Tony Blair vs The Independent: Your paper. Your say

The opposite of the truth

Sir: Tony Blair's speech on politics and the media served as a timely reminder of what we have become used to over the last 10 years. The following sections stand out as classic Blair.

"This is not my response to the latest whacking from bits of the media. It is not a whinge about how unfair it all is ... This speech is not a complaint. It is an argument."

As ever, Blair asserts the opposite of the truth, using passionate delivery and a whiff of martyrdom in the hope that we will overlook an obvious falsehood and accept that he believes what he is saying is the truth; or at least that he did at the time he said it.

"The fear of missing out means today's media, more than ever before, hunts in a pack. In these modes it is like a feral beast, just tearing people and reputations to bits."

Could Blair be thinking of the Iraq weapons expert David Kelly, who died after the Government released his name to the media? Call me cynical, but I suspect he is more likely to be thinking of himself.

"It is rare today to find balance in the media. Things, people, issues, stories, are all black-and-white. Life's usual grey is almost entirely absent ...these are concepts alien to today's reporting."

Is he thinking of The Sun's headline, following the publication of the Iraq WMD dossier: "Brits 45 minutes from doom"? Or the same newspaper's branding of MPs who voted against 90-day detention without charge as " Traitors"? Apparently not. It seems the only newspaper worthy of being named and shamed by Mr Blair is The Independent. Funny that.

"Let me state at the outset it [The Independent] is a well-edited lively paper and is absolutely entitled to print what it wants, how it wants, on the Middle East or anything else."

But he wishes it wasn't. By Middle East he means Iraq but he wishes to avoid reminding us of his disastrous, immoral, illegal war by avoiding use of the "I" word. Obfuscation by omission. Classic Blair.

Even now, in his final wretched days, Blair tries to manipulate, to mislead, but the old tricks no longer work. Time is running out, and despite his best efforts, his legacy is now and will always be summed up in one word.

It is a word he no longer dares utter, and it begins with the letter "I".

Richard Newson, Whitton, Middlesex

Sir: Did Mr 45 Minutes actually accuse the press of being more interested in impact than accuracy?

Steve Brickle, Biarritz, France

Sir: Unless the Returning Officer for Ipswich can confirm that there has ever been a single vote cast in his area for Anthony Blair, Labour, for Prime Minister, I wish people would stop telling me that I voted him in.

David Lever, Ipswich, Suffolk

Sir: Tony Blair attacks the British press and particularly The Independent. I didn't notice any Independent journalist driving Dr David Kelly to his death. Nor did I notice The Independent backing George Bush in the killing of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis.

It was not The Independent that caused the resignation of BBC management and has now led to the BBC losing its bite in holding Parliament to account. I did not see The Independent issuing a dodgy document about the legality of going to war with Iraq. In fact, it was the opposite. The Independent, along with other right-thinking newspapers, was against the horrors of Guantanamo Bay and flights of rendition.

Perhaps if Mr Blair had been listening to the British public and their trusted press outlets, then we could have had a Middle East that was turning to peace instead of turning to disaster. Mr Blair seems to need to blame everyone but himself.

Robert Borland, Troon, Ayrshire

Sir: Just think how much better his government would have been had Mr Blair courted The Independent rather than The Sun and the Daily Mail.

Christopher Coney, Richmond, Surrey

Sir: Yet again we are grappling with the question of Tony Blair's dishonesty and hypocrisy. From the build-up to the invasion of Iraq to paranoid media spin, we are rightly uncomfortable. But sadly, we, the British public, returned him to office and in doing so condoned his deeds and weakened the potency of our criticism. The lesson here is not about Tony Blair, but our own participation in British democracy.

Tariq Rashid, Richmond, Surrey

Sir: Tony Blair's attack on The Independent was an extraordinary indictment of his own behaviour and lack of judgment. It displayed, yet again, his inability to distinguish the facts and the truth from his own distorted and spun perception. He did not acknowledge that in entering into a Mephistophelean pact with the media early on, he would become its slave later on.

