Alex Salmond's predictably opportunistic and self-righteous statement on UK media regulation as a reaction to the News of the World affair does not sit well with the SNP's relationship with News International during May's Holyrood election campaign, says his biographer David Torrance. Moreover, Mr Salmond's otherwise low-profile reaction to recent events is presumably due to a meeting with James Murdoch earlier this year and the subsequent support of the Scottish editions of the Sun and NotW for a second SNP term of government at Holyrood.
Mr Torrance quotes a Labour source as being "struck by the SNP's extraordinary relationship with News International", presumably because Labour didn't have an extraordinary relationship with the newspaper group themselves.
But all this - together with a little fact found on another blog - brought to mind something symptomatic of that extraordinary relationship during May's campaign, touched on here at the time.
Imagine if Labour, the Tories or Lib Dems had paid for one of their election candidates to travel abroad to interview one of their celebrity supporters. This interview consisted largely of a eulogy of the party's leader, and formed the basis of several articles published in a prominent newspaper as editorial and under the byline of the election candidate.
All very cosy, the SNP's phalanx of online supporters would no doubt claim, to put it mildly.
Yet that was precisely what the SNP did during the election campaign. The party paid for Holyrood candidate Joan McAlpine to fly to the Bahamas to interview Sir Sean Connery. The interview - essentially a hagiography of Mr Salmond - formed the basis of several articles published in the Scottish Sun under Ms McAlpine's byline. And of course she is now an SNP MSP.
Obviously the SNP and Mr Salmond are hardly the first party and leader to gain the support of the press, but the party in effect paying for an article in a supportive newspaper seems very cosy indeed.
On the other hand, it seems likely that all the parties will in future sup with the press with a considerably longer spoon than hitherto, but how this will pan out is at this stage anyone's guess. But with the independence referendum almost certain to be the next big test of Scottish opinion the SNP were unlikely to be afforded many favours by the press anyway.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
Yep it was opportunistic and self righteous from the guy who was remarkiably quite about ethics in the red top tabloids during 5 year gestation period of this scandal. But then as I pointed out when they ditched Labour in 2009, their party of choice for Scottish elections would be riduculous whatever happened.
Sure the tapping of victims of crime is new, but what about the drip drip stories of senior police officers dining with NI executives at crucial points of previous investigations. Somehow bandwagon jumping doesn't quite cover Salmond's comment.
Indeed!
I always wonder why the SNP bother with Connery these days. Their opponents make it clear that he doesn't even live in Scotland, nor would he if independence ever arrives.
The rank and file of the SNP must be getting nervous about the NOTW scandal, especially with Salmond jumping into bed with them.
Good piece of investigative blogging here Stuart. It could be perceived that your disdain for Salmond is your main motivation for the mix of reality and conspiracy theories, but after reading the full post and the links I think you have described the situation pretty well.
I have a bit of sympathy for the SNP welcoming the support of NI if only to balance the Daily Record's blinkered view of Scotland's two leading parties. I don't really think, however, that any political party should be able to get a full endorsement from a tabloid newspaper publicity machine. And that includes party political news items and editorials. Surely each policy should be analysed and reported on their merits or not as the case may be. And this is Salmond's main transgression. Because to then find out about the hacking scandal should make this transgression no worse, if we accept that the SNP knew nothing about it. Because who is to say that tabloids across the UK weren't employing similar tactics to NOTW? That may yet still come to light.
And other parties have nothing to be smug about. NI's previous open endorsement for Labour and Andy Coulson's well-publicised Tory Party job prove this to be the case. And given the opportunity, Scottish Labour would have bitten your hand off to have been courted by Murdoch back in February.
Good post Andrew. Every political party wanted to jump into the NI bed, unbfortunately for the SNP they've been caught at the wrong time.
The latest allegations coming out about the Sunday Times now is only going to make things worse.
The SNP managed to get a majority without any real assitance from the papers; they should keep things that way.
