Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


I really can’t get upset about the injunction against the BBC last Friday night. Its journalists had found (or been leaked) something apparently damning in connection with the cash-for-honours inquiry. Good—that’s their job; they’re supposed to dig. However, if it’s as damning as all that, it could well end up forming part of the prosecution’s case, a point made by the police when they explained why they had asked for the injunction. The fact that it was the government’s own Attorney-General they then had to ask to go to court to apply for it was amusing, but doesn’t reflect some dark scheme to bury the story. If it’s pertinent to the case against, the No. 10 email in question will come out during the trial; if it isn’t, or if there is no trial, there’s no reason for the email to stay hidden, as its disclosure would no longer impede the police’s enquiries.

You’re not supposed to pre-empt a court case, but that always rankles with the press, which for some reason considers itself a more legitimate court than any institution actually bearing the name. The Sun, the Mirror and the News of the World are the titles usually guilty of successfully spiking trials by revealing information beforehand, but this time it’s mainly the Mail (on Sunday, at least) and the Telegraph that are straining to publish what the BBC wasn’t allowed to share with us. This is no quest for truth and freedom, piercing the black veil of conspiracy with the pointy stick of righteousness; it’s merely another chapter in the history of a hubristic and fairly ADD media that values its own self-image over any consequences of its actions, and then always backs away at the critical moment, claiming simply to be an observer, not a participant. Ultimately the press is no more our friend than the banks are.

So, I’m not bothered about the injunction. Please, someone, tell me if I’m missing a broader point of principle here.

EDIT: In the end it was the Guardian that went ahead and published. Scotland Yard still maintains that this could potentially harm any prosecution arising from their current investigation.


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Mar. 5th, 2007 01:45 pm (UTC)
Please, someone, tell me if I’m missing a broader point of principle here.

You aren't. The press, which wouldn't recognise a principle if it came round to their house and made them cocktails, are.
Mar. 5th, 2007 01:48 pm (UTC)
Fvck the media. Fvck the government. Fvck the power! FVCK THE POWER!!
Mar. 5th, 2007 02:19 pm (UTC)
Have another run-in with some malignant bozo on public transport this morning, did we?
Mar. 5th, 2007 02:30 pm (UTC)
You know what? I can barely remember my journey into this morning. Since I've started a new approach (involving sitting at the extreme end of the train and always getting a seat (because I won't get on if I can't)), my journey is about 10 minutes longer and about 10 million times easier.

. . .
there was something else related I was going to say here, and now I've forgotten it.
Mar. 5th, 2007 03:39 pm (UTC)
Please, someone, tell me if I’m missing a broader point of principle here.

I think the idea that the press shouldn't be allowed to c0ck up a possible prosecution to satisfy their own ends is the broadest point of principle here.
Mar. 5th, 2007 05:29 pm (UTC)
There you go. You might have already seen it though. But this was already the gossip going around anyway, wasn't it? In any case, I knew it already.
Mar. 5th, 2007 05:31 pm (UTC)
BTW, just as I started to reply to your journal, Stranger In Da Club came on. Thank you :)
Mar. 5th, 2007 07:13 pm (UTC)
> In any case, I knew it already.

Because it was you who sent the email?
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

December 2015
Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Lilia Ahner