Jonathan Pickering, Farnham, Surrey

Sir: Considering all the slaughter in Iraq that Tony Blair is partially responsible for, I believed he had a hide like a rhinoceros. He's never ever mentioned the suffering of the women and children in that unhappy country. You have touched a raw nerve; for the sake of democracy, please continue to do so.

Eddie Johnson, Long Melford, Suffolk

Sir: For Tony Blair to use his last speech on domestic issues to launch an attack on the media is one thing, but to single out The Independent is ludicrous.

He talks about sensationalism and the perception that scandal or controversy beats ordinary reporting hands down, and yet fails to mention the tabloids or the Murdoch press or even Channel 4's showing of the film on the so-called "Climate Change Swindle", which influenced people's views on this issue until your newspaper exposed some of the inaccuracies in that programme.

Blair also goes on to say: "What creates cynicism is not mistakes; it is allegations of misconduct. But misconduct is what has impact." What creates cynicism is not admitting mistakes, and I am afraid this has been a feature of the Blair government for the last 10 years.

I have never read so much sanctimonious drivel coming from a man who fell from the moral high ground some time ago. It is obvious why he singled out The Independent - the truth hurts. Keep up the good work.

Jack Cockin, Scone, Perthshire

Sir: When Richard Nixon lost the election for governor of California in 1962, he concluded the post-mortem televised press conference with this trenchant remark: "You won't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentleman, this is my last press conference" (16 words). It wasn't his last, and you can be sure that Blair's won't be his; but the latter might have taken his cue from Nixon and kept his own self-pitying remarks (about 2,779 words) to the essentials.

David A Reibel, York

Failure to provide a challenging voice

Sir: Your presentation of the Prime Minister's speech about the press rather makes his point for him. The headline reads "Would you be saying this, Mr Blair, if we supported your war in Iraq?" rather than, say, " Blair attacks The Independent". We are into hugely partisan comment before we even know the story.

Of course, it is never possible completely to separate fact from opinion; there is no value-free way of describing events. Nonetheless, a responsible newspaper will surely want to set out what is happening in as careful and unprejudiced a manner as it possibly can before strongly personal views are brought into play; that goal, one hopes, is not yet (in your words) as " outdated as black-and-white television".

The Prime Minister is right, too, to say that most people in public life (I work in a university that has suffered considerably from careless press attention) no longer expect even from "quality" newspapers a responsible impartiality or a respect for the data.

Professor Charles, Martindale, Bristol

Sir: I, too, had heard the mantra about keeping news and views separate and had often felt a slight unease that The Independent did not keep news on the front page and opinion on its editorial pages. Tony Blair's outburst has caused me to reconsider my view.

There is certainly a debate to be had about the role of the "Fourth Estate", as it used to be called. It seems to me that the media is today largely failing in its constitutional role of providing a challenging voice where the executive, legislature and judiciary can or do not. The press has, for the most part, become obsessed with pursuing a "story".

To have a newspaper that promotes serious debate by publishing a range of views is a delight. I certainly enjoy reading, for example, both Dominic Lawson and Johann Hari. However, on reflection, I find that the main reason that I buy your paper every day is precisely because you take such a clear and principled stand on matters of public importance, not that I always agree with your views or priorities, of course.

If the Press is to do its job in 21st-century Britain, it must express opinions boldly and clearly. Mere information is easily available and spin and crude sensationalism are commonplace. If you were not blazoning your views in the headlines of your front page it's not only our news-stands but also our democracy that would be the poorer.

So, it seems to me that The Independent's approach is not just defensible but absolutely necessary; and the point is made clear to me because our most senior politician seems to want to change or, perhaps, silence you.