Yawn.
As High Grant pointed out on QT Labour's great and good were being wined and dined by News International within the past few weeks.
Yet you choose to make malicious allegations against Alex Salmond on the basis that he met James Murdoch once and that the Sun supported the SNP in the run-up to the election.
Says it all really.
Indy, the SNP did exactly the same as the other parties by jumping into bed with Murdoch's empire, much as they jump into the bus of Souter for his money.
No different to any other political party, and the article was a fair pop at Salmond. The SNP should be relieved at what has happened to the NOTW before they got in too deep.
Indy.
True, it's not as if Salmond and (say) Sturgeon penned articles in the "Scottish" S*n promising to scrap OFCOM and to reign in the BBC like Cameron & Hunt did in 2009. However Murdoch doesn't normaly back a horse unless there is a quid pro quo, I wonder if anythying was offered.
It does rather put the dash for Corporation Tax powers in a new light doesn't it?
Anon
Indeed, but they must think there's still votes attached to Sir Sean's continued support or they wouldn't have sent Joan McAlpine to interview him.
Andrew
Thanks, and indeed I'm certainly not trying to defend any of the other parties in this regard.
And indeed it's all very messy and a whole lot of things could yet come out in the wash.
I largely agree with your sentiments about controlling the relationship between the media and politics, but it would be difficult to implement and then enforce.
On the other hand the likes of ITV News manages to be fairly impartial, but it would be difficult to stop newspapers having opinion and comment sections and suchlike, thus to that extent any rule would be limited in application.
Anon 2
Well I suspect the SNP would have won irrespective of press support, but would they have got that majority? ;o)
Indy
The post was neither about Westminster's relationship with NI nor trying to defend the Westminster parties, and both these matters have both been done to death elsewhere.
And what precisely do you mean by accusing me of making a 'malicious accusation', or is that just an attempt at a smear to divert attention from the SNP's relationship with NI?
Barbarian
Indeed, and NI was always going to be a bit of a poisoned chalice for any party, as are Sir Brian and Sir Sean for the SNP, but presumably the cold political calculation is that the pluses outweight the minuses.
Or at least that's perhaps how it appeared at the time ;0)
Allan
Indeed, but as is often said Murdoch likes to back a winner, so maybe that's good enough for him vis-a-vis the SNP.
But don't know if you read the Sunday Post's main political story at the weekend, which was about how major Scottish companies would benefit from the SNP's corporation tax proposals, including Stagecoach.
Barnarian the SNP is different to every other political party in Britain.
We won an election with the Sun campaigning against us.
So yes we were quite happy to have them endorse us in 2011 but - unlike Labour and the Tories - we were never taken in by the line that in order to win an election you need the backing of the Murdoch press.
We didn't.
What was your malicious remark?
"Moreover, Mr Salmond's otherwise low-profile reaction to recent events is presumably due to a meeting with James Murdoch earlier this year"
That is pretty malicious.
"Murdoch doesn't normaly back a horse unless there is a quid pro quo"
And what in the way of quid pro quo do you think that the Scottish Government could provide?
Broadcaasting is reserved. The regulation of the press is reserved. OFCOM is reserved. The Press Complaints Cmmission is reserved.
It would be interesting to have your thoughts on what deal you imagine was done.
Because I have my own thoughts on that. I think the conversation went something like this:
Alex Salmond: So you made a big mistake in 2007 campaigning against us. I still have that front page framed, I keep it in the cludgie at Bute House. It gives everyone a good laugh. Do you not think it would be more sensible to back us this time round given that we are going to win?
Bob Bird; Aye OK.
Indy.
I'm not quite sure, but as I was speculating at the end of my last comment, it puts the dash for Corporation Tax powers under a rather different light.
Lets hypothesise that maybe in the near future, in a Devo-Max Scotland, that News International, sick of paying high taxes for their headquarters in Wapping look into moving their headquarters to Glasgow. Taxes are maybe a little too high, but the executives think that they can leverage taxes down. So they begin a PR campaign to try and bring business taxes down.
