Trial by media?
- 22 Jul 07, 09:49 PM
Quite a number of those who've responded to on the cash for honours saga have questioned or criticised the media's role in it. Now, the wife of one of those caught up in the police investigation has gone further.
Sarah Helm - who's married to Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's former chief of staff - . She recalls one of her two young daughters asking "is Daddy going to prison?" before bursting into tears.
Helm - a journalist herself - goes on to attack the reporting of this investigation in general...
- "The reporting of Mr Yates's investigation itself was some of the most unprofessional journalism I have ever seen. At best we saw just sloppy, bad reporting and, at worst, cheap sensation and vindictive lies."
...and my reporting in particular.
- "I had interrogated Jonathan myself at great length several times. I had asked about all those stories about 'Ks' and the 'Ps' and I had asked about the 'dodgy emails' and the so-called 'cover-up' until I knew each player in that tedious drama far better than the 91热爆's Nick Robinson and, unlike him, I knew each move they had made by heart. As a journalist, I too had wanted to understand the story and wanted to be quite sure that there wasn't a smoking gun in there somewhere. And there wasn't. Not even a dodgy email - whatever contortions Robinson went through to say there was."
I'm well aware that the cash for honours investigation must have been incredibly stressful for those who came under suspicion. Having spoken over the past year to Lord Levy, Ruth Turner and Sir Christopher Evans I had some sense of the pressure they'd been under. Levy sometimes despaired about the impact on his wife and family. Turner was denied a US visa which prevented her from visiting her own parents who now live in the States. This was made all the harder by the fact that they felt unable to respond to allegations which were made against them.
Here, though, is my answer to the criticism of my reporting:
1: The 91热爆 was right to report extensively on an unprecedented police investigation into a serving prime minister and his closest aides.
2: The judge who granted an injunction against the 91热爆 declared that, "it is not in dispute that this [91热爆] investigation is of the highest public interest." Mr Justice Wilkie said in court that, "the ability of journalists to report developments in the case is of the highest importance".
3. The two key pieces of evidence we revealed were significant and have never been disputed. According to a High Court judge, the "key document" (admittedly not an email as we first reported) written by Ruth Turner contained an allegation that Lord Levy asked Turner to lie for him. That, of course, does not mean that he did in fact do so and, as we have always reported, Lord Levy has denied any wrongdoing. The document was intended for Jonathan Powell, although, as we reported, it is not clear whether he ever saw it or was even aware of it.
We also revealed the existence of a note written by a Labour donor, Sir Christopher Evans, in which he says that he and Lord Levy spoke about whether he might be awarded "a K or a Big P" - a reference to a knighthood or a peerage.
4. At all times we reported prominently denials of wrongdoing from those involved and stressed that no charges may ever result - e.g. My report about the Turner document on 6th March 2007 stated:
- "Tonight we don't claim, we never intended to claim, that one document could prove anything. We carry on saying of course, that no-one may ever be charged. But what this one document did show is why the police investigation is being extended again and again, is going on almost a year now, and why it continues to cause such political agony for the prime minister, and all those close to him."
And also for example, my report on 15th December '06 on the "K and Big P" note stated:
- "We have got to emphasise there are no charges in the cash for honours investigation. There may never be charges. If there are to be, the police will have to find evidence and prove that in court of a link between cash offered or given and honours received or offered. What we have produced tonight does not give that proof at all. It purports to be a record of the conversation between Labour's chief fundraiser and a Labour donor, talking about a K or a Big P. In other words, about honours. Both men and their friends tell me this is the world that they occupy. That they live in a world where people talk all the time about honours in part, because they make substantial donations to political parties but to charities too. It is up to the police to workout if it is more than that, or whether it is just an intriguing and extraordinary insight into an extraordinary world."