Paul Lambdin, Guildford, Surrey

An accolade of the highest order

Sir: Many congratulations on being attacked so vociferously by Tony Blair. For anyone with such a loose grasp of reality and concepts of honesty to attack a newspaper that tries so hard to present accurate understandings of both is an accolade of the highest order.

Even when you don't quite succeed, the aspiration to communicate accurately is undoubtedly always there - which cannot be said of Mr Blair. I trust that you and your staff feel affirmed and strengthened by Mr Blair's intervention.

Michael Marten, Edinburgh

Sir: In a key propaganda offensive during the run-up to the Iraq invasion, the British government lied about the position of the French government on the second UN resolution (which was to scrap the deadline and wait for more evidence but that force might be needed eventually).

Using Monty Python-esque logic, its spin doctors then concocted the line that France was to blame for the invasion - and fed it to the ever-receptive red-top tabloids. The Government's house journal, in particular, proceeded to run a campaign of francophobic playground insults that plumbed new depths even by its own standards. Other pro-government papers took up the hue and cry.

And The Independent, on the other hand? Its Paris correspondent was one of the few, if not the sole, to point out at the time that the British government had misrepresented the French position. It subsequently published a letter from a former cabinet minister confirming that the Government had done so.

Its correspondent in Iraq, Patrick Cockburn, is the only one worth reading because he still goes out into the field, risking life and limb to report.

I wonder what Voltaire would have made of it all.

Rod Chapman, Sarlat, France

Sir: Tony Blair's speech is typical of the depths he is prepared to stoop to, even in his last days in office, to discredit anyone who has had the temerity to criticise. His chameleon-like persona can no longer hide the megalomaniac inside.

Those with a modicum of intelligence will dismiss Tony Blair's speech as the ranting of a seriously deluded "has been". If it weren't for his success in Northern Ireland, I am sure he would go down in history as one of the worst and certainly most dishonest prime ministers in living memory.

I have been around for 67 years and have read newspapers of all hues and opinions. The reason I switched to The Independent was for precisely the reasons you underline. It delivers excellent journalism with multi-faceted views from your columnists.

Congratulations on an excellent newspaper, and I am sure you will continue giving balanced and lucid appraisal of the news as it happens.

Ian Smith, Torello, Catalonia, Spain

Sir: As daily readers of The Independent since its very first issue, we could not let Mr Blair's comments pass. Quite simply, he is wrong, and incomprehensibly so.

The reason we read The Independent is because, like yourselves, we consider ourselves capable of independent thought. What we get from your newspaper is information (often that which isn't mentioned in other publications) and Mr Blair has outstandingly failed to realise that the primary function of journalism is to inform, enable readers to shape their own opinions and, yes, challenge when necessary.

As such, your fine team of journalists, researchers and support staff should take pride in Mr Blair's disquiet at his inability to manipulate you in the way it appears he has tried to manipulate the rest of us. Long may this continue, under whatever future governments await.

Kim Cave, Colin Cave, Chesterfield, Derbyshire

Sir: My response to Tony Blair's attack on The Independent was to buy two copies. I will pass on a copy to a friend, and we will both ensure that the papers are recycled. Keep up your excellent standards.

Mike Caffoor, Hove, East Sussex

Sir: So, your mighty organ has been singled out for an attack by the great defender of truth and democracy himself. I hope you all feel very proud of yourselves; I was beginning to think that Mr Blair was immune to you, but it looks like you've been scoring hits all along. Long may you continue having views and expressing them to such great effect.

Mark Tomlinson, Formby, Merseyside

Sir: If I took my opinions from The Independent, as Tony Blair imagines we all do, I would be thoroughly confused. Whose opinion am I supposed to adopt? Dominic Lawson's or Johann Hari's on the environment? Bruce Anderson's or Simon Carr's or Steve Richards's or Deborah Orr's on politics and society? Robert Fisk's or Howard Jacobson's on the Middle East?

