The transcripts of the official inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the press. More…

Well, what I mean -- I don't think I explained that very well. What I mean by that is, for example, I talked earlier about the Sun has a particular view on Europe, or at the moment they have a particular view on Ken Clarke and his fitness to be Secretary of State. So you can take a fact, for example, the Eurozone is in crisis, we'll accept that's a fact, but then you can take that fact and you can turn it into a comment that justifies your position on Europe. Likewise with Ken Clarke. If the Select Committee report is published which is critical of the Justice Department, you can take that and flash it over your front page why Clarke has to go. I'm making the point that the facts will be in the story somewhere. The distortion is in the way they take them to build a comment which relate to a campaign that they're running.

I don't think you should stop newspapers from doing that. It's perfectly legitimate for newspapers to have strong positions. The fact is a fact. But I'm simply saying that if you have an outside body that says, "Actually this paper has a position on Europe, has a position on a particular politician, has a position on a particular party" -- because Gus O'Donnell, I saw a bit of him this morning and he was making the point about the BBC and Times and this is particularly relevant to this debate about what's being online, I think the public are absorbing all this stuff, not necessarily knowing what the motivation of the owner is, what the motivation of an editor may be, and I think actually an outside body can help to bring the sort of transparency which the media are never begun to shine upon themselves. History would suggest.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech