THE GRACELESS TELEGRAPH, THE NEWSPAPER OF STAB IN THE DARK TORY JOURNALISM

Following the publication of an article in The Daily Telegraph on 4 April 2015, headlined “Sturgeon’s secret backing for Cameron”, the Office of the First Minister of Scotland complained to the Independent Press Standards Organisation that The Daily Telegraph had breached Clause 1 (Accuracy) of the Editors’ Code of Practice. (Pretty serious then. After all, if a NEWSpaper isn't accurate, then what the hell use is it, except a propaganda tool of a political party?)

IPSO established a breach of the Editors’ Code and has required The Daily Telegraph to publish this decision as a remedy. (IPSO appears not to have required an apology of any sort, because none appears.)

The article reported the contents of a leaked Government memorandum which claimed that at a private meeting the First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon MSP, had told the French Ambassador that she would rather see David Cameron win the general election than Ed Miliband. The memorandum had been written by a senior British civil servant a week later, after a conversation with the French Consul-General.

The article said that these comments undermined Ms Sturgeon’s public support for a “progressive alliance” with Mr Miliband.

The complainant said that the claims were categorically untrue: Ms Sturgeon had not expressed a preference for a Conservative government or any views about Mr Miliband’s suitability as Prime Minister. The complainant regarded the newspaper’s decision not to contact Ms Sturgeon for comment prior to publication as a breach of Clause 1.

The newspaper said it had confirmed the authenticity of the document with two well-placed sources before publication. (Both of whom, it appears, either misunderstood what had been said or lied, so Telegraph, beware in the future. Politicians and their staff, in danger of being parted from their expenses, and cushie numbers are inclined to be economical with the truth!)

It was a contemporaneous note made by an experienced civil servant, and the newspaper had no reason to doubt its accuracy. (Except that it was wrong adn if they had just asked someone else for confirmation they would have found that out. However, that would have ruined a superb chance of undermining the SNP.) 

It denied having any obligation to contact Ms Sturgeon for comment before publication: it was entitled to publish an accurate account of the document. (It might not have had an obligation to ask Ms Sturgeon for a comment, although clearly both good manners and sensible journalism would have indicated the wisdom in so-doing and obviated the need for the later climb down.)

The Complaints Committee noted that the memorandum represented – at best – a second-hand account given a week after the meeting, which contained the serious implication that Ms Sturgeon had been disingenuous in her public statements.

The newspaper did not know whether the account contained in the memorandum was accurate. Nonetheless, it had published this as fact, without having taken additional steps prior to publication – such as contacting the parties involved for their comment – to verify its accuracy. (Given that one of the parties was the First Minister of Scotland, the other was the Ambassador of the French Republic to the Court of St James, and that there was a General Election campaign under way, it would probably have been prudent to check that this wasn't a dirty political trick...as indeed it turned out to have been.)

The committee established that the newspaper’s presentation of the account contained in the memorandum, in this context, represented a breach of the Editors’ Code. 

(The Daily Telegraph was always a solidly Conservative supporting newspaper. It's editorials were strongly Tory friendly. But until the mad twins, who don't live in the UK, took it over, it was an excellent paper for all that. Conrad Black may have been a crook and a fraudster, but he ran a tight ship. Now it is as ridiculous as the tabloid Daily Mail or Express. Its content is dumbed down and the standard of journalism is abysmal. Small wonder its circulation is falling like a stone. 

Even Carmichael, the disgraced former Scottish Secretary apologised to Nicola for his part in what was clearly a pre-election slur on the SNP and on Nicola. It's a pity that the Barclay Twins couldn't manage even that meagre level of good grace. Clearly infinite amounts of money cannot buy manners.) 

I wrote this last night, since when Wings has written an altogether better piece on the subject to which I direct you.

SO WILLIE...

Did he lie to you too, or were you part of the plot?

It seemed so strange that although the Telegraph, which broke the lie, didn't manage to get hold of anyone from anyone in the SNP, they did manage to get a quote from Willie Rennie, who, with respect, is a rather junior entity in Scottish politics.

No one from the Labour Party, or the Tories, the second and third parties in the Scottish parliament, was asked to comment, but up pops Wee Willie, leader of the 4th party. 

Strange that he was just hanging about minding his own business... with a statement ready.

Incidentally, I read that the inquiry into this incident is reported to have cost (for some unknown reason) £1.25 million. This could have been avoided if the cabinet minister, in a government determined to cut costs, had just admitted his involvement for the get go. 

He seems to think that not taking his £10,000 redundancy (despite still having a £75,000 a year job) is sufficient recompense.  

Right Honourable? Not even legal!

May we expect an apology from Rennie any time soon?