In fact, like most readers, probably, I agree with the columnists that agree with me, and am irritated or challenged or confirmed in my beliefs by the others. I read The Independent partly because I like to know what the other side is thinking.

Marilyn Mason, Kingston Upon Thames, Surrey

Sir: Paul Mason, James Van Gils and other correspondents (Letters, 12 June) all appear to be asking, what has The Independent alone done to incur Tony Blair's wrath? Well, the answer is quite simple. You have continually reported and spoken the truth about the man, from the beginning of his tenure and more importantly from the start of the Gulf War. Please, just don't let up when Gordon Brown takes over.

Philip Moran, London N11

Sir: The word "feral" might be better used to describe aspects of life in Baghdad, Palestine or Helmand province, just three parts of the world where the influence of Tony Blair has been most closely and painfully felt.

The treatment meted out to the only other media personality to challenge the Blair administration over the past 10 years, Greg Dyke, had something of the feral about it.

Congratulations to you and your team for providing what little opposition Blair has had to face in the past 10 years. It is a shame that so few elected representatives bothered to earn their crust during this time.

Luca Menato, Cheltenham, Gloucestershire

Blair has said what many of us feel

Sir: Journalists take a high moral tone, saying that they have a duty to nail government "lies". Tony Blair has had good and bad motivation; so have his opponents; so have we all. The current presumption that the entire political class is actively malign is disastrously wrong-headed.

Katie Gent, London Sw13

Sir: Blair, on the eve of his departure, has finally said what many of us feel, but have been afraid to voice. Namely that the media has become " feral" in its attempts to ensnare an audience.

It has lowered its standards of truth , to become partial , even to the extent of publishing shocking stories and pictures that have no bearing on truth, which then, when found to be incorrect, are not visibly retracted, leaving the harm done, immeasurable - not only to individuals, but to nations. The public have been forced, little by little to find their own truth, when they eventually wake up, tired of the emotional roller coasters.

The newspapers would do well to come off their "moral high grounds" and do some real in-depth research, into themselves and their own motives as much as anything else.

Celina Marshall, London NW2

Sir: Tony Blair is correct to point out the transformation towards sensationalism that has taken over a very large part of our media. However, he is wrong to imply that this is something that has emerged over the past 10 years.

The sociologist Manuel Castells had in 1997 already written about how the increased bending of the media to commercial pressures had reduced news to infotainment and the pursuit of scandal. But what Castells was also documenting was the broader changes to society brought about by the privatisation and deregulation of economies that are part of a global, network society.

This pursuit of the scandalous, then, is merely a symptom and not the cause of the problem, and in his criticisms of the media, Mr Blair is again practising a deceit.

The real transformation, with a very few exceptions, is the increasing subjection of the media to private, corporate interests and the profit motive as ultimate goal. The transformation is thus nothing less that the withering away of a critical public sphere that is essential to democracy, in favour of a global media dominated by a handful of transnational media corporations promoting the interests of this small class of people. In other words, the transformation that is taking place in the shift from news to infotainment and scandal, exactly mirrors our society's shift from a democracy to a plutocracy.

In focusing on the symptom and not the cause, Mr Blair merely creates a smokescreen to hide the significant contributions he has himself made to this transformation.

Neal Curtis, Nottingham

Sir: I agree with and support every word of your editorial today (13 June). Where Blair may have a point is the slightly insidious growth of 24-hour TV news, which seems to drive a relentless search for new angles or stories which may or may not actually be news.

In his book My Trade, Andrew Marr quotes an early learning point from one of his editors: "If it hasn't happened, it isn't news." The editors of Sky, BBC News 24 and other channels would be well advised to avoid speculation by remembering that principle.

Tony Jackson, London Sw12

Sir: What a piece of work is Blair. His high moral tone over Iraq and his "when-it-suits" humanitarian interventionism can be picked apart with ease. Now we have his attack on the media without naming once the tabloid newspaper that exercises the most tendentious, pernicious and mendacious influence upon Britain's politics - and never more so than during the Blair years - owned by his friend Mr Murdoch.

