Trial by media?
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."
I'm 
Comments
while i understand that from your perspective you were just doing your job.
Can you not see that a constant stream of rumour leaks and accusations over the past 16 months cannot be forgotten by one days headline of the accusers being innocent.
I think the bbc and other media should learn lessons, you affected this countries politics not by fact but by rumour and leaks.
While many of things you write are probably true we have s system where people are either innocent or guilty there should be no grey area.
Despite very careful wording, the approach has smelt of a 'no smoke without fire' attitude. Do I blame you, Nick? Not really. You can't be expected to swim up the waterfall of the approach taken by your colleagues. A really nasty mind would suggest this a bit of post-Hutton payback from the Today Program.
I don't think we can have asked for a different media reaction, but we certainly could wish for one. If this accusation was entirely false, then it was a very effective smearing of the government. My colleagues make jokes about buying an honour all the time, and will continue to associate such behaviour with both Labour and Tories despite no charges coming forward. "Come on, we all know they're dodgy!". Do we?
I rather think that this Sarah Helm is using her connections with the media to spin the victim note. A show of loyalty to her husband, one might say, to further publicise his vindication and perhaps win over some more sympathy at the same time.
So too, look at who she's writing for. A newspaper that swings toward Labour. Married to Tony Blair's former Chief of Staff and presumably well connected to that Party. Thus, one could also level that she is defending the Party, administration or ideology that she supports/supported.
I am a Labour, and Blair, supporter but I accept that when the Police are investigating a serving Prime Minister the 91热爆 has a duty to report it. Helm criticises Robinson for not knowing the whole saga as well as she, perhaps because Robinson didn't have the fortune of being married to one of the main accused.
This isn,t going to go away.....it will keep rumbling on for years.
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.
Nick, what was the date of that note?
Nick, the replies to your blog supporting the government and attacking the media were totally at odds with what I heard from ordinary people and other websites, who all think the establishment got away with murder yet again.
It's almost as if NuLabour organised the response...
The problem I see, and one which has surfaced in local politics in my own city, the recent flooding, and the cash for honours issue, is that some of the fundamentals of separation of powers, communication between the top and the bottom, and centre of performance gravity need fixing. The general look and feel would benefit from maturity. A face saving whitewash is fine for saving face but not at the cost of mere procrastination.
I would like to see people take accountability. Mistakes were made on all sides and in their heart of hearts I'm pretty sure people know what they are. Accountability means things like acknowledging reality and accessibility to the people you're supposed to be serving. Doesn't matter if it's an overdone steak or a major foreign policy disaster, the principle is the same. Like money, it's better that power and status is kept flowing. Hoarding it only creates a recession.
If individuals, laws, and organisations fail critical thinking or act in a selfish way, the overall performance, or batting average, begins to drop. Outcomes are reduced while costs balloon. Better structures and attitudes are key to reversing this. Doesn't matter which one you pick as both flow into the other but wielding the intellectually sound and emotionally smart swords with both hands is a good idea in the long run. Don't believe me? Don't argue. Test it.
Nobody listens to a nobody. And that's the real problem.
I guess two basic questions now need to be asked: did the CPS raise the bar before arriving at a decision on not to proceed? Given past experience of circumstantial evidence being tested in Court, why did the CPS feel it inappropriate in this case?
The 91热爆 has a clear duty to report this. I had two issues with the whole matter. Firstly, the constant leaking of information. I would love to see a 16 month full on investigation with people arrested in dawn raids to find out if any police officers received money from the press. Secondly the reporting of the decision that no charges would be brought. When people like the Birmingham six or the Guildford four are aquitted it is reported (correctly) that they are exonerated. If there is no evidence against these people, then presumption of innocence implies they are innocent and it should really be reported as such.
Just as with the Blue Peter, the game shows and the Queen the 91热爆 was more interested in creating the news and being first with it - rather than simply reporting it.
The police behaviour in providing a stream of unattributable sensationalist briefings coupled with dawn raids and strip searches smacks of an investigation desperate to "fit up" somebody, anybody.
Face it Nick, on this one you jumped into the pool with all the other swamp-rats because Blair & Co were guilty until proven innocent.
After 艁1million pounds, 18 months, 600,000 words the police and CPS couldn't even hang a picture on these people let alone an offence. Gee whiz just maybe they were innocent? Except of course that didn't suit the 91热爆 - did it?
