Blair attacks 'feral' media

In an almost classic example of "shoot the messenger" Tony Blair has rounded on the British media, especially newspapers, and said that they have deteriorated during the ten years that he has been in office and that they are now like a "feral beast tearing people and reputations to bits".

Admitting he began his premiership with a reliance on spin, Mr Blair went on to say TV and newspapers had become demonstrably worse over his 10-year reign.

The PM ended by saying his 30-minute speech had been made "after much hesitation. I know it will be rubbished in certain quarters. But I also know this has needed to be said."

He then went on to say that this change in journalism had "sapped the country's confidence and self-belief; it undermines its assessment of itself, its institutions and above all else it reduces our capacity to take the right decisions in the right spirit for our future."

I don't think even the most arrogant journalist would flatter themselves into believing that this amount of power was in their possession, and feel that Blair is actually talking about how journalistic examination of some aspects of his Premiership may have effected the confidence of his administration.

"It is not a whinge about how unfair it all is," he said.

But he insisted there was less balance than 10 years ago, when he became PM, and more mixing of news and comment.

Now, there is less balance, certainly from Blair's point of view than there was ten years ago. Ten years ago the Daily Mail and the Express could be relied upon to look under every rock for something to throw at him and newspapers like the Guardian, The Mirror and The Independent could be expected to give him the nearest thing to a fair hearing that he was ever likely to get.

However, what produced the profound change in how Blair was viewed from a left wing newspapers perspective was the Iraq war, with The Independent especially pursuing the subject with vigour, a vigour that it's readership no doubt felt matched their own anger. It is for this reason I suspect that Blair singles out The Independent for special approbation:

And he singled out the Independent for particular criticism, saying it was a "metaphor" for how modern journalism had degenerated.

He added that there was a "confusion of news and commentary. Comment is a perfectly respectable part of journalism. But it is supposed to be separate.

"The truth is a large part of the media today not merely elides the two but does so now as a matter of course."

It was at this point he criticised the Independent - saying it was "well-edited and lively" but adding "today it is avowedly a viewspaper not merely a newspaper".

Now, the confusion of commentary and news is, I think, a valid criticism. However, I think The Independent have been very careful to stick to facts when pursuing the Iraq war and the decisions that lay behind that war. And any criticism could only be made on the fact they chose to pursue it because it was obviously a subject that was important to them and Blair no doubt feels that there were times when they pursued this over other equally worthy stories.

However, that's something that I even do here, with my circulation of two hamsters and a gerbil. The stories that interest you are what you write about.

However, I can well understand Blair feeling at times hounded by the ferocity and tenacity with which the Iraq war has been pursued, but I would lay the blame for that, again, at his own door.

When Anthony Eden took this country to war in Suez based on a lie he then, when caught, did the honourable thing and resigned. Blair told this country that Saddam Hussein had WMD and, when this was found to be false, he did not resign and started arguing that we should ask whether or not he had behaved honourably.

There were many of us on the left who felt that it mattered neither way whether or not Blair had believed what he was saying when he said it, the simple truth was that he had lost the nation's trust and that, if further information passed across his desk saying that Syria was attempting to build WMD, that there was no way this man would be trusted by the public again if tried to make a case for intervention. He was damaged goods, and remaining in office, for the very reason that no-one would believe him if he stated we were under threat again, was actually dangerous for the country.

Lord Carrington, after the Argentineans had invaded the Falkland Islands, resigned from office. When Thatcher tried to dissuade him, as he had done nothing wrong at all, he replied that someone had to take the blame so that the country could move on without squabbling about who was responsible. Carrington's logic was that, as he was Foreign Secretary, that person had to be him.

As one who has never been an admirer of the Tories I have to say I have always admired Carrington for that decision. It was the perfect example of old Etonian good sense and honour. He did it because it was the right thing to do.

After the Iraq war the only people to resign in Britain over the affair were two members of the BBC and Piers Morgan. That never seemed right.

And from that point on, Iraq was never going to go away for Blair who continues to this day to refuse to admit that he made a mistake.

So the press must have seemed "feral" to Blair as certain quarters refused to let Iraq go. Blair continually pleaded that the nation should put the conflict behind it without realising that the conflict and the arguments for or against the war could never be over until Blair resigned from office.

He told the Reuters audience: "It is not enough for someone to make an error. It has to be venal.

I disagree. Blair could have got away with saying, "I made a mistake", but only if he had followed that statement with, "and I therefore offer my resignation". Blair refused to do so. And the hounding of his Premiership became certain from that moment onwards.

Click title for full article.

Tags: Blair, feral press, the Independent, Labour Party, spin