On the side of the media

As a journalist I heard two items of news this morning which particularly saddened me.

Two award-winning photographers, Chris Hondros and Tim Hetherington, were killed while covering the Libyan conflict in Misrata, where the general population is fighting to the death to rid itself of people like Gaddafi, who are rich enough to behave with impunity.

They were covering the human tragedy side of the story and became the story themselves. A very sad situation.

Here in the UK I found myself agreeing with The Sun – and, as you will understand, that is very disconcerting in itself.

Following the issue yesterday of an unprecedented gagging order by Mr Justice Eady, in an attempt to prevent details of a television star’s private life being published, The Sun actually spoke some sense for once.

It said: “Hypocritical showbiz stars, sports idols and high-profile public figures lap up positive publicity. And they often cash in on their popularity and wholesome image with mega salaries and huge fees from companies whose products they endorse. But when they misbehave and things turn sour, they go for the gag in order to protect false impressions - and their massive incomes.”

There is of course a difference between what the public wants to know and what is in the public interest. But as the newspaper points out, many of those high-profile figures rely on their wholesome image and derive a large amount of cash from subsequent endorsements. The kind of sums of cash, in fact, which allow one to take out an injunction.

Does the public not have a right to know when it’s being duped? Or when its idols have feet of clay? And let’s not forget High Court judges themselves have not been exempt from the odd character flaw which could easily lead to blackmail or worse. The circle is tightening.

Kelvin MacKenzie, a columnist in The Sun, told readers today that while he and “most media folk” know the names of the public figures protected by privacy injunctions the public don’t.

He added: “There is currently a dangerous two track-society. There are those that know and I’m one of them. And there are those that are denied knowing and that’s you, dear reader.”

More importantly Kelvin, you’re right that we’re in danger of a two-track society, but moreover, it’s one that allows the rich and powerful to behave with a degree of impunity while the rest of us have to live on a diet of what we’re allowed to be fed.

Tell me again why they’re fighting in Misrata?

The Sun always shines on the winner

I caught just a little of BBC Breakfast this morning - it was at the moment the wonderful Sian Williams asked if The Sun's withdrawal of its support for Labour will affect the result of next year's general election.

I'm sure there are some, many of them working in the Murdoch empire, who believe it will. Personally I believe apart from those who read Socialist Worker and the Daily Mail, the majority of newspaper readers aren't likely to be aware of the political leanings of their chosen organ.

Those who take The Sun for instance are hardly likely to put "because it backs New Labour" as their no1 reason for purchasing the paper. In fact they're not likely to see the question at all unless it sits on page three, where luscious Lavinia from Letchworth opines that "I believe data collection of the demographic of Sun readers is essential to the well-being of small children and animals in our country and I applaud the steps being taken by News International."

My own political leanings are slightly left of centre, but that is not necessarily reflected in my choice of reading. I get a national newspaper only at weekends and am just as likely to buy The Times or The Independent as I am the Guardian. I've even been known to take the Daily Telegraph if it has a decent DVD to give away.

And, despite finding many of his views abhorrent, I thoroughly enjoy reading the columns of motoring fascist Jeremy Clarkson.

For all the political posturing of The Sun, the exchange of horses mid-stream is irrelevant to the result: Labour will lose and the Tories will win, despite the absence of any tangible policies. That's a given. Gordon Brown has made sure of that.

All The Sun has done is make sure it doesn't back the loser. And you can't blame them for that.