So much has been damaged with regard the integrity of Parliament during the Blair years. MP's are just ordinary people with all the fallibility that goes with it. They have a duty to be honourable in this respect.
With nobody wishing to fall on their sword anymore the premise of honour is lost. Can we still apply the label Right Honourable to Parliament's inmates?
Yes the 91热爆 reported impartially and correctly but the stench coming from 10 Downing Street was not something to be ignored by anyone. Worse, Blair was beleived to have been capable of what was eventually not proven. The smell will never go away!
Unfortunately for Blair, he has reaped what he has sowed. Over the course of his time in power, he went out of his way to manipulate media coverage of his actions. This was seen in the Hutton inquiry and elsewhere. In manipulating the media, the media in turn have begun to seriously question what the Government tell them - and that led to the situation during this Cash for Honours debate.
Don't forget, the Tory government of the 90s was bought down, in part, by sleaze allegations from the press. Many of which weren't even aimed at Ministers. This is not dissimilar to the current affair. Remember that the Downey report of cleared Greer, Hamilton and Smith of the original cash for questions allegations - but it didn't stop it being very damaging to the Tory party.
Your reaction Nick comes across like a rabbit caught in the headlights. Maybe it would have come across more balanced if you would have stated that you and other media players did try to make 5 out of 2+2 sometimes and that mistakes were made.
The 91热爆 shouldn't be concerned about its reporting on the cash for honours, but it should strongly resist the temptation to 'whitewash' the result of the enquiry-ie not even any charges let alone guilt. Newsnight sailed very close indeed to reporting a 'whitewash' i thought.
why do the chattering political classes expect any different to the rest of the popultation?
ask the guy in sunderland accused of being a child abuser who had his name/address disclosed by the press, who then had his home fire bombed, who was found conclusively NOT GUILTY, but was forced to move to a different part of the country, now ask him if he thinks these folk in the labour party have had a raw deal?
what a lot of nonsense, the press distorts all the time, do you really think we would have speed cameras, dirty hospitals, twice weekly bin collections and all the rest of it if the REAL public feelings were reflected in what the press choose to lead on ? of course not
Being in the public eye due to police and/or media scrutiny has been hurting families and making life incredibly difficult for innocent parties since long before Cash For Honours.
I can't help but feel sorry for everyone who, unlike Sarah Helm, doesn't have the chance to write a newspaper column about it.
(Kate wrote at 7.26am today:)
"Nick, the replies to your blog supporting the government and attacking the media were totally at odds with what I heard from ordinary people and other websites, who all think the establishment got away with murder yet again.
It's almost as if NuLabour organised the response..."
The above is yet more unsubstantiated smear and innuendo.
Kate, it's almost as if Nick Robinson organised your response...
If we abolished certain honours, we wouldn't face this problem again, would we? Of course, you can't buy hereditary honours. Maybe the answer is an entirely hereditary House of Lords!
Whilst I sympathise with the pain and anguish that Ms Helm naturally felt, her emotional involvement is naturally going to influence her journalistic objectivity. She even admitted in her quote that she was looking to make sure there wasn't a smoking gun. You should never investigate with a conclusion already in mind, you should draw conclusions once the information is at hand.
I personally think that whatever the outcome had been... it can't be a bad thing that politicians are left looking nervously over their shoulder when recommending somebody for an honour. Such things should be scrutinized vigilantly.
This was merely a wake up call... but if it has the desired effect, then it was a price worth paying.
It does grate me however, that Tony Blair continues slouching towards Bethlehem (and yes it was a deliberate reference to Yeats), without being held to account for anything.
Kate said: "Nick, the replies to your blog supporting the government and attacking the media were totally at odds with what I heard from ordinary people and other websites, who all think the establishment got away with murder yet again. It's almost as if NuLabour organised the response..."
Kate, Labour didn't have to organise the response. There are a huge number of people - myself included - who are able to think for themselves. They don't need Labour to tell them what to think/do, nor do they believe things just because they appear in the press or on TV, out of the mouths of so-called experts. Perhaps you don't know any of these people, and perhaps they don't visit the websites you visit, but I assure you they exist. And they - we - are relieved that this ridiculous farce of an investigation has come to an end, that the government has been utterly vindicated and that this attempt to bring down our elected government failed. What's true, though, is that the media coverage over the last 16 months has led to there also being far too many people who now think, as you say, that 'the establishment got away with murder yet again'. And that is a very serious problem.
