Peter Hitchens, what about raw bias?

It is somewhat ironic that Peter Hitchens, so often a man who reminds us he can see what is going on where others are unaware, used his blog yesterday in the Daily Mail to say he has now discovered he is almost the only journalist who didn’t know that Jimmy Savile was a child molester.  He must be feeling quite left out among the media pack.

Hitchens goes on to ask, ‘If they all knew, why didn’t they tell you?’ before going on to declare most profoundly that:

Well, let them explain all that. What’s much, much more important is that you now know that there is a lot going on that nobody tells you.

They don’t tell you because they’re scared that very rich men can use the libel courts to ruin those who tell the truth about them.

Well there is something in that but it goes far deeper.  As Richard North observes, Hitchens is only partly right:

Hitchens suggests that the omerta owes much to our punitive libel laws, and there is some truth in that. But there is a great deal more to it than that, not least the sheep-like behaviour of the media pack, and the power of the narrative.

Too often, journalists (and their editors) want to stay in the comfort zone delineated by the herd. Once a “line” has been established (the narrative), they will not depart significantly from it. There is no need for censorship or libel laws here. This is what the media does to itself.

North is bang on the money and there is plenty of evidence to support it – including, amusingly, the behaviour of Hitchens’ paymaster itself, the Daily Mail.

For example, perhaps Hitchens would care to investigate why the Daily Mail, without any explanation, deleted a story it published about David Leigh of the Guardian in relation to his own phone hacking exploits?  The story was accurate, but nonetheless the Mail pulled it soon after publishing and deleted all reference to it.  That’s an instance of people not being told something the media decides to keep out of the public eye.  Leigh, unsurprisingly in the incestuous world of the print media, has friends at the Mail. Go figure.

Then there is the example of the Met Office being caught out lying about no longer doing seasonal weather forecasts, as uncovered by this blog.  We dug up documentary evidence in the form of Minutes from the Met Office board meeting where the decision was taken, at the suggestion of Chief Executive John Hirst, to ‘rename’ and ‘manage the presentation of these longer range forecasts’.  AM gave this completely free and without condition to a reporter at the Daily Mail and an editor at the Daily Express.  Neither paper chose to tell the story to their readers.

Neither of these stories were libellous.  There was nothing for the papers to be scared of.  Unless the Guardian is now a powerful commercial interest.  They just decided it wasn’t something the public should know about.  They self censored for their own purposes because of narratives they prefer to follow.  So if Peter Hitchens wants to play the ‘honest broker’ card, perhaps he should tell the whole truth about the reality of why there are things the media don’t tell us.  It’s not all because of fear of a consequence.

About these ads

4 Responses to “Peter Hitchens, what about raw bias?”


  1. 1 Brian H 15/10/2012 at 3:09 am

    Well, “Raw Bias” isn’t exactly the best characterisation, but …
    There are tangible reasons for not deviating from the “get-along, go-along” line(s), aside from libel laws. Withdrawal of funding and “membership” and exclusion from the club have consequences. As time goes on, fear of additional matters being hauled into the light accumulates, too.

  2. 2 The Gray Monk 15/10/2012 at 8:27 am

    In one sense, these revelations are informative. The Media often are responsible for creating these ‘celebrities’ and frequently know they are ‘flawed’ – yet, as long as there is something to be gained from promoting them, will continue to fawn and ‘celebrate’ their ‘achievments.’ But let that facade slip – or as in this cae – let the man die – and they turn on him like the viscious jackals they are.

    Yes, the libel laws do suppress some reporting, but not always. A lot depends on what the ‘celebrity’ represents. Someone with a large popular following is much less likely to be ‘exposed’ than someone from, say, an unpopular political movement. There is a ‘rich’ element to this as well. If someone has the wherewithal to sue the reporter and the paper successfully, the information is far less likely to be ‘shared’ than if the person is a Middle Income earner.

    We could call it ‘double standards’ and it might well be, but I suspect it also conatins an element of ‘glass houses’ and ‘complicity.’ The Press Pack are hardly models of moral behaviour by any measure of means.

  3. 3 andrew 16/10/2012 at 1:18 am

    Did they really all know? Or is it that Hitchens is the only one who is willing to admit that he wasn’t getting all the insider gossip?

  4. 4 Steve 17/10/2012 at 7:55 pm

    “the Met Office being caught out lying about no longer doing seasonal weather forecasts”

    See the press release where they said:

    “The Met Office is working hard to develop the science of long range forecasting, including for the UK, and will continue at the forefront of innovation in this area.

    We take seriously our responsibility to provide the best possible service to the public. Although long range forecasts are vital in some parts of the world, and can be useful for some specialists, such as insurers and energy traders, we know that they are of limited use to the public…”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2010/forecasts-change

    I really don’t see how you interpreted this to mean that the Met Office had stopped doing seasonal forecasts. I think if you’d asked anyone in the Met Office, they’d have been gobsmacked at the suggestion given that there is a seasonal forecast group publishing papers, that seasonal to decadal (S2D) and “climate services” based on seasonal to decadal is a prominent part of the Met Office business plan, and the seasonal to decadal work was a prominent part of the (published) bid for new supercomputing resources at the time.

    Did you ever actually ask the Met Office themselves – ie. the call centre, not an FoI request? The Met Office not doing S2D would be like Esso not getting involved in fracking.


Comments are currently closed.



Enter your email address below

The Harrogate Agenda Explained

Email AM

Bloggers for an Independent UK

AM on Twitter

  • - Чем Кипр отличается от Москвы? - Там русских больше, чем таджиков! 20 hours ago
  • Конгресс США принял закон, согласно которому на восемь белых пешек на шахматной доске две должны быть чёрными, а одна голубой. 20 hours ago
  • RT @_ItzBebe: Ой, у скороварки, кажется, клапан заби… http://t.co/XjVVGlWcHJ 20 hours ago

STOR Scandal

Autonomous Mind Archive