Allegra Stratton’s interesting article “why the plot failed” makes clear that her sources sold her baloney all through last week.
They told her the wrong numbers of people involved, they misled her about the impact of resignations on their plot, and they didn’t even tell her the truth about who they wanted as PM. In short: They burned her.
The odd thing is that she doesn’t seem to mind. Maybe it’s because if she hadn’t published the email address, the plot might not have been such a total farce. It’s not your fault, Allegra – they gave it to you to publish!
A few examples for your delectation:
GOOD OR BAD?
Last week: “…Hazel Blears resigned as communities secretary. Did this cause a problem for the rebels? “No, Hazel is good – it makes matters unstable and that is what we want.” “
BUT…..
This week:“Hazel’s resignation turned people against us,” one of the rebels said. “Even her supporters found the timing of her resignation difficult to stomach… created a sense of incompetence that we never really escaped from.”
HOW MANY?
Last week: “At the beginning of the week 50 MPs were said to have agreed to sign the letter with the ambition that the number would rise to 80 before it was sent to Brown.”
Later that day: “By early evening that estimate had risen to 100 – well above 20% of the parliamentary party, which is the threshold needed to trigger a leadership election.”
Two days later: “They say that they already have the 75 names they need”
BUT…..
This week: “On Monday at 3pm the rebels met… Zealots who wanted Brown out were given the number zero and those newly persuaded the number one… together they came to 54.”
WHO?
Last week: “Senior figures organising the revolt are insisting that their preferred successor – Alan Johnson – can be installed before the summer without a full-scale election within 23 days if Brown resigned.”
Friday “The anger with David (Miliband) this morning was extreme and he has inflicted damage on himself that I think is probably terminal.”
BUT…
This week: “Something that many got wrong this week, including media commentators, is that the majority of Labour MPs on the list wanted Alan Johnson to take over. David Miliband would have been closer to the truth”
There are a few more, ahhhh, inconsistencies in the Guardian reports over he last week, but I’ve no wish to be a bore on the topic. Still, I can’t help but wonder if the Guardian’s reporting and commentary over the last week would have been the same if they’d not been sold such a dummy.
10 Comments
June 11, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Gossip is the chaff of corn caught by an ill wind…
June 11, 2009 at 2:52 pm
Buy the rumor and sell the fact
June 11, 2009 at 11:29 pm
Some journalist has been slightly misled, boo fucking hoo. Are there not better things to talk about?
What, for example, do you think that the Labour Party should do about getting rid of Brown? You know fine well most of the PLP want Gordon Brown out, whats the point in making cheap cracks at journalists to score short term points?
June 12, 2009 at 12:35 am
Hello Jeff. I’m sure you didn’t mean to come across as obnoxious, so welcome.
If you’re interested in my opinions on Gordon Brown, there’s a fair few lengthy posts on the subject for yo to enjoy.
I’d post links, but there’s so many you’d get bored.To save yourself some time I suggest using the search box to the right . A search for “Gordon Brown” should give you most of what you want to know.
June 12, 2009 at 10:01 am
Very interesting analysis Hopi. As you say, it was a hopeless coup, but one which was made more hopeless by the Guardian’s reporting. It does beg the question of who was briefing the paper and what they thought they would achieve by doing so.
June 12, 2009 at 11:30 am
Have you completely ruled out the possibility that at least some Guardian journalists were actually part of the coup attempt? I don’t necessarily mean Allegra herself of course – she may have just been the patsy through which certain lines were channelled…
June 12, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Charlie,
‘Part of the coup’? I doubt it very much. Anyone who had been part of the alleged plan would have been aware of it’s weaknesses. Rather I’d suspect a sympathy of views and analysis, combined with the (correct) view that it was a great story.
I’d suggest (with no evidence at all) that there was a less than sceptical approach to the claims that were being made. Remember, if it had been true, or had been untrue but worked, then the journalist who broke the story would have a coup of their own. People get burned by sources a lot. That doesn’t make them part of it all – it’s not Allegra Strattons fault that her sources thought giving a secret email address to a national journalist was a smart move!
June 12, 2009 at 3:12 pm
OK, yeah, I know what you’re saying is far more believable and I’m normally one who runs a mile from any kind of conspiracy theory. But if one can’t even briefly entertain a conspiracy theory about an real, albeit incompetent, conspiracy then what is life coming too ?
But I do think the Guardian’s treatment of the botched coup – not just the reporting per se, but the way it meshes with the opinion columnists and the editorials – came across more as plotters fanzine than a newspaper.
June 12, 2009 at 3:56 pm
The Guardian’s Politics Weekly podcast makes an interesting listen. Not for the content or commentary as such but for the way it illustrates the quite wide differences in viewpoint between the paper’s various contributors.
Not suprising that Michael White is quite a good foil to the excitable duo of Allegra Stratton and Tom Clarke and often simply disagrees with their analysis.
Last week it was also a platform for the absolutely rabid anti-GB views of Jenni Russell. These were so foaming-at-the-mouth bonkers that, for me, it was the tipping point where the Guardian lost all credibility.
June 15, 2009 at 9:03 am
Good post. I’m sure lots of journalists ended up with egg on their face after this mini saga. They clearly tried to exaggerate the commitment of the rebels to make things more interesting, but failed miserably.