the explicit material … it is not clear whether the reporters have seen the bank statements”. A half-competent editor would have spiked this on the spot.


So why have Victoria Newton, and her team, and indeed the paper’s lawyers, not just run the initial story, but splashed it all over the front pages of the Sun and Sun on Sunday for several days now? They have not yet ponied up a credible public interest defence. They failed to contact all those involved. They may not even have seen the evidence on which the story depends.

All the Murdoch mafiosi can manage is blame-shifting: “We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child. Their complaint was not acted upon by the BBC. We have seen evidence that supports their concerns. It’s now for the BBC to properly investigate”.

True or bluff? And where is Ms Newton? As Professor Brian Cathcart has asked today, “Where is Victoria Newton, the editor of The Sun? She has lots of questions to answer right now. If she were an executive in any other walk of life and involved in something like this, the Sun and the other papers would now be demanding she account for the Sun's actions”. So they would.

But what the Murdoch goons do have is a constant crowd of hacks and snappers outside New Broadcasting House. They have their tanks on the Beeb’s lawn. The Corporation is on the back foot. It is the subject of constant negative publicity. And that was always the intention: the Sun doesn’t give a rat’s arse about two “concerned parents”. It just wants to break the BBC.

Rupert Murdoch doesn’t just want to ruin every country in the English speaking world that will let him set up shop there - the malign influence of his empire in Australia, the UK and USA while New Zealand didn’t let him in and has benefited as a result - he wants to ruin the BBC. Destroy it. Wipe it off the face of the earth. That is why the Sun is running this story.

There never was any public interest. But you knew that anyway.


Enjoy your visit to Zelo Street? You can help this truly independent blog carry on talking truth to power, while retaining its sense of humour, by adding to its Just Giving page at

https://www.justgiving.com/crowdfunding/zelostreet9

5 comments:

  1. Don't forget that this grubby rag paid a 16-year old girl (Sam Fox) to whip her top off and be photographed for Page 3!

    ReplyDelete
  2. All the Murdoch mafiosi can manage is blame-shifting: “We have reported a story about two very concerned parents who made a complaint to the BBC about the behaviour of a presenter and the welfare of their child
    He's a 20 year old, not a child. What two consenting adults do is no concern of the BBC if it's legal.
    Did the BBC make him a drug addict? No.
    Pay him £35,000? No.
    Does it owe him a duty of care? No.
    Would there be all this fuss if the claims involved a S*n reporter? No.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Murdoch (and Rothermere) and employees are lowlife scum of the worst sort.

    And that's the best that can be said of them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Johnson goes to a party with a KGB Agent after a NATO meeting. Major, dangerous security breach.

    Total silence.

    Huw Edward's has personal issues that have zero impact on the nation's security.

    Full 24/7 coverage!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Could it get worse? But you know what’s coming: “It is unclear whether the Sun has seen the underlying evidence relating to the payments or the explicit material … it is not clear whether the reporters have seen the bank statements”. A half-competent editor would have spiked this on the spot." *IF* the Sun saw the bank statement of a 20 year old provided by their STEP father, they'd be in very deep trouble for breach of privacy, I think.

    ReplyDelete