As I said it is hypothesis, but could conceiviably happen.
Indy, are you saying that Alex Salmond *didn't* meet James Murdoch or is it the link between that claim, NI's support for the SNP and Mr Salmond's initial low profile reaction to events last week that you are describing as a malicious allegation?
But for the avoidance of doubt please note that the first part of the blogpost is simply quoting or paraphrasing what David Torrance said - which should be obvious from my post - so are you accusing him of a malicous allegation, ie defamation? Since Mr Torrance is a prominent commentator, what are you, the SNP and Mr Salmond doing about it?
But in reality I suspect what you're describing as a 'malicious allegation' is in fact merely fair comment, ie the kind of thing that you and many others post on the internet and is published in the media every day, thus in fact it's more a case of your own allegation regarding myself being the malicious one!!
Indy said:
"So yes we were quite happy to have them endorse us in 2011 but - unlike Labour and the Tories - we were never taken in by the line that in order to win an election you need the backing of the Murdoch press.
"We didn't"
So why bother getting Alex Salmond to pose with a copy of the Sun for a photograph?
Why bother paying for Joan McAlpine to fly to the Bahamas to interview Sir Sean for an interview subsequently published in the Sun?
Gaining the support of NI was always likely to be a poisoned chalice - even before recent events - so if the SNP were as indifferent as you make out to that endorsement then why co-operate with them?
Perhaps the polls weren't looking quite so good for the SNP at that time than the result which transpired?
Right Allan so you are saying that the SNP policy on corporation tax, which was adopted under John Swinney's leadership, was put in place so that when Alex Salmomd met James Murdoch some 8 years later he could offer it as an inducement to the Sun to back the SNP? Even allowing for that level of foresight what evidence is there that the Westminster Government is likely to devolve powers over corporaqtion tax? All the signs so far indicate that they are not.
I am not saying the SNP was indifferent to gaining the Sun's endorsement Stuart. I am saying that your suggestion that Alex Salmond's "low-profile reaction to recent events is presumably due to a meeting with James Murdoch earlier this year" was malicious and an attempt to tar the SNP with the same brush as Labour and the Tories have been tarred with with regards to their relationship with the Murdoch press.
The reason for this is two fold. 1) Unless you are suggesting that either Alex Salmond or James Murdoch could have predicted the past few weeks' events several months ago there is no conceivable way that Alex Salmond could have given any commitment to keep a low profile about it. In any case the suggestion that sacking Rebekah Brooks, rather than pointing to the obvious flaws in the regulation of the press, is the litmus test of commitment to tackling press corruption is ludicrous. Supposing Rebekah Brooks was sacked? Would that be considered the end of the mater? If so, just how much on a scale of 1 to 10 of a cop-out would that be? I would place it at about 9.5 on the cop out scale. Indeed anything which does not lead to stronger regulation of the press will be a cop-out. Relying on sacking individual people or closing individual newspapers after they have been found out is a poor substitute for stopping malpractie in the first place.
Secondly, the suggestions of impropriety in the relations between politicians and Murdoch mainly revolve around the possibility of pressure being brought to bear on politicians to act in a way which would benefit the company in question. But as I have already pointed out the Scottish Government has no control over any of the policy areas which would be of interest to a major media corporayion since pretty much everything to do with the press and media is reserved. Indeed I can only recall one incident where the SNP have attempted to take any action in relation to the media and that was when they attempted to change the rules which require local authorities to advertise in newspapers rather than only online. As you may recall the SNP was defeated on that one.
So at the end of the day what your accusation amounts to is that the SNP tried to get the Scottish Sun on board for the 2011 election. The SNP is of course guilty of that and we can go further because it was not only the Sun that they attempted to get on board but every newspaper in Scotland. Some they won, some they lost but that's politics.
