« "Intellectually shoddy and politically biased" – Main – Quotation of the week »

Would you be saying this, Mr Blair, if we supported your war in Iraq?

That's the headline of yesterday's Independent, after Tony Blair singled out the newspaper for the way in which opinion and fact are mingled in its reporting and in the reportage of the media as a whole.

What's ironic about the editor of the Indie's response is that, in making his argument, he shows some evidence of exactly the criticisms Tony Blair levels at the newspaper — he conflates one thing with another. So in writing about the relationship between politics and the media, Kelner (i.e. the editor) includes many allusions to the war in Iraq ("But, after 10 years of the Blair administration, a decade of spin and counter-spin, of dodgy dossiers, of 45-minute warnings...").

Kelner, of course, thinks his newspaper has been singled-out for attack because of its

principled opposition to his [Tony Blair's] policy on Iraq

Quite aside from the fact it was the British government's policy on Iraq, it seems churlish to point out that the Indie wasn't the only paper to oppose the war in Iraq.

Blair's only mistake in his speech yesterday, then, was to focus on an unimportant newspaper whose circulation is well below that of every other English daily newspaper in circulation. In response to Simon Kelner's question I therefore pose another to him:

Would we be reading your headline, Mr Kelner, if Tony Blair hadn't have mentioned your newspaper?

I think not.

Update: Oliver Kamm commented on Kelner's comments thus:

In eliding that distinction[i.e. between news and opinion], the paper has diminished the quality of its own comment (not that of its contributors, but the paper's own editorial voice), which is shrill and hectoring rather than analytical. The newspaper's comment in response to the PM largely confirms his diagnosis by contriving to miss this point.

I'd certainly recommend you read the rest.

Tags — Newspapers Politics