The Sun hoist by its own petard?

It must have seemed an open goal for the Sun. A a grieving and aggrieved mother, whose son had died in Afghanistan, a scribbled note of condolence - replete with spelling mistakes - from an unpopular prime minister conducting an increasingly unpopular war, and only weeks after the newspaper had turned its back on the Labour Party. And we all know that the Sun doesn't take prisoners, and doesn't adhere to a publishers' Geneva Convention in its battle against political foes, even when reporting on a real, and increasingly fraught, war.

But it now seems that the Sun's plan has unravelled somewhat, and while it may yet win the war, it appears to have lost the battle. Jacqui Janes' grievances always seemed a bit narrowly-based to justify the paper's splash - she seems broadly supportive of both the war in Afghanistan and Gordon Brown himself, despite understandable anger at equipment shortages. Her outrage regarding the letter per se seemed to be based largely on its untidy and misspelt nature, which she described as an "insult" to her dead son.

A recording of Mr Brown's subsequent phone call to her was made without his knowledge and was made available on the Sun's website. Of course, it's also been underlined that the prime minister is blind in one eye, has limited vision in the other and may in fact be dyslexic. His poor handwriting has indeed been a well known issue for some time, even for non-politicos.

Robert Crampton in the Times suggests that the furore may have arisen due to differing mores between social classes:

In the middle class, many of whose members spend their lives in front of computers, the handwritten note is seen as superior to the typed. It represents the personal touch. Authentic, rootsy, person-to-person, heartfelt.

But to Jacqui Janes, I think, to judge by her comments in The Sun yesterday, the handwritten note is something that you leave out for the milkman when you want an extra pint.

And it's difficult to find anything wholly critical of Gordon Brown in the rest of the press, particularly following his emotional and very personal message conveyed at a press conference yesterday. Ian Bell in the Herald analyses the Murdoch angle and suggests it's "just not British to hound a man for attempting decency". Even Tom Bradby's coverage on ITV News last night seemed more sympathetic than when the story broke, Craig Murray is broadly supportive and indeed the Sun's online comments seem to be generally critical of the paper's stance.

In the Times Melanie Reid compares the attack on Gordon Brown with how a disabled person might be treated in a more humdrum context and contrasts the episode with the official "Fairer Britain" objective of "mutual respect based on shared values with fairness at their core":

Fair? It’s so far from fair that it takes one’s breath away. Whatever one thinks of Mr Brown he is still the PM, and whatever his considerable failings as a politician, there is something pretty vile about the personal attacks now being levelled at him.

As one partially sighted writer put it, perhaps instead of criticising we should be deeply impressed that someone who can only read large print and needs help from aides should write by hand to the bereaved relatives of soldiers killed in action. His letter was self-evidently physically laborious and came from the heart, which makes it even more sad that it is being misinterpreted.

It's thus perhaps unsurprising that today's Scotsman reports that Mrs Janes has now forgiven Gordon Brown, and says she "felt exploited" (although she seemed to say otherwise when questioned by Jeremy Paxman on last night's Newsnight) and "didn't expect the attack on Mr Brown to be so personal".

And while the Sun itself adopts a slightly different angle - it says Mrs Janes now "accepts humbled PM's apology" - it's latest coverage certainly portrays the prime minister in a slightly better light than in its previous reports.

Thus perhaps two lessons can be drawn from this affair. First, people will clearly recognise sincerity in particular circumstances, even if in a more general context where motives are doubted and opportunism suspected. Second, and following from the first point, attacks of a more personal nature can often backfire, even evoking sympathetic responses from normally visceral opponents.