Nick, the damage to the government is done. Do you think it fair that reputations of innocent people are damaged in this way. Even now I can predict people typing 'not innocent, just insufficent evidence' ; well to those people I hope you're never falsely accused of anything. How frustrating it must be to be cleared but still people to think you guilty. Reporting during an ongoing investigation should be minimal and factual. So much conjecture, such a media circus has ensured the damage was maximised. You were one the worst culprits and should be ashamed.
Even more worrying than a "trial by media" is a secret trial.
The media has failed to draw attention to the decision to start a witch-hunt (sorry, internal inquiry) by Sir Ian Blair - Tony Blair's Metropolitan Police Commissar (sorry, Commissioner).
Unlike a court case, evidence will be kept secret, and the defendant will have no jury of peers - very New Labour!.
This appears to be an act of gratuitous revenge by the Labour party, and a warning to other police officers never to investigate our political masters in the future.
If the media does not highlight this travesty of injustice before DAC Yates is tarred and feathered (sorry, found to have failed to meet the standards set by the Labour government), then you can forget about ever criticizing the government in future - everyone will be too scared.
I was interested, Nick, by your self-exculpatory piece.
It's amusing that you and others, who are all to ready to impugn the integrity of others by your partial and snide reporting, get so indignant when you are on the receiving end of criticism yourselves.
Funny how we have never heard or read of Ms Helm's views on this before. Afterall, there have been plenty of similar cases of the media reporting in this same way.
Of-course she is defending her husband, and I don't think she should be critisised just for that.
But the point is, just because the CPS say there was not enough evidence, doesn't mean there wasn't any evidence of wrong doing. We all heard the reported evidence, and based on that many of us are fairly clear that, at best, something dodgy was going on.
If this had gone before a Scottish court, I suspect a verdict of Not Proven would arise.
I strongly suspect that most of the UK has been quietly pleased to see New Labour being on the receiving end of the same sort of half truths, smears and runour that they use so well themselves.
As for Ms Helm, If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
KP said
"Nick, the damage to the government is done. Do you think it fair that reputations of innocent people are damaged in this way. Even now I can predict people typing 'not innocent, just insufficent evidence' ; well to those people I hope you're never falsely accused of anything. How frustrating it must be to be cleared but still people to think you guilty. Reporting during an ongoing investigation should be minimal and factual. So much conjecture, such a media circus has ensured the damage was maximised. You were one the worst culprits and should be ashamed."
i couldn't have put it better myself
although nick was one of many who did this.
Nobody is questioning your right to report the issue Nick, it's how the reporting was done that is at the heart of the complaint. If they did wrong, they should be punished - but you managed to create an environment whereby the public had found them guilty long before the criminal investigation - run by the experts - got underway.
Similarly, within that environment, the police got carried away with the excitement. Bursting in to Ruth Turner's house at 6am to arrest her was nothing short of sensationalism by police officers who perhaps thought they were in an episode of CSI. The media loved it, and made the most of it because they felt part of the episode too.
Talk to anyone on this issue and there is still incredible suspicion about those accused - not because they don't have faith in the CPS or Met investigation, but because they have absolute faith in you as the Political Editor of the World's best journalistic institution. That suspicion will be with them forever.
Nick, through your own talent and hard work you have a job that comes with a tremendous amount of power and influence - please do ensure you don't get too carried away with the anti-politician witch hunt displayed by some of your less talented colleagues.
Dave said that "he (Blair) went out of his way to manipulate media coverage of his actions. This was seen in the Hutton inquiry ....".
Perhaps Dave would point to the evidence in the Hutton Inquiry that justifies this statement? I find it very alarming that there is now a sizeable fraction of the population who see any report exonerating the government as a whitewash, along with any statistics not supporting their jaundiced view of the world, and any decision by an independent authority such as the CPS in this case. What sort of people will ever want to go into public service in future if this is the sort of treatment they can expect? - only those who can see the opportunity to get a lot out of it for themselves, to make it worth their while. And of course the media (including Mr Robinson I'm sorry to say) are very largely to blame for this corrosive atmosphere.
Nick - for once, accept the criticism without having to have the last word.
Figures facing public criticism are not granted that privilege by 91热爆 News, instead having their defence filtered through journalistic scrutiny.
Why, then, should you get the opportunity to write a defence of yourself?
Of course the police had a duty to investigate as thoroughly as possible; of course the 91热爆 (and Nick) had an absolute duty to report.
