Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Rebekah Brooks: I Am Not A Witch, I'm You

Tuesday, 5th July 2011

An exclusive look at a strategy memo prepared for Rebekah Brooks this afternoon:

Rebekah,
The Boss has sent word: this phone situation has developed not necessarily to our advantage. He's asked us to formulate a strategy for you. It's balls-out time.

This is a go large or don't go at all moment. Sticking your fingers in your ears and going lalalalalalala is not enough anymore. Even the payroll vote at Westminster is getting restless. Soon they'll be wandering off the reservation whimpering that Something Must Be Done. We all know how that ends: something gets done even if it's a stupid something. This is how we roll in Wapping too because that's how the game is played. It's what we ask for all the time, isn't it? Anything to keep the punters happy.

Problem is they're not very happy now. Nor are the advertisers and you know the Boss likes them even more than he likes you. He's getting on and doesn't need this. So we need our biggest Reverse Ferret ever.

Let's get creative. You're the MOST HATED WOMAN IN BRITAIN right now so things can't get much worse. Trust us, the Boss wants to save you because he doesn't want to be beaten by the muesli-munching poofs at the Guardian. But even the Boss has his limits. He needs your help. Which is why you're getting our help.

You're going to blame the readers. Sure, we usually pander to their baser instincts and flatter their easily-stoked sense of self-righteous bullshit but that was then and these are different times. Stick it up the punters. That's the plan.

Remember this ad? We're going to do something similar.

I am not a witch, I'm you. Bang on. That's the message and it works because it's true. "None of us are perfect but none of us can be happy with what we see around us." Bang on again. That's why the News of the World exists.

You were only doing your job and your job was giving the punters what they wanted. (Yeah, we're going to have to drop the it's "inconceivable" that you knew stuff; everyone can conceive that you did. Tough break but there you have it.)

No, if you sinned it was because you loved the readers - the Great sodding British public - not wisely but too well. They're a prurient, censorious, malignant bunch of bastards and we gave 'em a paper to match. If they've got a problem with that they should look to their own consciences first. Never mind the motes, look at the beams matey.

You were doing your job, remember. It's tough being the woman on that wall and not many people have the guts to do it. They can't handle it and the truth is that the news is a messy bloody business and if corners get cut sometimes, well that's the way you make an omelette. Right?

So, sure, in retrospect maybe we went too far in the Dowler thing (and maybe the Soham thing too and a few other things we'll not bother talking about now). But if we hadn't done it someone else would and the punters would have bought their papers instead. All these people on their high horses: well they read our papers too even if they pretend they don't. That's why we're number one. Bunga bunga all the way baby.

We don't have the luxury of filling our pages with worthy crap no-one wants to read. What are we, the Independent? No we are not. If every paper was like that there'd be no watchdog role for the press because there'd be almost no press at all. Who wins then? The politicians and the undeserving rich, that's who.

It's a package deal. Don't like the celebrity rubbish? Fine, but that's what pays for the juicy stuff. Life's a circus, dear, and you don't get to choose between the clowns and the Christians being chewed by the lions. You gotta have both.

It ain't pretty but that's why they call it muckraking. That's why public life in this country is unusually honest (not that we want to let on about that too much). If we've gone too far this time then sure we're sorry but we did it for you. The public doesn't give a toss if something's in some doddery judges' definition of "the public interest". The punters know what they want and deserve to get lots of it, good and hard. That's what we're here for.

Sure they hate us at the moment but this will pass because hating us means hating themselves and they can't handle that truth either. We want them but they need us.

Hang in there love.

Remember: I am not a witch, I'm you.

PS: One last thing: time to start calling yourself Rebekah Wade again.

Filed under: Britain (738 more articles) , Newspapers (382 more articles) , Phone hacking (117 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (16)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Matthew Blott

July 5th, 2011 11:10pm Report this comment

Great post Alex, I can see another career in satire for you - a new Thick of It for the 2010s.

andrew kerins

July 6th, 2011 12:41am Report this comment

The journalistic maxim of 'follow the money' is worth remembering. If Tesco and a few others follow Ford in boycotting the NotW, Murdoch will probably decide a sacrifice is needed.
No prizes for guessing who will play Joan of Arc.
I seem to remember* that the Sun published a series of anti-French jokes till a French car maker withdrew their advertizing. Suddenly, appeasement was the order of the day.
(Sample; Why are there so many tree-lined boulevards in Paris ?
To allow the German Army to march in the shade.)
*This might just be a case of false-memory syndrome.