And, while we are on apologies, maybe those who immediately believed the leak in the Tory Telegraph, despite there being no checking, instead of the First Minister or the French Consul to Scotland or the French Ambassador to Court of St James, might like to reflect that they bought into such a pile of lies. Kezia for example?

Finally. This was Scotland Office stuff... who was Carmichael's bag boy at the time?

None other than Fluffly Muddle. What did he know about it?
++++++++++

Letter from Shetland News:

So, our newly elected MP Alistair Carmichael has admitted he knew of the contents of, and sanctioned the publication of the leaked memo concerning the French ambassador's discussion with Nicola Sturgeon.

He also seems to consider that apologising to both parties and refusing to claim his severance pay from his term as Secretary of State for Scotland is sufficient to eradicate responsibility for the consequences of his actions.

I beg to differ.

His duplicity in not admitting liability before the election on 7 May demonstrates a lack of moral rectitude in achieving election, which is unbecoming, to say the least, in an elected member of parliament.

I, for one, am calling for his immediate resignation from his post as MP for Orkney and Shetland in order to allow someone with moral compass to be elected, at a by-election, in his stead.

George Pottinger
Hamnavoe
Burra

Je crois que M. Cameron vient d'appeler une menteuse notre Madame l'Ambassadrice !

Even if I hadn't been busy today on other affairs, I'd have avoided writing anything about the unfolding story of Nicolagate or Memogate. Not because it's not interesting, but because everyone else has been doing a brilliant job without me pitching in.

Obviously Stuart Campbell was on it immediately, quite rightly wondering, as a professional journalist himself, why not one person from the Telegraph, the Mail or the BBC actually bothered to check a single fact, before laying into the story with gusto. But many others have written about it too, including the Wee Ginger Dug, Tommy Ball and our own dear Niko.

Given that it was pretty controversial, and given that it involved a person at ambassadorial level from another European country, it should have seemed to be sensible for someone, somewhere to have phoned the office of the FM, the office of the Consul General, or maybe even the Embassy of la République française.

But, seemingly, it slipped their minds, or maybe they were just too busy frothing. 

Oh, for some scribblers who bothered to turn up for the second day of the journalism course when they did the fact checking module.

Some bright spark thought that perhaps it would be a good idea to get in touch with Willie Rennie, maybe because although he was not involved in any way, he was guaranteed to mutter something along the lines of SNP bad, Nicola bad, Bad Bad....? 

...Unless he has a cousin who works for the Telegraph...because, frankly I'm surprised that the Torygraph has ever heard of him.

Needless to say Jim Murphy and Kezia Dugdale and a shedload of Labour politicians jumped on the bandwagon and tweeted and tutted and told us so. 

So, throughout last night and today the facts seem to have been emerging.

A Guardian journalist (who had done the fact checking module), presumably with no particular love of the SNP, bu visceral hatred of the Telegraph, checked up with the Consul, who said it was rubbish. Ms Sturgeon had expressed no preference, he said. The Embassy also said it was rubbish. That didn't make any difference to Labour, with the honourable exception of Malcolm Chisholm, who dismissed it as rubbish. George ffoulkes was at fever pitch...although in fairness it was late last night and, well that was maybe less George and more l'eau de vie.

Nicola Sturgeon tweeted to the Telegraph (since no one had bothered to ask her), that she categorically denied it, and went on to point out that she would have denied it a good deal earlier had she only been asked.

Someone from the BBC managed to get round to asking Nicola as she prepared to speak at an anti nuclear weapons rally in Glasgow, what she had to say.

She said that:

a) she denied it;
b) the Consul denied it;
c) the Ambassador denied it;
d) the foreign office couldn't find any trace of the memo that had been leaked;
e) that there were rumours that the Scotland Office might have been involved. Strangely the Scotland Office blokey from Shetland, has mysteriously disappeared. I say strangely because he also met with the French Ambassador that day;
f) she has written asking for an official inquiry to be launched into the leak. (It was later reported that an inquiry has been set up, presumably no wrong doing will be found to have occurred.)

It appears that Mr Dugdale may not have
 been entirely happy with Kezia's response.

What I find incredible is that, long after all three participants in the meeting have denied that Ms Sturgeon said she would prefer David Cameron (over whom she could have no influence) to Ed Miliband (over whom she at least might), both Miliband and Cameron are proving that neither of them is a fit person to be prime minister by using the now discredited story, about which there is to be an official inquiry, as they go around electioneering.

For a start is this not putting the appearance of neutrality in the inquiry in jeopardy?

And secondly, it may be OK to call another party leader a liar, particularly when they have just shown you up at a televised hustings, but don't either of the two candidates to be prime minister of the union know that calling an Ambassador of a friendly country a liar, is getting pretty close to causing a diplomatic incident?

Attention Quai d'Orsay!