‘Spirited’ is the word I would use to describe this article by stalwart Guardianista Polly Toynbee in which she pours all the hot water she can boil over the ‘Tory Press’ for what she regards as a ‘naked political assault on the government’.
Perhaps ‘vituperative’ is a better word. She certainly does not pull her punches. But what really caught my eye was this most damning conclusion:
“The question is why do we tolerate a press that is the worst in the western democratic world? Wild, unaccountable to anyone, anything goes and no one can stop it: what politician would dare call for a privacy law in the face of their wrath? The only hope is public revulsion.”
Being more than a little intrigued by this prima facie hypocrisy, I found myself composing (and then sending) a little request for clarification:
“Is this not the press of which you are a very prominent part, Ms.Toynbee? Or are we to take it that you consider yourself to be above and beyond the rest of the ‘unaccountable’ rabble?”
A not unreasonable question I thought. A view shared by Ms.Toynbee as she was kind enough to respond to me (albeit tersely):
“I do not regard the Guardian as in the same business as the Mail.”
I believe that my question has been answered in the affirmative.
“I do not regard the Guardian as in the same business as the Mail” – Polly Toynbee’s response.
Oh Polly Polly, endless source of amusment. If I got given a tuppence every time B/S came out of her mouth, I would be able to buy a central London flat now! (or a major South American country, the way our “fantastic” housing market goes…)
… from National Daily newspaper circulation Nov 2002 :
Daily Mail 2,342,982
Guardian 388,030
Indeed, Polly… I do not regard the Guardian in the same business as the Mail either… at least somebody reads the Mail and it is still in business!
In the words of immortal Nelson the Bully : HA-HA.
(Guardian on the other hand has quasi-governmental subsidy via public sector advertising
and would be on chapter 11 in no time if ever forced to compete in the “free market” which they loathe so much)
The Guardian may well be the worst, but there are nasty things to be found in all of the newspapers.
Yesterday (Wednesday) I was looking through the “Daily Telegraph” and looked an article written Harold Pinter (the article was originally a speech he gave at the University of Turin).
At first I saw the words “millions of murders in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos” – “at last” (I thought) “even Harold Pinter now understands that Uncle Ho, Pol Pot and the rest of the Reds were evil men”. However, I then read the article properly and saw that Harold Pinter was blaming the evil Americans (the whole speech was just a standard “Death to America” rant from a member of the “cultural elite”).
Polly, may the Lord preserve her. She is the fitting symbol of that particularly snooty brand of Fabian do-gooderism that has been the curse of the Brits in the 20th century. A useful reminder of how god-awful the left is.
The idea of the Guardian being above the mucky fray of muck-raking journalism is too funny for words. What about the Guardian’s mendacious campaign vs Neil Hamilton, for starters? I hold no brief for him but that was rabble-rousing journalism of the worst kind.
Paul – Pinters claims are thoroughly debunked and rightly given a sound kicking at the USS Clueless.
Apropos of Polly’s sniffy comment, I will just relate this anecdote.
When we launched the Independent on Sunday, editor Stephen Glover gathered his bright-eyed, talented and handpicked new staff around and gave a short speech.
“Why are we starting this newspaper?” he began. “We are starting this newspaper to make money.”
Sighs of relief and trebles all round.
Thus motivated, I believe we produced one of the finest flowerings of British Sunday journalism, until internecine warfare erupted between Whittam Smith and Glover, who eventually was forced out.
Polly Toynbee is gravely mistaken about what business she is in.
I apologize for leaving the words “at” and “by” out of comment.
Hey David
You must be aware by now that what the media is interested in is not the Why or the Where or the How or even the What.
Its the WHO, as in WHO is running the story. All the press in this country is interested in is each other. As in the Onions stunning headline. Media Slams Media Obsession with Media.
When the Guardian see a Mail campaign aimed at Mrs Blair, their main angle is focused at the paper, not the politician. This works the other way around as well. The Mirror has been almost as vitriolic towards Cherie “I’m only a silly little woman really” Blair as the Mail. But the Guardian has no axe to grind with them, and so it goes.
Here is a short list of obsessions
The Mail Hates:
The Guardian
The Express
The Guardian Hates:
The Sun
The Mail
The Express
The Times Hates:
The Mirror
The Express
The Telegraph
The Telegraph Hates
All of them
The Sun Hates
The Guardian
The Express
No One Hates
The Independent – Too Bland
Everyone Hates
The Express (Richard Desmond is a pornographer and is therefore besmirching the good name of all the fine upstanding purveyors of her Majestys Press – Wankers)
By the way, why are you suprised at the BBC’s Left wing Bias? They carry a huge government subsidy. Just as they were Tory Poodles in the 80’s.
I have worked for the BBC and there are very few Labour supporters or lefties in that organisation. Quite the opposite in fact. But they know where their bread is buttered.
Virtually ever journalist I ever met is cynical in the extreme and will change their politics effortlessly to suit their current paymasters. Witness Jane Moore, right-wing slag at the Sun, left wing hand wringer at the Mirror.
If I were you I’d give up on changing the BBC and simply work on changing the government.
Eamon
Eamon,
Well, I also worked for the BBC (script writer in Light Entertainment) back in the 90’s and my experience is startlingly different to yours (and we still had a Tory government at the time).
But, that said, I can assure you that I have given up on the BBC. I did so quite some time ago. My only suggested remedy now is to abolish their subsidy and send in the asset-strippers (e.g. Richard Desmond)
Which newspapers would be read by the wealthy and aristocatic Londoners now? I presume the Financial Times. Which others? Just curious – hard to discern based on discussions above. Conservative can mean many things.
I’d still like to shag Polly Toynbee, though.