Hypocrisy runs through Mr Blair's veins, but by the smile he seems untroubled. Astounding.

D J Howell, Norwich

Sir: In attacking The Independent, Tony Blair is a wounded Prime Minister playing in injury time and scoring an own goal. There is, however, a useful point to note: unless the media as a whole employ a greater self-regulation and pay more attention to separating reportage from comment, they will have regulation imposed on them.

Charles Fletcher, Chairman, Mediawise, Bristol

Sir: I am so sorry! I cannot tell you how badly I feel that I have been remiss. In a democratic society it was my responsibility to write and tell you long ago that you have strayed from the "right" Orwellian path.

There are days when my heart cries out in anguish for a dollop of Mr Rupert Murdoch's opinions to set me straight, when my son's heart fails without the stimulation of the sight of a Page Three girl's most notable accoutrements. But, most of all, I live in dread of those sad days when you fail to splash the affairs of Z-list celebrities across the front page.

So there - now I have told you, you naughty, naughty man! And I can recede satisfied into my complacent brain-dead world of spin and trivia.

Beth Butterfield, Thornhill, Dumfries and Galloway

Sir: Prime Minister Tony Blair states that the media "regularly demolishes the reputations of public figures". Very often the public figures do an excellent job of demolishing their own reputations - the media only alert us to it. Long may they continue to do so.

Judi Martin, Maryculter, Aberdeenshire

Sir: What kind of dystopia are we living in, where the Prime Minister's rant about how unfettered and feral the media have become is concluded by " Downing Street" forbidding those same media from reporting his answers to questions? Just what is "Downing Street" and who gave it the right to censor the press and TV?

Much as I admire The Independent, and have taken it from its first issue, I believe you are complicit in a way in this disjuncture between the power and the people: do you not think we have had enough of "Downing Street said ...", "Friends of Brown defended ..." and "Sources at the Foreign Office denied ..."?

I'm aware that off-the-record briefings have become the only way that you can get some of the lever-pullers to speak at all, but does it not say something about the cravenness of government that everything it says or does is unattributable, unless, of course, it is in the pursuit of someone's personal legacy?

The elegant verbal dances, that usually finish with, "We never comment on leaks," must stop.

Colin Standfield, London W7

Voters were led up the garden path

Sir: The Independent's leading political commentator, Steve Richards (" A Courageous attack", 12 June ), castigates the media while extolling and praising the "courage and restraint" of Tony Blair and the "obvious integrity" of Iain Duncan Smith.

Mr Blair lied in relation to the intelligence provided to him on the existence of WMDs in Iraq. Has Steve Richards forgotten the small matter of the "45-minute" frightener?

The "obvious integrity" of Mr Duncan Smith? It was Mr Duncan Smith, the leader of the 2003 Opposition, who decided to ditch his duty to the electorate - to oppose the Government, which, Steve Richards needs to be reminded, was his and his party's main parliamentary role under our constitution.

Mr Duncan Smith ardently, slaveringly even, supported Mr Blair's illegal and duplicitous case for the invasion of Iraq. The Blair-Duncan Smith combo wanted war and they were out to get it: spin, head in sand ... whatever it took.

And where was the opposition? A relative handful of Labour and Conservative MPs in the House of Commons, a million people marching through the streets of London (wholly ignored by New Labour and the caring Conservative leadership) and ... the Fourth Estate in the shape of The Independent and a few courageous BBC journalists.

Yes, Mr Richards, "voters are turning away from politics". They are doing so precisely because voters were led up the garden path and into a major killing disaster by the politicians. Yes, Mr Richards, thousands of killings can be laid directly and indirectly at the doors of those whom you choose to excuse and applaud. Both the meretricious Prime Minister and the irresponsible "I am not into opposition" Opposition leader played, and continue to play, a huge part in causing the other continuing disaster - driving more and more would-be voters to hold their noses.