What neither had a duty to do was to leak 'titbits' and gossip to people, then report gossip as fact.
This whole affair is extremely damaging to all politics in this country - and both the police and the 91热爆 surely have a duty to remember that fact when 'leaking' and 'reporting' such hearsay, all be from 'sound sources'.
Your duty and right comes with a heavy responsibility to this country, Met Police and 91热爆. Remember it always.
Now if we had an elected House of Lords, the temptation to suggest an honour would surely go away.....
There seems to be confusion galore here, how much is 'deliberate' I can't say.
Should the 91热爆 (and others) report on a police investigation? Of course.
However, when it comes to reporting the claims of people 'close to the investigation' about allegations of what they have found, the matter is much more complex.
Those interviewed or arrested cannot give detailed comment as the case is sub-judice and so they cannot 'reply'.
What nobody yet has asked is what was behind the frequent and detailed leaks, at every stage of the case, to all the news media.
This has been highly unusual behaviour in a criminal case and to my cynical eye made me question (months ago) whether there was any belief that this would go to trial.
Given the details released and the coverage given to them I would guess the very first part of the case would be to decide if a fair trial was possible.
Of course, if people 'close to the investigation' believed it would never get to court they had nothing to worry about. But what did they (do they) hope to gain? Now that would be an interesting story!
Most of my posts to Nicks blog 'disappear' in the ether but I agree with #23 that the Scottish Law verdict of 'not proven' would apply here.
Especially after seeing Sir Christopher Evans twist in the wind in a very recent interview.
The funding of political parties should rely upon willing small donations from masses of people.
Unfortunately, the very concept of a political party is way past its sell-by date.
The public know that but the politicians appear to be set to continue to foist this concept on the unwilling taxpayers of England.
As a perosn who studies history as a hobby I have to say the idea that the reporting of this story sulled the name of the goverment in some way. The Brits have always turned on there goverment even going as far back as Henrey the seventh we Brits are good at fralling in love with a political party are a monach or prime minister and falling out of love with them once they got to ofice just as quickly.
Blair should have been gratefull we didn't bring back to peoples right to bare arms aginst the goverment and turf them out as they did in the 18th century.
Quie right, Nick. Of course the Establishment is going to squeal when they come under the spotlight.
These people enjoy a very comfortable standard of living at the taxpayers' expense, wield enormous influence in the corriodrs of power, have excellent future career prospects and - crucially - can walk away at any time.
Of course they should come under scrutiny, including from the 91热爆, if there's a suspicion of wrong-doing.
It struck me last week that you could barely disguise your disappointment that no charges were forthcoming.
Journalism has never been known for it's honesty, there are very few people in the world who can observe and comment from an unbiased position. You are coming under fire now because people need to blame someone, it's human nature. Time for all to reflect I guess, including Scottish National Party who have got away scot free!
NICK
Some people here seem to be on another planet!
NOT PROVEN? As far as I'm aware that is a verdict for a JURY in a case that GOES TO COURT.
I also believe that, for a case to go to court at all, there has to be at least SOME evidence to put before the court or the jury.
So, I'd conclude a few people should get it into their heads there was clearly not a SHRED of evidence of any wrong-doing. Pity the police failed to grasp that back in November, instead of thinking no evidence must automatically mean it was there, but was just being hidden from them.
Possibly the less said about the 91热爆's efforts on this, especially Newsnight's the better. I'd prefer a public corporation I help fund didn't try to imitate tabloid newspapers as often as it does. It devalues the decent investigative journalism many of you once provided.
It can't be easy, given the way rumours were selectively leaked by the police. But, given the nature of the allegations, it really would have been helpful if we could have had cold impartial reporting of the facts and no more at all.
Andrew Gilligan set the tone and the 91热爆 is still unaware that its sneering culture towards politicians is disliked by much of the public, whether interested in politics (as I am) or not.
YAWN!