Baron

July 6th, 2011 12:46am Report this comment

enjoyable, Alex, but you sure you’ll never go for a job with the one cabal or the other?

cuffleyburgers

July 6th, 2011 8:16am Report this comment

Like that, Alex, spot on.

philodoc

July 6th, 2011 9:47am Report this comment

I like your style. What is more, everything you imply about journalists/journalism and the public at large can also be applied to bankers/banking and the very same British public. It is the greedy/foolish British public who got us into the present financial crisis, ably supported by willing and very clever bankers and a delusional government who figured we could borrow today in order to borrow more tomorrow, and get away with it.
If the public (ie. the majority) are so stupid, what does that say about democracy?

Simon Stephenson.

July 6th, 2011 10:15am Report this comment

philodoc : 9.47am

Democracy?

The first stage is to assess what is actually possible in terms of public participation. Is it possible for just about every mind to be taught the ability to distinguish between objective consideration and personal advantage, and for the concept of "wisdom of crowds" political decision-making to be taken as a buildable reality? Or is it more realistic to concede that there is a huge section of every population who are/will be incapable of absorbing the distinction between the objective and the personal, and that therefore attempting to build a successful democracy on the basis of "wisdom of crowds" is a non-starter.

Until we've decided this, there's little point in moving very far from where we are.

NotsureIalwaysgetit

July 6th, 2011 4:40pm Report this comment

Yes she is a witch and yes the News of the World are despicable but have you a) ever bought a copy? and b) asked your boss Fraser Nelson, NOTW columnnist, his thoughts?

Archibald

July 6th, 2011 4:50pm Report this comment

Rebekah? Really? What's that about? I think there should be a public inquiry into the ridiculous spelling and adaptation of names by self-obsessed parents creating a population of arrogant offspring with names like this, Peaches and LaToyah. The public have a right to know. Someone should hack their phones to get an insight into their minds.

dsquared

July 7th, 2011 10:47am Report this comment

I am not a witch, I'm you. Bang on. That's the message and it works because it's true

Historical note - this slogan was from Christine O'Donnell's Senate campaign in Delaware in 2010, and it did not, in fact, work.

Edward McLaughlin

July 7th, 2011 7:41pm Report this comment

"They [the Great sodding British public] 're a prurient, censorious, malignant bunch of bastards"

I say, that's not entirely fair; we're not censorious.

barbapapa

July 8th, 2011 12:47pm Report this comment

She has got witch's hair. Shares a birthday with Christopher Lee and Vincent Price, too. A Gemini born May 27 is symbolized by the twins and is a master of self-reinvention

Mystic Meg
PS I didn't see it coming....

Elizabeth Foss

July 9th, 2011 1:57am Report this comment

Evidently Rupert believes her to be worth more than 200 others. Is it true she can exist without sleep?

Baron

July 9th, 2011 5:44pm Report this comment

Alex, very unlike you, no tune for the weekend?

you haven’t paid a hacker for some trivia, have you?

A. MacAulay

July 10th, 2011 7:26am Report this comment

One should never trust a soundbite, but seeing weepy, sentimental, defiant journos appearing before TNOTW for the last edition proclaiming how proud they are to have worked for the 'paper ond can only wonder at humanity's capacity for deluding itself. Not one word of regret at the disgrace, not a word of contrition nor any attempt to integrate or understand the depths to which this trival, nasty, boorish 'paper had sunk.

And, of course nobody new what was going on!
Sounds implausible because it is, and the uncontrite reaction proves that they were all party to it.

I S

July 10th, 2011 7:43pm Report this comment

She is a 'see you next Tuesday.'

David Wooding

October 21st, 2011 4:55pm Report this comment

Mr McAuley seems to have a jaundiced view of many innoocent people. Yes, of course the 280+ News of the World staff who lost their jobs knew what had been going on. It had been in the papers week after week and two people had been jailed for it. They did NOT condone it. In fact, they condemned it time after time. But the staff who closed the paper in July did not intercept voicemail messages. That stopped long ago and all these stories which brought the paper crashing down relate to the Mulcaire period, which, ended 5+ years ago. If he wants to dance on the employment graves of innocent journalists, photographers, secretaries, messengers, cleaners, admin workers and graphic artists who have lost their jobs because he didnt like a paper enjoyed by millions of others then fine but he should get his facts right first.

Post comment