Gerald De Lacey, London W11

Sir: I am a regular, appreciative reader of your paper, but was very disappointed by the defensive reaction of the Editor on the front page (13 June). He in effect confirmed for Mr Blair one of the points he was making in his speech: that the media picks on one small point, blows it up and tries to make a drama out of it. He failed to address the more important issues raised by Mr Blair, including the really serious and damaging one that the media tends to cast every issue in black and white terms with never an acceptance of grey lying in between.

You were, though, redeemed by the article by Steve Richards. He does recognise the value of the arguments and did seem ready to enter into a considered debate.

Peter Ball, London SW19

Sir: Steve Richards' comment piece (13 June) has got it badly wrong; your leader got it right. New Labour-style "spin" is not about presenting news, policy or whatever in the best possible light, it is about gross exaggeration and persistent disregard of the truth. Which is what New Labour has done in spades since the day they were elected

It started then with the Ecclestone affair and continues to this day with the ghastly mess that has been created in Iraq and the still unresolved cash-for-honours and BAE handout affairs. Spin is also heavily involved in the failure to admit that enacting 50-odd national security bills will never free this country from terrorism whilst there is no resolution of the Palestinian and other problems in the Middle East for which the west is largely responsible.

Blair has done great things in Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Significant, perhaps, that he achieved them without resorting to spin.

The media may at times be intrusive, they may exaggerate but mostly they are only exhibiting the natural tendency of a terrier to go after a rat. Politicians have only themselves to blame for the current malaise of cynicism among the electorate.

Sir Simon Gourlay, Knighton, Powys

The line between news and views

Sir: Simon Kelner quite rightly puts up a vigorous defence of his newspaper in his response to Tony Blair, but it's hard not to notice that in doing so he's actually in agreement with much of what Tony Blair said.

Blair says The Independent is now about views, not news. Kelner says the main function of a modern newspaper is to interpret, not report, the days events. Blair says newspapers have become obsessed with motive. Kelner's front page the next day asks "Would you be saying this, Mr Blair, if we had supported your war in Iraq?"

Whether or not they agree with it, many seem to recognise that Blair has said the sort of thing that prime ministers are not usually in a position to say. The relationship between press, politicians and the public in the modern media age is an important debate, and I, for one, welcome contributions to it.

Jonathan Reynolds, Mottram-In-Longdendale, Cheshire

Sir: Tony Blair's distinction between fact and opinion? Look no further than the WMD intelligence.

Dermot Walsh, Limerick, Ireland

Sir: I entirely concur with the views expressed in your front page article (13 June). I found it disappointingly typical that Tony Blair's speech started by stating how he would not "blame" anyone and then descended into an attack on The Independent in particular.

What I find thoroughly refreshing about your newspaper is that I am not only able to read the daily news but also that I am able to read a set of sensibly argued, intelligent opinion, whether I agree with it or not. Indeed I once heard your award-winning Middle East correspondent, Robert Fisk, give a talk where he argued that good journalism is not about trying to stay neutral but about providing sensible comments on events that take place in the world. Once again, I could not agree more.

Unlike Mr Blair implies I do not have trouble distinguishing fact from opinion. Indeed, in this era of increasing media manipulation, restrictions on civil liberties and decisions being taken without proper recourse to the people The Independent is an essential source of information that represents the pinnacle of good journalism.

Julius Brookman, Twickenham, Middlesex

Sir: Working as a junior civil servant at 10 Downing Street in the late 1950s taught me that C P Scott's dictum "Comment is free, but facts are sacred" was being ignored, and that it was all but impossible for a government to communicate with the public via the press without distortion.

When The Independent was launched I hoped that it would provide a reliable source of news, as well as a variety of opinion. Sadly, the paper has gradually joined the general trend, routinely spending more effort on forming public opinion, and reducing articles that give readers objective factual information on which to form their own views.