I read the Sunday Times and if I get a chance, the Observer too. I am struggling to find anything stimulating. I didnt used to feel like this. I felt the same about American News Papers about 5 years ago. Help! This is news for peopel who write newsm who think that everyone's talking about it. NO, only news people. People who do, do. People who can't, write about it. I write, so what's wrong? God helps us, and i dont even believe in him(her)
the media nowadays does not report news it reports rumour, inuendo, leaks and half truths. They shoukld get their own house in order first. News should be as it states NEWS, BASED ON FACTS
Thank you for trying to explain yourself as to why the media got it so wrong Nick. The problem with today鈥檚 media reporting seems to be that, instead of reporting the facts as they come out, they sort of found a new way of putting doubts in people鈥檚 minds by reporting in a series of QUESTIONS! One can clearly notice that you ALWAYS end your reporting by a question, which puts doubts in people鈥檚 minds. Why? So that the minds are confused and the storm in a cup is transformed into a political hurricane.
Why for example is the media not persecuting Angus MacNeil to get the truth as to why he did what he did when he had NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF HIS ALLEGATIONS. The media knew this, but because the media thought this might be an excellent issue to write volumes about, the media hyped the issue, made it the centre of attraction, when they knew that at the end of the day ALL POLITICAL PARTIES DID THE SAME THING!
I put the question to you Nick. Why not ask the SNP to provide you with documented evidence where they get their funding from? Accept the challenge Nick!
Just wanted to give you a word of support, the 91热爆 is respected for news all over the world, my parents left Sri Lanka during the riots in the 80's and they always used to listen to 91热爆 world service for news about their own country!
Nick you do a fantastic job, don't ever stop, it is clearly in the public interest for this story to have been reported. Politicians like to blame the media for all their problems, but we rely on courageous reporters to tell us what the politicians would rather not reveal directly!
It is more character assassination by media than trial by media.
There is obviously a reason why we get miles of copy that manages to exclude very relevant facts.
Could we have a list of the loans and gifts made over the last 50 years with a note alongside each one of any subsequent honours?
Come on media: you like to publish all the dirt. You must have the information. What are you waiting for? Instructions from your masters?
Helm's article in the Observer was precious beyond belief.
Of course being investigated by the Police is stressful - but Helm seems to think that as she and her family are, frankly, 'posh' the police should treat them differently to everyone else.
I know noone was accused of robbing a bank but white collar people commit crimes too - and they have to be investigated using all the tools available which include questioning under caution, arrest etc.
I'm glad there were no charges brought and happy for the individuals concerned but that is a legitimate outcome to a legitimate process.
Jonathan Powell and his wife should really stop whining and keep their dignity intact (which is as it should be).
...And Nick, I look forward to the insufferably popmous Tony Wright (who thinks he is some sort of cross between Sherlock Holmes, Poirot and him from Life on Mars) taking over every new criminal investigation involving anyone in Westminster.
This was an idiotic investigation from the word go.
There was absolutely no chance that the labour party had given receipts to donors saying in return for your donation/loan we will propose you for a peerage, that is what would have been required for a conviction - the only reason I can see for the investigation to go forward was fear by the police that they would be pilloried for not doing a thorough investigation.
It is obvious that supporters of a political party will be drafted into the Lord's to balance the chamber. It was ever so.
Aaawh Didums.
Now Ms Helm knows how the police treat real people, guilty or innocent (and most often the police treat you as if you are guilty).
The very fact that you are still referring to this investigation as the 'cash for honours saga' says a lot, Nick. Has it not got into your head yet that there was no 'cash for honours'. Tellingly, you don't even bother using quotes anymore.
The reporting of this matter by the whole media is perfectly summed up by Paul above as 'partial and snide'. I couldn't agree more. Indeed I would go as far to say most political reporting today is partial and snide.
I am quite surprised reading some of the comments about this and the anger felt towards the sneering spin that passes for political reporting today. I hope you journalists take note.
Where I think the 91热爆 falls down against the other media players is that it claims to be non- partisan. The 91热爆 was in amongst the pack beying for blood, therefore in the interests of fairness it should be allowed to nail its political colours to the mast in the same way that The Mail and The Telegraph might.
Strangely enough the 91热爆's editorial bias clearly favoured New Labour prior to the 1997 election. Don't mention Hutton!!
I don't think a distinct editorial position is necessarily bad (despite all the rubbish set out in the 91热爆's charter) in fact it is difficult to avoid. I do however think it should be acknowledged!
I think this goes to prove the political bias of Nick.
There was no email and the damage that the 91热爆 caused by suggesting there was one is extremely serious.
I believe that any supposed political commentator should have no particular allegiance to a party and be trully independent. I don't think Nick has these qualities.
Overall, this goes to show that the 91热爆 should think before it makes allegations. Then the recent "sexing up" issues would not have happened.
