I'd be amazed if that were the case, but I recognise the possibility. So what I should do is create a document that lists all the areas of potential criticism of the press, without seeking to distinguish, although I suppose in the evidential material, which would be cross-referenced to the transcript, somebody would be able to say, "Actually, he was talking about my paper or somebody else's paper." Whatever. I'm not going to go there, because that would offend my mantra, and I say: "Right, these are all the potential criticisms, generally, where there is either a criticism or a risk that this has gone beyond it", if I adopt your earlier line -- and it's an interesting postulate -- so that you can address that concern.
What I would want, of course, then is not: the Times says about the Times that none of these apply to them, the Sunday Times says about the Sunday Times that none of them apply to them, whatever, because I'm not asking for people to comment upon their own position; I'm asking for submissions about whether I am entitled to reach that conclusion, that either it is a legitimate criticism or the risk of a criticism, to follow the other suggestion, of a section of the press.
Now, no submission yet received, save for Mr Sherborne's, which is for different reasons, has sought to go beyond their own position. I understand that. It's entirely justifiable that you should make submissions on credibility and on Module 1 based upon the position of your titles. They're your clients. But actually, to help me, which I think I'm entitled to ask, I need to know what you say about the broader issue that I have to address.
Now, that's another way of doing it.