The Telegraph is proved to be Gutter Press - but hide their guilt
The Telegraph is obliged to print the report from the Press Complaints Commission which it has done in the most inconspicuous position possible (on a double page spread there is the obligatory report with the rest of the spread having a small story 6 inches high about a polar bear with the whole of the majority of that page and ALL of the facing page being advertisements)
It concerns two complaints from MPs about their expense claims. One from David Kidney, Labour MP for Stafford was not accepted or upheld. The other from Brian Binley MP about which I wrote on 19 June was upheld on both counts and I print the PCC’s judgement of that in full below as well as repeating my posting of the earlier date.
This justifies my scornful attitude to the hypocritical and bullying attitude of the Telegraph’s management throughout their disgraceful campaign which was inadequately researched, and which mixed up the innocent and the guilty, the important and the trivial. They ended up by tarring many fine MPs from all parties with their smears. In addition they never to my knowledge published any substantial corrections to their inaccurate stories.
They have tucked the report away out of sight in the printed paper and do not feature it prominently on their website either. They are guilty and won’t admit it or offer a public apology,
Christina
=================================
TELEGRAPH 6.10.09
The MPs’ expenses investigation: PCC rulings
The Press Complaints Commission has published its adjudication on the complaints of two MPs in respect of The Daily Telegraph’s coverage.
David Kidney, MP – not upheld
Mr David Kidney, Member of Parliament for Stafford, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article headlined “MPs made inflated council tax claims”, published in The Daily Telegraph on June 20 2009, was misleading in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the editors’ Code of Practice.
[remainder can be read on :- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6263063/The-MPs-expenses-investigation-PCC-rulings.html
Brian Binley, MP – upheld
Mr Brian Binley, Member of Parliament for Northampton South, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that references to his wealth in two articles headlined “Tory claims £57,000 to rent flat from own company” and “Brian Binley made £16,000 claim for 'picking the brains’ of media adviser”, published in The Daily Telegraph on June 17 and June 20 2009 respectively, were inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the editors’ Code of Practice. The complaint was upheld.
The articles referred to the complainant’s expenses claims, alleging that he was a “millionaire” and possessed a “multi-million pound fortune”. The complainant made clear his financial position in some detail, arguing that both assertions were entirely inaccurate. On no occasion had the newspaper checked this information with him before publication.
The newspaper said that the description of the complainant as a millionaire took account of the fact that he and his wife owned 40 per cent of BCC Marketing, which employed 130 people and had a turnover of £2.2 million.
It also pointed to the sale of a publishing house in 2000, in addition to a significant number of current or past directorships. Salaries, dividends and share sale proceeds — combined with capital interests in property and his salary as an MP — made it highly unlikely that the complainant was anything less than both a millionaire and a multi-millionaire, an assessment which the complainant entirely rejected. That said, the newspaper was willing to publish a clarification in the following terms:
“Further to our MPs’ expenses coverage (June 17 and 20) Brian Binley MP has asked us to point out that he is not a millionaire. We are happy to make this clear.”
Adjudication
Although the Commission was only being asked to adjudicate on a narrow point, it was a significant one. The newspaper had made a clear claim about the complainant’s finances on two occasions and had been unable to corroborate the position adequately following the complaint, arguing only that the complainant must have amassed considerable wealth.
The newspaper did not put the claim to the complainant before publication and — despite the complainant’s comprehensive analysis of his financial position — had not offered promptly to publish a correction and apology which accepted the articles were incorrect on this point.
The complaint was upheld as a result.
======================
EARLIER POSTING OF 19 JUNE
Subject: Telegraph becomes the worst of the gutter press - The Guilty men
One might hope that the Telegraph’s editorial staff might read this and say “Whoa! Perhaps we’re overdoing it” and mend their ways. But from the start two things appear to be driving them on - a desire to get their own back for the apparent sacking of the odious Damian McBride -a friend of many of them. The second motive is a drive for circulation gains and profits - and bonuses? - no matter who gets hurt along the way.
These are a despicable crew and the guilty men are:
==Editor, Will Lewis, Political Editor Andrew Porter (described as “part of a beer, golf, football cabal” ) and Benedict Brogan (who strangely arrived at the Telegraph coincidentally with the start of the campaign - a career move? ) ALL of these were friends of the lying McBride.
In all of this what role have the owners, the shadowy Barclay Brothers played ?
The campaign could hardly fail. There was a lax and negligible vetting of expenses by a Fees Office presided over by the worst Speaker in history. But the Telegraph was not content to go for the guilty and those who had acted criminally. It pursued with equal vigour the petty cheats and more importantly had a staff whose brief was solely to get incriminating quotes. They applied this witch hunt indiscriminately and it seems that they never once conceived the possibility that they might be wrong.
There have been several of these and in a society where the lynch mob is not in control their exoneration would have received the same level of publicity. But it didn’t. The Telegraph in its evil campaign blithely ignored the truth.
First of all there was Nadine Dorries MP whom McBride had targeted with a total filthy invention from his safe haven in No:10 where he was a close associate of Gordon Brown. The Telegraph gave her priority - I wonder why?. But they got all their facts wrong! They mixed up mortgages and rents and got locations wrong. NO apology!