I'm quite willing to take seriously the arguments of those who are critical of the media for the way they have covered this investigation. That is, if these critics are able to stand, with their hands on their hearts, and say that the volume and content of their criticism is equivalent to that which they expressed about the investigation of Neil Hamilton in the 1990s.
If they are not able to do this, all I can say to them is that people with such double standards shouldn't expect to be taken seriously.
What is clear is that on at least one occasion, you received "information" relating to the investigation, which suggested further progress from the police. As you state "what this one document did show is why the police investigation is being extended again and again". As the most seen, and arguably most influential, political journalist in the country, you were given information on at least one occasion which a) sustained creditability to the investigation and b) threw enough mud at Levy, Turner, Evans and Blair to make any prospective trial a mockery.
The question which is on my lips is who told you this, and what were their motives?
I know anonymous sources are key to your work, but in this case whomever leaked this story/stories did so with the aims of prejudicing a criminal case and muddying the reputations of at least four individuals who face no charges, one of whom was not even arrested.
For the sake of honesty, fairness and clarity, please name him or her.
Hi Nick
Just a stylistic note really. You say "Let's be honest" far too often (you said it again on the news last night), and it gives the impression that you're not, or that special effort is required, whereas in journalism, honesty should go without saying. Tony Blair did something similar when he said that he was thought of a "straight kind of guy" - I suspected immediately that he wasn't. Why say it? Why not just BE honest? People do accept that journalists and politicians take an angle on issues and therefore are probably not "straight guys" - that doesn't mean that you (or Blair for that matter) lack integrity and need to be defensive.
A body of circumstantial evidence not strong enough in the CPS's mind to press charges.
In my mind, I know which way I would have voted as a juror. I also know that the Sarah Helms and Nick Robinsons of the world are good purveyors of information.
I also know that the CPS is not independent and the role the AG played was influential.
The state must be made accountable, and Butler, Hutton and now this do not look as though they are doing the job, possibly because the scope of such inquiries is set by the state.
I don't think that the state should be made accountable by the media, the opposition cannot do it, and the lords are being neutered. So we are slowly but surely getting to a point where no one can do it. I cannot fault anyone for trying including Nick Robinson, fairly and objectively.
Nick, you need to stop keep acting like a feral beast all the time.
Even if hoardes of cash was handed over for "K's" and "P's" I hardly think I'd need treatment for shock.
If Lord Moneybags was to come out and say "Last night, I handed over one billion pounds to the Labour party for a peerage" I'd be praising him for his honesty.
At least he would have paid for it unlike all them fishfingers who just inherited peerages from their parents without ever having had the need to demonstrate any talent in any given field whatsoever.
But of course, the fact is we don't need these people to own up to buying their peerages because we all know that a gurt load of them have done it.
It is the way of things.
So, Sarah thinks Nick should have laid off. Total tripe because:
1) Nick's job is to disclose so that we, the audience, know a teeny bit more of what is going on.
2) Sarah is biased. Nick is not.
3) Nick is a better journalist than she is by several country miles.
4) If the innocence of Jonathan and Co was so easily proved to Sarah, why did the No 10 crowd keep the evidence to themselves? I don't buy this idea that people cannot defend themselves when there's an inquiry. Without charges there is no comtempt issue to stop them. They defend themselves when it suits them. They leak when it suits them.
I think there is an element of 'shoot the messenger' in some of these posts.
I have to accept, as the 91热爆 itself does, that it is 'institutionally biased'.
The founding ethos of the 91热爆 is one of a 'soft-left bias'.
However, if there is some resentment by some 91热爆 journalists towards a Government with which the 91热爆 itself should be somewhat aligned, then it may be that the Gilligan affair bought into sharp relief the saying 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'.
Readers may recall that at the height of the raging Gilligan affair, the Government (via Jowell) called into question the issue of the license fee and any possible increase of such.
Once the matter had been settled to the Governments satisfaction, then the nod was given to the license fee renewal.
It is a dirty business, but there it is.
What utter hypocrisy. When do journalists ever apologise for getting things wrong, or going too far?
Nick, you need to develop some humility.
Just as with the Hutton enquiry, the Government and all politicians are guilty and when the verdict doesn't quite go the way the media wanted, and I have to say, as a 91热爆 supporter, the 91热爆 was easily the most promiment prosecuter in both cases, you try to imply that the Government got off on a technicality. Wrong on both occassions. As with Hutton, the judges actually found clear evidence that the Government was telling the truth, something the 91热爆 is not too hot on these days.