No, Indy, I'm not drawing some sort of moral equivalence between the SNP on one hand and Labour and the Tories on the other.
All I'm saying is that the SNP and Alex Salmond are bound to be to an extent embarrased by recent events because of NI's endorsement in May, and thus kept a low profile. It's that simple.
You're either politically paranoid and reading something into what I wrote that in fact wasn't there, or you're deliberatly doing so to undermine my post.
Either way, you're misrepresenting what I said.
I didn't say there was some sort of understanding reached several months ago for Alex Salmond to keep quiet about anything.
Largely agree with what you say about Reb Brooks, but the direct relevance of that to my post is beyond me.
As for any sort of quid pro quo between the SNP and NI, I didn't suggest that either, beyond a simple political endorsement and whatever editorial benefit NI hopes to get in return, for example increased circulation by being seen to be 'backing a winnner'. Quite why NI endorsed the SNP, I'm not *precisely* sure, but I can't see how you are accusing me of suggesting something more sininster.
You end by saying:
"So at the end of the day what your accusation amounts to is that the SNP tried to get the Scottish Sun on board for the 2011 election. The SNP is of course guilty of that and we can go further because it was not only the Sun that they attempted to get on board but every newspaper in Scotland. Some they won, some they lost but that's politics."
Indeed, it's little more than you yourself are saying, so I frankly can't see what you're banging on about.
Of course, my additional point was the even cosier relationship as regards Joan McAlpine's piece and that in effect the SNP paid for that article, which was portrayed as editorial but which was in effect little more than a glorified SNP press release on Sir Sean's endorsement.
Indy.
If the SNP's position on Corporation Tax dates back to Swinney's leadership, why didn't they push for this during submissions to the Calman Commission, and why did Salmond start to push for this after an election where there was no mention at all to Corporation Tax?
Nor foresight, speculation Indy.
Come on Stuart you call Alex Salmond opportunistic and self righteous because his reactioin to what has happened has been to say that people should be prosecuted and that press regulation has been a complete failure. In the same article the Labour spokesperson says that Salmond has misjudged the mood of the country and states "I have asked Alex Salmond to join me in calling for Rebekah Brooks to resign without delay and am astonished that the first minister has still remained silent on this key point.
"Political leadership is demonstrated most clearly by a willingness to speak out against powerful organisations that do wrong, without fear or favour."
You then suggest that Alex Salmond's reaction has been "muted" because he met with James Murdoch and the Scottish Sun supported the SNP in 2011.
There are quite a number of issues there but for me the key point is that Alex Salmond has not misjudged the mood of the country. This is not an issue which can be resolved by someone resigning or indeed a newspaper being shut down. As Gordon Brown says what has been revealed demonstrates systematic lawbreaking on an industrial scale, including what appears to be systematic bribery of the police. The only conclusion people can draw is that the tabloid end of the newspaper industry - and there are very clear suggestions that other tabloids have been using the same methods as the Sun and News of the World to obtain information - is completely out of control. And it is out of control because the controls which exist are completely ineffective.
So far from being "muted" Alx Salmond has pretty much put his finger on the real problem that has to be addressed.
Indy
Your castigation of the NI tabloids merely demonstrates why Alex Salmond should be embarrased by cosying up to them, particularly as these matters were hardly unknown when he was posing for photographs for their endorsement in May.
The point is that Mr Salmond was slow on the uptake and had hardly been making an issue of these matters previously, as David Torrance said, and who I was essentially paraphrasing at the outset of the post.
Thus I think opportunistic and self-righteous is entirely fair comment regarding the nature of the reaction from a party which so recently and so prominently were willing to get into bed with NI.
Of course, there's a lot of self-righteousness and opportunism around at Westminster at the moment, so you can hardly expect the SNP to get off the hook in the Scottish context given the recent Holyrood campaign.
And I can certainly see why you're senstive about this, but in my opinion you doth protest too much and merely underline the point being made ;0)
Post a Comment