Media

Friday

James Forsyth

Warsi’s ‘nasty party’ moment

Sayeeda Warsi’s attack on the ‘right wing’ of the Conservative party has had a predictable impact. There is fury that the party chairman is attacking a section of the party, it is something that a considerable number of Tories will never forgive her for. It is also being pointed out that there were a lot of Tory MPs campaigning in Oldham on Saturday and they came disproportionately from the right of the party.  What to do about Warsi is quite a problem for the Tory high command. She does visibly show how the party has changed but she’s also not very competent. Cameron has already split her role, giving Cameron’s

Monday

James Forsyth

An arena where words are dangerous

‘it was a deranged individual living in a time and place where anger and vitriol had reached such a fever pitch that we had dehumanized those in public life’ The words of Andrei Cherny on the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords are worth reflecting on. Political discourse has a tendency to hyperbole. But sometimes people need to think through the logic of their rage. For example, all those people who carried round signs saying ‘Bush=Hitler’ should have considered the implications of what they were saying—who of us would not have thought it right to assassinate Hitler if possible? Equally, those who talk about people being traitors should remember what the traditional

Saturday

David Blackburn

Sex gangs and the triumph of ignorance

As Rod Liddle notes, there’s a hell of a media storm raging over sexual abuse committed by men of Pakistani origin. Certain of the media’s more craven elements have capitulated to the politically correct mantra that it’s wrong to judge at all; and certain of the media’s more reactionary outlets are entertaining blanket condemnations of the entire Pakistani community. Jack Straw has it about right. He told Sky News: ‘There is a specific problem about a very small minority of normally Pakistani heritage men who are targeting young, vulnerable white girls. It is somethingt which is abhorred by the Pakistani heritage community as much as anybody else, but it is an

Thursday

James Forsyth

David Aaronovitch and the social conservative consensus

David Aaronovitch is one of the preeminent voices of the liberal-left in this country. He is no social conservative and has been dismissive of those who want a lower time-limit for abortion. But today he wrote something that reminded me of that famous Peggy Noonan column about the Columbine massacre and ‘the ocean in which our children swim.’ Aaronovitch writing about the Times’ investigation into sex gangs says: ‘Sometimes I look at what the surrounding culture says to our kids and wonder whether we are mad. On the one hand we can be persuaded only with difficulty to give them decent sex education, so terrified are we by their latent

David Blackburn

A tale of ego and hypocrisy

Sarah Ellison has profiled Julian Assange and his relationship with the Guardian for Vanity Fair. Read the whole piece for each petulant tantrum, sordid disclosure and twist of hypocrisy, but here are the opening paragraphs to get you started. ‘On the afternoon of November 1, 2010, Julian Assange, the Australian-born founder of WikiLeaks.org, marched with his lawyer into the London office of Alan Rusbridger, the editor of The Guardian. Assange was pallid and sweaty, his thin frame racked by a cough that had been plaguing him for weeks. He was also angry, and his message was simple: he would sue the newspaper if it went ahead and published stories based

Wednesday

Sebastian Payne

There’s life in print yet

On Boxing Day, Fraser blogged on whether the iPad and other mobile devices will save British journalism. His view peered into the future, but what about the market today? Fraser points to The Times’ Christmas Day edition, the first of the paper that was available purely in electronic form. Along with Apple and News International’s iPad-only ‘Daily’ newspaper to be launched next year, this represents a landmark achievement that could signal the beginning for the future of journalism. Or it could represent an industry collectively hurtling towards a brick wall. Online journalism has now been with us for a decade – but, strikingly, no one has taken the issue of making money from

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

A sign of the Times

Yesterday, The Times produced its first Christmas Day edition for more than a century – since, that is, newsagents started taking that day off. The jewel in that edition was a wonderfully spirited piece from my Spectator colleague Matthew Parris about the importance of paywalls. I fervently believe in them, and regard them as the only hope for this sharply contracting industry. But over to Matthew: “‘Sorry, I can’t read you anymore, but I refuse on principle to subscribe now that there’s a paywall,’ these muppets whine. ‘On principle?’ I reply. ‘What principle?’ As they fumble for an argument, I interrupt: ‘Look, maybe the money is a bit tight at

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

Labour step onto the front foot

Talk about a Christmas miracle: Ed Miliband has set about the task of Opposition with ruthless efficiency today. As both Guido and Nicholas Watt have noted, the Labour leader is all across the broadcast news this afternoon, after upping the heat on Vince Cable and the coalition. His party’s attack comes in the form of a letter sent by the shadow business secretary, John Denham, to the Cabinet Secretary, Gus O’Donnell. It asks, mischieveously, whether Vince Cable has broken the ministerial code by promising to wage war against Rupert Murdoch, and whether Jeremy Hunt is impartial enough to step into the breach. And while nothing is likely to come of

Tuesday

James Forsyth

Broken Cable

To understand why Vince Cable survived today one has to understand the dynamics of the coalition. The Liberal Democrat rank and file have had to swallow a lot recently, but the idea that one of their Cabinet ministers was going to be moved for being rude about Rupert Murdoch would have been too much to bear. The backlash to shunting Cable sideways would have destabilised the coalition, so he stayed in place. But Cable tonight is a much diminished figure. He has been shown to be eager to be indiscrete, to be overly keen to air the coalition’s dirty laundry in public. His comments about being at ‘war’ with Rupert

Peter Hoskin

The poison has not yet been sucked from the Cable story

There we have it. After all the frenzy in Westminster this afternoon, Vince Cable is simply staying put as Business Secretary. But he does not stand unchastised. All his responsibilities for media competition – and that includes telecoms and digital, as well as television and print – will be transferred over to Jeremy Hunt. Which means that Cable’s war against Rupert Murdoch has ended before Christmas. At least he still has his nuclear option, I suppose. Many will say that Cable got off lightly – and they’d be right. Putting aside the Business Secretary’s suitability to arbitrate over the Murdoch case, his judgement has been stripped and revealed as faulty

Peter Hoskin

Cable to remain as Business Secretary, but with diminished responsibilities

1750: Here’s the Downing Street statement: “Following comments made by Vince Cable to the Daily Telegraph, the prime minister has decided that he will play no further part in the decision over News Corporation’s proposed takeover of BSkyB. In addition, all responsibility for competition and policy issues relating to media, broadcasting, digital and telecoms sectors will be transferred immediately to the secretary of state for culture, media and sport. This includes full responsibility for OFCOM’s activities in these areas. The prime minister is clear that Mr Cable’s comments were totally unacceptable and inappropriate.”