Then Michael Howard got it ! He leapt into action and totally demolished the supposed “facts’ of the Telegraph’s accusation but was there a retraction or an apology? Of course not!
Bill Cash got it next for the ‘crime’ (by Telegraph law) of moving his London accommodation to share a flat with his daughter and charging LESS, thus saving the taxpayer. An apology? Nah!
There have been distortions all along. Douglas Hogg actually did NOT get paid for his moat! But every mention of the man ignores the main story because the ‘moat’ makes a better picture in the Telegraph. [Simon Heffer later corrected me on this but the Telegraph’s own summary makes it clear that he did not get paid any substantial amount for cleaning it -cs] And whoever it was didn’t get paid for a duck house but it makes a pretty picture.
Now we have Brian Binley who has behaved impeccably throughout, but don’t expect an apology, Mr Binley. The Telegraph doesn’t know how to say “Sorry”.
Read on it’s a horrid picture of a team out of control grovelling in a trough of dishonest and filthy profit.
The BBC and the rest of the ‘media’ follow sheepishly behind because they can smell the adrenaline in the air from the unthinking illiterate mob. Most of them don’t read the stories in full so can’t distinguish between a criminal and a fool. It’s monstrous hypocrisy anyway for the public live in a glass house and throw stones .
Well written, Mr Binley
Christina
=============================
INDEPENDENT 19.6.09
Brian Binley: My conscience is clear – this is just a witch hunt
Happily, I have never lived in a totalitarian state. But this week I was given an insight into what it must have been like in the dark days of East European Communism to receive the infamous knock on the door from those delightful individuals who once did the dirty work of the Stasi and the KGB.
In my case, it came in the form of an email from the Daily Telegraph, informing me that I had "questions to answer" about my living arrangements in London in the three years after I was elected to Parliament in 2005.
My conscience was perfectly clear, and after reading the "accusations", I knew there was nothing for which I had to answer and duly contacted the reporter to explain the situation.
But frankly, I might not have bothered. Sadly, such is now the Telegraph's thirst and hunger for making mischief since obtaining the records of MPs' expenses, that it has long since abandoned the idea of fair and honest reporting.
Of course, some MPs have deservedly been exposed for the misuse of public funds, be it claiming for non-existent mortgages, "flipping" between homes, or claiming a fiver for a wreath they bought for Remembrance Sunday.
But now the newspaper has turned it into a McCarthyite witch-hunt for the sake of a circulation increase. It is doing the reputation of British journalism a lot of damage.
Anyway, I phoned the reporter, and began to explain the situation, but it did not take me more than a few seconds to realise that she had no intention of engaging in a fair and proper conversation. She – or rather the Telegraph's newsdesk – had already decided that they were going to run a story about me and whatever I said was not going to change that. Her attitude was aggressive and sometimes downright rude, and it left a sour taste once I put the phone down.
I then waited with baited breath for Wednesday's Telegraph to come out, and when it finally did, I was stunned.
Stunned that my story had made its front-page lead; and stunned by the insidious implications, like referring to me as a millionaire. What on earth is the relevance of that, whether I am or not? It was a grubby way of insinuating that I was some hard-nosed capitalist out to make an easy buck at anyone's expense, and I deeply resent that.
For the record, the Telegraph implied that I had broken the rules by renting a flat in London that was bought by a company I founded, and ran, before becoming an MP, and that, essentially, I was paying rent to myself. Bunkum.
My company did buy a property near Westminster, but it was a commercial decision agreed to by the board of directors. It was the property of BCC Marketing, and it was perfectly correct that I pay rent. And let me make two points here: if I didn't pay rent to BCC Marketing, I would have had to pay rent to another landlord and the rent I paid was all inclusive (council tax, utility bills, and so on), and cheaper than I would have paid for similar accommodation I might have rented privately.
And the company was about £38,000 down on the deal over the three-year period. So much for implying that I had diverted taxpayers' money for my own personal benefit.
I had cleared my living arrangements with the Fees Office at Parliament, and then the rules changed, so I had to move out, though I appealed against the changes before I did so.
All in all, it is a non-story. My Northampton South constituency executive have always been aware of the situation and were perfectly at ease as I featured in news bulletins during the day. I obliged with all interview requests, because I was angry at what the Telegraph had done, the way it had ignored my explanations, and the damage to my reputation.
Thankfully, the local media in Northampton have been extremely professional in their treatment of the story. So much so, that constituents who were initially angered after first reading, or hearing, the "allegations" about me, and said so, have since been in touch to apologise and admit that further investigation reveals nothing. Exactly.
And this is the point. The Telegraph is doing enormous damage in its hunger to exploit the expenses scandal to its own commercial profit. Of course it did some good initially, and of course the expenses system needs an overhaul. I have been saying that since I first arrived at Westminster.
But this has gone too far, and it is about time someone stood up to them. They have taken it upon themselves to become judge and jury, without any thought to seeking the truth before they publish.
It reminds me of Rudyard Kipling's famous quote for Stanley Baldwin: "What the proprietorship of these papers is aiming at is power, and power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.
Posts
