By disqualifying itys opponents by a technical knock-out, the government hoped to be able to divert attention from the essentials, i.e. its policy in Iraq, the failure of which becomes daily more obvious
The forced departure of Piers Morgan, after nine years as editor in chief of the popular left-wing newspaper the Daily Mirror has provided the tabloids with dream headlines. A strong personality full of that hywl (drive) which is characteristic of his Welsh ancestors, Morgan had already made the front page on many occasions, whether it be for his financial exploits (reprimanded by the Stock Exchange Control Commission for insider trading), for his ability for media self-promotion or for high level investigative journalism which he had encouraged at the Mirror and which had often shown the underside of our public life. More than one will have been happy to see him fall, but the way it happened is worrying.
Piers Morgan had published photos of British soldiers committing acts of torture on Iraqi prisoners. Alongside them, his journalists had gathered statements from other soldiers disgusted by the torture which they had seen. The government first of all denied the accuracy of the photos (while admitting, for the first time, that it had known of allegations of abuse for months!). After a judicial enquiry (carried out by ... the Military Police) and a barrage of media artillery aimed at Piers Morgan by various sweetness and light officers and Gentlemen, Whitehall announced that the photos were fakes. Without however revealing anything by way of proof. Piers Morgan was not convinced, but more important people than him were. Two leading share-holders - American businesses - showed their displeasure and Morgan, refusing to apologise (as had the BBC when faced with Alistair Campbell) was dismissed.
This reminds one strangely of the case of Andrew Gilligan, journalist at the BBC, sacked for having said that the government probably knew that it was exaggerating the Iraqi menace in order to justify the war.
The two men published insufficiently checked information (which does not prove that they were telling lies). Technically, they were wrong. Their action had however alerted the public about a whole clandestine process (fabrication of dubious files or torture of prisoners) which no-one has since dared to discuss. However, by disqualifying its oponents by a technical knock-out, the government hoped to divert attention awy from the essential point, i.e. its policy on Iraq, the failure of which becomes daily more obvious.
Another analogy consists in the fact that the two men were toppled by exterior forces. Andrew Gilligan (and his superiors) by Downing Street (everyone knows the power of the government in the financing of the BBC). Piers Morgan by transatlantic share-holders. This poses questions about journalistic independence.
The same methods were also used in both cases. The public saw appear on the screen important media and military personalities. The first to remind them of the duties of a good journalist, the second to defend the honour of British soldiers whose lives would be placed in danger by the photos in the Mirror (sic). Just as if the British Army did not already have a history in Northern Ireland concerning the fate of prisoners. Even the sworn enemy of the Mirror in the circulation wars, the Sun, had its moment of glory on televison platforms to denounce, in a perfectly surrealist episode, the irresponsability of its political (and commercial) rival.
This bombardment ended by extinguishing a critical voice. It is however a Pyrrhic victory for Labour. The Mirror is its only supporter among the popular press. As the European, and before long parliamentary, elections approach, the main newspapers are openly turning their backs on a party which it had only supported when it suited and temporarily. Tony Blair will need all his friends, even and above all the most critical. He has just lost one.
University of Cardiff
RE: Translation of an article in La Croix - 03.06.2004