Peter Hoskin

Cable waltzes into trouble with an attack on Murdoch

Those choppy waters that I mentioned earlier? They’ve just become perilous for Vince Cable. The BBC’s Robert Peston has an extract from the Telegraph tapes that was omitted from the paper’s coverage – and it is revelatory stuff. In it, the Business Secretary discusses Rupert Murdoch’s bid to take majority control of BSkyB, and he drops this particular line: “And I don’t know if you have been following what has been happening with the Murdoch press, where I have declared war on Mr Murdoch and I think we are going to win.” Declaring war on Rupert Murdoch – and declaring that you’re declaring war – may be inadvisable for most

Peter Hoskin

Leaked Cable

Loose lips sink ships – but can they sink sages too? Probably not, but Vince Cable has certainly entered tumultuous seas with the publication of candid remarks he made to a couple of Telegraph journalists posing as Lib Dem voters. In the tapes – which you can listen to above – the Business Secretary rattles on unrestrainedly about the inner workings of the coalition. The stand-out line is his claim that “If they push me too far then I can walk out of the government and bring the government down” – but there’s more, including: 1) The arguments that are being waged, and won. “We have a big argument going

Saturday

David Blackburn

Dissecting operation Coulson

Tom Baldwin’s inaugeration as Labour spin guru occasions Tim Montgomerie to appraise Andy Coulson. For many, Coulson has committed the spin doctor’s cardinal sin and become the story, and not just his more voluble opponents on the left. Tim rejects that analysis, but concedes that Coulson may drift to pastures new in 2011. Coulson’s record is quite impressive. He snared the tabloid press, and, together with George Osborne, ended Gordon Brown’s short honeymoon, exposing the Labour leader’s indecision with well-timed tax cut promises. The Election That Never Was spawned a far more enduring theme: Labour’s internal fissures and the timidity of its senior figures. If Coulson goes, that will be his

Friday

James Forsyth

Clegg: Sheffield Forgemasters decision could be revisited

In an interview with Prospect Magazine, Nick Clegg has suggested that the decision not to loan government money to Sheffield Forgemasters ‘could be revisited.’ When pressed on whether the decision to cancel the loan was an odd decision given the coalition’s stated aim of rebalancing the economy and encouraging manufacturing. Clegg replied, “I agree. The trouble is the money that Labour had provided came from a budget in the business department that was running on empty. The treasury and Vince Cable felt it wrong to take money from somewhere else. But the whole issue could be revisited.” This strikes me as a dangerous thing to suggest. If the issue is

Wednesday

David Blackburn

The anti-Clarke campaign is gaining momentum

After months of whispered asides, Theresa May cut loose yesterday and expressed what may on the Tory right (not to mention Labour’s authoritarian elements) feel: Ken Clarke’s prison proposals are potentially disastrous. Prison works. Tension has built to its combustion point, but there is no apparent reason why May chose this moment. Perhaps she was inspired by the persistent rumours of Cameron’s displeasure with Clarke? Or maybe the cause was Michael Howard’s smirking syntax as he denounced Clarke’s ‘flawed ideology’ in yesterday’s Times? Either way, the campaign to move Clarke sideways in a Christmas reshuffle is gaining momentum. The usual suspects from the right of the parliamentary party have been

Monday

James Forsyth

Controlling the message

Shane Warne’s statement on his separation from his wife, which makes no mention of his alleged affair with Liz Hurley, is a classic example of how difficult it is for celebrities—or politicians—to both engage online and control a message. The first comment from a Greg Quinn says, ‘thanks shane for sticking it up the poms’. One imagines this was not the tone that Warne was planning to strike. The second is from someone calling himself Denis Angeleri and is a full-on assault on Warne’s character which includes the allegation that Warne pursued this man’s wife. Angeleri writes, ‘It is sad that all the comments are a bi product of people

Saturday

Alex Massie

Public Services vs Government Services

During the latest bout of America’s interminable health care wars, Fox News decided that its presenters should refer to the “public option” as the “government option” or “government-run health insurance”. Big deal, you may say and you would have a point, but this has people in a tizzy about Fox’s “bias”. As if this had previously been a mystery! Happily Jack Shafer is on hand to defend what Andrew Sullivan calls, oddly, the “indefensible”: The call to refer to the program as the government option instead of the public option came from Republican pollster Frank Luntz, Media Matters and Kurtz report. But this shouldn’t disqualify the new term from the

Monday

James Forsyth

A day of gaffes

You really couldn’t make this up: it wasn’t Michael Moore’s PPS who was on the World at One resigning but someone impersonating him. The actual PPS, Michael Crockart, is still trying to make up his mind. I suggest that he doesn’t try and call in to a radio show to announce his decision. (Who would have thought we have lived to see the day when Lib Dem PPSs have impersonators?)   One has to feel sorry for Radio 4 today. It had the whole Jeremy Hunt business this morning on the Today Programme and Start the Week, and now it’s other flagship news programme has been very publicly duped.