And as for your 'fair' treatment. I seem to remember the 91热爆 Head of News sending an email out to all 91热爆 staff, offering 艁100 for the latest police leak on this story.
Surely a main point was, regardless of the reasons, how no thought was given to how it would hurt the people involved? Even now, one negative article is hardly going to ruin your life. Maybe I'm missing something, but in this and other cases I feel like the persecutions of popular journalists aren't nearly as great as the freedoms they enjoy.
If you can listen to all of your personal reporting on this issue without feeling uneasy (at the very least), then you're either heavily biased, on a huge ego trip, or both.
What galled me most about the reporting was the lack of reference to the behaviour of past Tory governments on this issue. It's not a new story but it was portrayed as one.
Shame on you.
This will,of course,rumble on for years because of (a) Labour's political opponents and (b) the hostile media, notably the 91热爆, who seem unable to avoid oversimplifying & therefore misleading. How far do you go to check your facts before you publish stories? How much do you want to spin such facts as emerge? Unless some EVIDENCE emerges that the CPS in some way gave the potential accused the benefit of the doubt which they would not have done to others, this should be put to bed. The mistrust, spun heavily by the media for their own reasons (notably post-Hutton by the 91热爆), of all institutions is corrosive & in the end damaging to our democracy & society.
Nick,
please report the news and stop trying to create it. You have a very powerful position and this nudge-nudge style of analysis is not helpful to the democratic process. Your piece on the 10 o'clock news on Friday night (20th July) was one of the most biased pieces of journalism I've seen in a long time.
So it seems it no longer matters what the truth is (eg. outcome of Hutton, CPS conclusions in so-called "cash for honours" inquiry) it's what people perceive to be true (influenced in large part by the media including Nick and co) that counts. And let's remember which politicians have been to jail - Jeffrey Archer, Jonathan Aitken .....
I don't know what all the fuss is about. You can buy 'Lord-ships' off the internet for about 艁20!
No donation to a political party required!
I think the problem is that although some people think politicians are 'playing games'. They are not. What they do has an effect on us all. Politics is serious business, even though a few of them act like clowns. Nick and the media are a different animal. They are playing games. Look at the shows and panels on political talk shows. Andrew Neil has failed politicians on his show who act like fourteen year olds. The guests are never 'dull' hard working MPs. Instead we get the 'characters' who are good 'telly'. Question time and we get the eternal Dimbleby clan, with the 'celeb' politicians. Nick and his cohorts love to talk, enjoy wordplay and predictions, but it is a 'dinner party' job and career. The real work is done by the politicians. When they get things wrong, people may die. When journalists get somethings wrong , they head for the keyboard and continue with their game.
Oh my, Nick. You're in the firing line!
Well, despite your often whimsical winding up phrases in your news items, a commenter above is right.
You DID get into the habit of sounding empathetic and mournful in a personal kind of way to the Greek Tragedy of Tony Blair, (and friends) while you were saying his position was unprecedented. Hhmm....
You had an enigmatic way of finishing with a - " .. and just where will it all lead in the end?" - sort of question. The question hung in the air, while we waited to be enlightened by those of you "in the know".
Still, the Daily Mail and The Independent were even worse. MUCH worse.
I don't feel in such a minority now as I did in January when I wrote several pages on my blog on this investigation and its absolute craziness. It should never have been allowed to get started, much less leave a stain on Mr Blair's historical reputation. WHY did wiser heads than Yates's not intervene at the beginning?
See: Police-The State We're In.
On the whole I was not quite as unhappy with much of the 91热爆 reporting as I was with that of the papers, several of which really ARE 'feral'. At least the broadcasters are required to provide SOME sort of balance in reporting. From the papers we were fed opinion disguised as fact. (Just as Blair referred to in his feral press speech).
The wild beasts went for Blair's throat, mainly because they didn't get him for WMDs/Dossiers/Iraq or some policy or other. He's probably MUCH safer out there in the Middle East than he is at home, with the brainwashed and disappointed still feeling hard done by! This thinking from another commenter, still persists:
"It does grate me however, that Tony Blair continues slouching towards Bethlehem ... without being held to account for anything."
What is THAT supposed to mean?
REMEMBER - INNOCENT UNTIL AND UNLESS PROVEN GUILTY.
Say that ten times before you accuse, criticise and abuse ...
