Steven Glover on The Press

The extraordinary thing about Tony Blair's attack on the "feral" media was its ignorance. The shameless re-writing of history may have been deliberate, but there was also what one might call a genuine naivety, as though the author of the piece had a dim understanding of how newspapers work.

The biggest misconception, which even some of the speech's critics have accepted, was that Tony Blair has been given a hard time by the press. Arguably, he has been recently, at least by some titles. But for the most of his time in Number 10 – from 1997 until the summer of 2003 – he enjoyed by far the most favourable media treatment of any modern British Prime Minister. His brilliant achievement, and that of Alastair Campbell, was to square both the right-wing and the left-wing press.

On the right, he won over the Murdoch press at an early stage; even now The Times, and more particularly The Sun, remain loyal. Readers may remember how in 1999 The Times set out to destroy the billionaire businessman Lord Ashcroft, the Tory Party treasurer, as a means of destabilising William Hague, the then leader. For years Alastair Campbell spoon-fed the paper with stories, notably its deputy political editor, Tom Baldwin.

As for The Sun, after the attack on the World Trade Centre and the invasion of Iraq, it might as well have been edited from America, which in a sense it was. Early successes in Iraq were trumpeted, while setbacks have been buried or ignored.

Mr Blair tried to capture the rest of the right-wing press. Under the direction of the Labour peer Clive Hollick and the editorship of Rosie Boycott, the once Tory Daily Express came firmly within the New Labour camp, and remained there for at least a couple of years after Richard Desmond bought it in December 2000, aided and abetted by Messrs Blair and Campbell.

Their attempts to win over the more powerful Mail group ultimately failed, though not for want of trying. By 1997 its then proprietor Vere Rothermere was openly Blairite, and Sir David English, editor-in-chief, was being fitted up for a peerage. Both men died in 1998 within months of each other, which turned out to be a setback for Mr Blair, since Paul Dacre, the new editor-in-chief, was only briefly enamoured of him. The Daily Mail became a lone, raucous media bovver boy, though its sister title the London Evening Standard remained for several years avowedly Blairite under the editorship of Max Hastings, who was duly rewarded with a knighthood. It is a great joke that Sir Max should now be one of Mr Blair's harshest critics.

Meanwhile, the Conservative Daily Telegraph was too well-mannered to offer New Labour very spirited opposition, and, unlike the Mail, later became a fervent supporter of Mr Blair's pro-American policy in Iraq.

On the left, the Daily Mirror was solidly loyal until the aftermath of the Iraq war, with its then editor, Piers Morgan, often popping around to Number 10 for a chat with the Prime Minister. The Guardian played its constitutional role as Labour's in-house newspaper, while The Independent was friendly towards the Blair project until Iraq. Even now, the paper boasts in Steve Richards and John Rentoul perhaps the two most distinguished, as well as the two most dependable, Blairite commentators.

Incidentally, Mr Blair's description of The Independent as a "viewspaper" is one of several journalistic misconceptions that suggest the speech's author does not understand newspapers. I am no great of admirer of the high-impact front pages, which admittedly do take a line, but once you turn into the main book you could not wish for a clearer demarcation between news and comment.

As for the BBC, I could write a book about its Blairite sympathies during this period. It was often slow to report New Labour scandals, of which there have been very many. Ministers such as Peter Mandelson and Keith Vaz were given special protection in two internal memoranda. Greg Dyke, appointed BBC director-general in 2000, was a New Labour donor, while Gavyn Davies, made chairman in 2001, had also been close to the party.

I do not suggest they directly influenced editorial policy, but it was surely wrong to appoint two such partisan figures. Ironically, both men were forced to resign after the Hutton report criticised the BBC's coverage of Iraq. Andrew Gilligan's largely accurate story about weapons of mass destruction had lit a torch paper. Even so, a row might have been avoided had it not been for Alastair Campbell's manic assault on the BBC. Iraq marked the turning point in the attitude of left-wing titles and, to a lesser extent, of the BBC towards Mr Blair, though you would hardly describe them as feral. The Murdoch press remains on-side, though nervy that Mr Blair might do a last-minute deal on the European Constitution.

My point is that, even now, most of the media are hardly in "attack dog" mode and that for several years Mr Blair was only seriously done over by the Mail, which he could not bring himself to single out last Tuesday. Only the lies over Iraq, and the appalling incompetence of the occupation, have soured the sunniest relationship between the fourth estate and the executive that this country has ever known. And yet the media which so long supported him are depicted as feral. There's gratitude for you.

Promises, promises

Everyone seems to assume that the Bancroft family will sell their shares, and that Rupert Murdoch will acquire The Wall Street Journal. He is offering the Bancrofts assurances about editorial independence which, if history is any guide, are absolutely worthless.

Let me offer the Bancrofts some free advice. If Mr Murdoch acquires the WSJ he will do exactly as he pleases. When he bought the hallowed Times in 1981, he agreed to set up an independent editorial board which has had about as much influence on the paper as it has on the movements of the planets. Perhaps the Bancrofts already understand this, and are merely wishing to appear solicitous for the future independence of their title, which they know Mr Murdoch will, in fact, treat as he wishes. But I rather think they may be deluding themselves. In which case, may I point out that biographies of Mr Murdoch can be purchased online?

There is one slender hope for the Bancrofts, if they sell the WSJ: that the 76-year-old Mr Murdoch might go ga-ga before he has time to stamp his authority on the paper. It is a long shot. Otherwise the outcome is clear.

Conrad might just walk

THE verdict on Conrad Black may be returned in a matter of days. It is accepted that David Radler, his former business partner and the prosecution's chief witness, did not land a knock-out blow, while a former juror said she thought the case against him "pretty shaky". Much will depend on the judge's summing-up, but there is an outside chance that Lord Black will be found not guilty. Tom Bower, whom he has threatened to sue over his book, will be anxious. And which of Conrad's friends who deserted him will be thinking of returning to his side?

scmgox@aol.com