Man in the Mirror: Brooks Newmark, who resigned as minister for civil society on 27 September. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Tabloid stings, Littlejohn’s dreadful jokes and the inaudible word of God

Peter Wilby’s First Thoughts column. 

The case of Brooks Newmark, the now former “minister for civil society” (an absurd post created to give substance to David Cameron’s “big society” sound bites), demonstrates exactly why we need reliable press regulation. But newspapers have put themselves in the ridiculous position where, in this first major test of the new Independent Press Standards Organisation (Ipso), set up unilaterally by the press without the statutory underpinning required by the Leveson report and agreed by MPs, the regulator is almost bound to deny the defence any benefit of doubt. It may even feel compelled to fine the Sunday Mirror, the paper that “exposed” Newmark, who believed a young woman would be interested in his genitals and was presumably surprised when “she” turned out to be a male freelance journalist.

The paper certainly seems to be on weak ground. It was not exposing a habitual offender. As is the case with many tabloid stings, no misbehaviour occurred until the newspaper provoked it. It may be in the public interest to expose a minister’s stupidity but we already had an idea of Newmark’s mental capacities from his recent comment that charities should stick to knitting.

Equally, it is doubtful that the Sunday Mirror did anything criminal and that Newmark, wealthy though he is, would wish to seek remedies through the civil courts. The law is too cumbersome for cases that raise the question of when entrapment can be justified. That is why we need regulation. If the press had accepted a statutory framework, the Sunday Mirror would probably have got away with it, since an approved regulator would have bent over backwards to avoid any appearance of suppressing stories inconvenient or embarrassing to ministers and MPs. Ipso, however, must err in the opposite direction to allay accusations that newspapers set it up so they could carry on as before. For the Sunday Mirror’s editor, Lloyd Embley, I predict, the future is bleak.

Serious business

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail’s “clarifications and corrections” column announces: “A comment article on 13 August about the European Court of Human Rights said that the supply of heroin and gay porn was now a ‘right’. We are happy to clarify that this was not meant to be taken seriously.”

The article was written by the Mail’s star columnist Richard Littlejohn, who sometimes writes humorous columns (though they don’t necessarily make you laugh) and often exaggerates for rhetorical effect. But this piece was headlined “Britain’s now a judicial dictatorship” and the claim about prisoners being granted a right to heroin and gay porn appeared in a list of other rights allegedly granted by the European Court. Littlejohn gave no indication that this claim was to be taken less or more seriously than the others. Should we now assume that the rest of the article was not meant to be taken seriously? Should we assume that nothing the Mail says about European institutions, human rights or prisons is meant to be taken seriously? Should we in future treat the Mail as a journal of comedy?

My enemy’s enemy

These are puzzling times. First, we were going to bomb Syrian government forces. After MPs rejected that idea, Cameron proposed bombing Islamic State, the government’s strongest enemies, and got overwhelming support even from Labour. Perhaps MPs feel sorry for him and want to give the poor guy a break.

It is hard to think of any other reason. IS kills people brutally and arbitrarily and puts videos online to prove it. Bashar al-Assad, the Syrian dictator, also commits atrocities (and allegedly uses chemical weapons) but doesn’t boast about them. That is really the only difference between the two and I don’t see how we can justify backing one side rather than the other.

But I long ago gave up trying to understand western policies in the Middle East. In the 1980s, we supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war. Then, in 2003, we overthrew him, purged his Sunni supporters and paved the way for a sectarian Shia government that immediately allied itself with the theocratic Shia regime in Iran.

Still, we’re playing with the big boys. As I write, the Ministry of Defence has announced that our aircraft have bombed their first Islamic State targets. I am reminded of schoolboys in autumn boasting of how their conkers broke other boys’ conkers.

Keeping up with Jones

To the funeral of David Nicholson-Lord, a colleague at the Independent on Sunday and later a frequent New Statesman contributor. A passionate environmentalist, an iconoclast and a beautiful writer, he died, at 67, too young. His articles were guaranteed to enrage critics who thought we should be more fun-loving and less exercised about, for example, poverty and the future of humanity. One NS piece – arguing that humanity, staring at screens inside air-conditioned offices, was regressing to its cave-dwelling origins – particularly upset that quintessential cave-dweller, the GQ editor, Dylan Jones. He held it up for ridicule in a Guardian column arguing at length that I, then the editor, was not enough of a show-off.

David regarded it as a badge of honour to be abused by Jones, the self-appointed arbiter of contemporary style. So did I.

Peace be with you

At David’s funeral, I found the addresses by the vicar, family and friends largely inaudible. My hearing has always been poor but, among a congregation of mature years (usually the case at funerals), I wasn’t alone in this complaint. I do not blame the speakers but the sound system, the inadequacies of which were demonstrated when the vicar abandoned his microphone at the end of the service and could suddenly be heard loud and clear. This was not an exception. At most church services, I can hear neither sermon nor readings. One assumes churches are keen to spread God’s word. Why don’t they invest in better sound systems so that it can be heard?

Peter Wilby was editor of the Independent on Sunday from 1995 to 1996 and of the New Statesman from 1998 to 2005. He writes the weekly First Thoughts column for the NS.

This article first appeared in the 30 September 2014 issue of the New Statesman, ISIS vs The World

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Emmanuel Macron can win - but so can Marine Le Pen

Macron is the frontrunner, but he remains vulnerable to an upset. 

French presidential candidate Emmanuel Macron is campaigning in the sixth largest French city aka London today. He’s feeling buoyed by polls showing not only that he is consolidating his second place but that the voters who have put him there are increasingly comfortable in their choice

But he’ll also be getting nervous that those same polls show Marine Le Pen increasing her second round performance a little against both him and François Fillon, the troubled centre-right candidate. Her slight increase, coming off the back of riots after the brutal arrest of a 22-year-old black man and Macron’s critical comments about the French empire in Algeria is a reminder of two things: firstly the potential for domestic crisis or terror attack to hand Le Pen a late and decisive advantage.  Secondly that Macron has not been doing politics all that long and the chance of a late implosion on his part cannot be ruled out either.

That many of his voters are former supporters of either Fillon or the Socialist Party “on holiday” means that he is vulnerable should Fillon discover a sense of shame – highly unlikely but not impossible either – and quit in favour of a centre-right candidate not mired in scandal. And if Benoît Hamon does a deal with Jean-Luc Mélenchon – slightly more likely that Fillon developing a sense of shame but still unlikely – then he could be shut out of the second round entirely.

What does that all mean? As far as Britain is concerned, a Macron or Fillon presidency means the same thing: a French government that will not be keen on an easy exit for the UK and one that is considerably less anti-Russian than François Hollande’s. But the real disruption may be in the PR battle as far as who gets the blame if Theresa May muffs Brexit is concerned.

As I’ve written before, the PM doesn’t like to feed the beast as far as the British news cycle and the press is concerned. She hasn’t cultivated many friends in the press and much of the traditional rightwing echo chamber, from the press to big business, is hostile to her. While Labour is led from its leftmost flank, that doesn’t much matter. But if in the blame game for Brexit, May is facing against an attractive, international centrist who shares much of the prejudices of May’s British critics, the hope that the blame for a bad deal will be placed solely on the shoulders of the EU27 may turn out to be a thin hope indeed.

Implausible? Don’t forget that people already think that Germany is led by a tough operator who gets what she wants, and think less of David Cameron for being regularly outmanoeuvered by her – at least, that’s how they see it. Don’t rule out difficulties for May if she is seen to be victim to the same thing from a resurgent France.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.