Song anyone?
Oh and another commenter said that "he KNOWS what HE would think if sitting in judgement in such a case".
He KNOWS??
Clearly he should be banned for life from sitting on a jury! We listen first, learn, THEN decide!!!
Some of you people are a disgrace.
But in the end I imagine some of the ferals will be kicking themselves. The likelihood that none of the accused would have had a fair trial, due to the polluted information out there (thanks to the conduit of the ferals) may have meant that the lawyers for the accused may have legitimately and successfully called "foul" on any trial going ahead.
And until the end of this year when the parliamentary committee finishes its own re-started investigation, (stopped by Yates,) we will still have it hanging around.
As well as Yates, I'd like to see Angus MacNeil and the Plaid Cymru MP answering to the committee.
How Blair and his colleagues are managing to contain their anger right now is beyond me. I'm furious over it!
I wonder if those arrested, but not charged, are happy that their DNA will now presumably remain on the police database?
If you are interested in the facts and the law you could, with advantage, read the recent article by Steve Richards of The Independent. Some parts of the media still deal with matters accurately and honestly. I think you will be surprised.
The article is ""Insufficient evidence膹偶藵 for cash-for-honours charges."
Published in The Independent on 20/7/2007. You will find it on the web.
More serious than "cash for Honours" is "cosiness for access".
Much of the political media seems dependent on Government for their daily news stories (and for their daily bread and caviar). See Alistair Campbell's Diaries passim.
Just think of all those free flights to foreign parts with Govt Ministers, and the protection given in foreign parts that are dangerous.
Soldiers may have to go without helicopter support in Afghanistan or Iraq, but journos get it when they accompany the PM and Foreign Secretary.
Come on Nicholas - enough. Stop taking flak from morons. Let us out a mad man (me) or some shameful politicians and famous names who are hiding behind legal torts.
I am game. Are you?
Subject: Stringent smoking ban is sounding the death knell for village pubs - Heathrow puts up legal barricades to keep away protesters. Heathrow Security Alerts
Anagram: Woe - Apt - I park real hate story - best weep - A ruthless Cad group - Tort liars Creates Hue - Why? Paul son - Monstrous kin blight - defend Knights -Legal Bar vest - Ginnie
I think that the way that this investigation has been reported by the 91热爆 is disgraceful; that people conclude that there is "no smoke without fire" is inevitable when there has been so much speculation about the supposed evidence and the investigative process. If there had been a case to answer, it would clearly be a matter of major public interest, but the Police and CPS have determined that there is no such case. However, the reporting has done irreparable and unjustified damage to the reputations of those involved. It would have been much better if the 91热爆 had showed more respect for "due process" and spared us all the wild speculation.
This is the sort of reporting that undermines confidence in politicians and ultimately weakens our democracy.
Nick please do not put off asking the tough questions they didn't want to answer whilst the investigation was under way. Its going to be hard with the critism but there is still an important job to do on our behalf.
Jonathan has not been following the same case as most of us. "The Police AND CPS determined that there is no case"?
Not according to the Police - I recall it was a matter for the CPS alone - that "no charges" decision.
Stop spinning, Jonathan - it produces variations of "the real truth" - anagrams if you like.
Later - the hurt!
See. Anagrams
We are just revisiting an old adage about mud-slinging that journalists and the 91热爆 know well - that if you sling enough mud, some of it will stick. This sort of damage was what was inflicted upon, and led to the Hutton Enquiry, with its joyous consequences for the 91热爆. When will we ever learn? There is no substitute for carefully weighed observation and evidence verification before kicking off the cycle of rumour, allegation, sniff of scandal and scrummage to hit the headlines that we are all so heartily sick of. Victims, yes, but victims of idle, malicious Gossip which sells media but does everybody else a disservice, The Truth as the ultimate Victim.
I think the problem for the modern media is that stories like the prolonged cash-for-honours probe make it easy for journalists to do what they love to do best which is gossip and speculate, and to do it in writing and thus fill up the oceans of space both in terms of time, column inches and weblogs, space that can hang heavily in these days of 24 hour news. In other words it is an easy option. If you couple this with all the amateur opinionistas like me who speculate about the speculators then it becomes a self-referencing avalanche of spurious news which can be easily and cheaply used to fill space with high sounding justifications like 'the public interest' and 'free speech' etc. The only solution is self restraint on the part of the journalists. As they say, dream on.