The press does not have to be accountable to citizens for the consequences of its actions, governments do. Yet the press can cause a public to which it has given its own version of events to react strongly enough to affect the actions of the responsible government of the day. Heady stuff for journalists, no doubt, but dangerous, and there are no checks on it. Tony Blair is right to raise this issue.

Go to France or Germany and buy quality newspapers and you find solid information, with some commentary.

Jane Howarth, Little Waltham, Essex

The debate seen from abroad

Sir: As an American who relied on The Independent for the truth during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq and all that has followed, I was dismayed that Tony Blair has learned so little. It was his gang of merry men that sexed up the intelligence, not The Independent. When The Independent offered (and still offers) opinion, it is clear to the reader.

Tony, no one likes a cry-baby who is wrong at the expense of others' lives and the common wealth. You have already have plenty of chances and you failed in Iraq. Try to move on gracefully.

Harrison Picot, Haymarket Virginia, USA

Sir: As a resident of Sydney I have few choices of news that are not dominated by the Murdoch machinery. The Sydney Daily Telegraph and The Australian are uncritical boosters of the right in our politics and the Sydney Morning Herald only occasionally dips its toe into more critical analyses. My chosen source of news that does not structure its text to the reading age of a 14-year-old is The Independent.

The one great characteristic of politicians both here and apparently in the UK is that they suck up to the media when it suits them and resort to spin and aggression to prevent any unbiased critique of them at all other times. I commend you for being identified as subversive by one of the greatest manipulators of public opinion seen in recent times. May you continue to stand against mediocrity in reporting.

Peter Friend, Sydney, Australia

And the view from the blogosphere...

I think the Indy galls Blair because it has kept the bit between its teeth about Iraq for years. And because I believe it's quite a popular read among Parliamentarians, so doubly galling. A stupid target though. It's like kicking a drunk tramp, it's that easy. Love to see him take on Dacre and Co, but it's classic Blair: spineless sabre-rattling dressed up as, "just being an honest, down to earth guy".

Posted By Oniongravy, 'GUARDIAN' Blog

I found the slur on The Independent quite alarming. Just because its views do not match his, why single out a paper that has been brave enough to confront Blair on issues such as the Middle East and global warming?

Stephen Campbell, Guildford, Bbc News Website

By attacking him on the front page they have proved Blair's point: it is a "viewspaper" not a newspaper.

Posted By Disraeli'S Ghost, 'SPECTATOR' Blog

Do you think that he's decided on this as his parting shot as a smokescreen? Then when everyone dismisses his 10 years as a decade of bad judgements, he can simply say that it is revenge by the media that he has cruelly exposed?

His key mistake here is to pick on the Indy as feral. It may be dull and worthy but its readers are incredibly influential and everyone knows they've been the least influenced by the Labour spin machine. I wonder why he didn't pick on a Murdoch title?

Posted By Trustable Kid, 'GUARDIAN' Blog

Blair has ruined Britain's reputation for honest dealing and fair play. At least Newspapers like the Telegraph and the Independent have tried (albeit in vain) to salvage something from the Blair mess.

Posted By John Oxley,'TELEGRAPH' Blog

I couldn't agree more: the media in this country are pathetic, the entire right-wing press (BBC and Guardian included) will happily spout and rigorously defend any lie Bliar cared to pass them.

That he should pick on the only left-wing paper in the country - a paper that has continuously shown him up for the lying war criminal he is - shows just what a classy man he is.

The Independent will have the last laugh, when the cell door slams behind this despicable war criminal.

'GUARDIAN' Blog

It's quite possible for his analysis to be right and yet for him to wrong. What has he done to contribute to improving the news media lately? What has he done to foster good journalism in the digital era? And will Gordon's government do more? I hope so. Let's all stop moaning about spin and nasty journalists and start thinking about how we take advantage of new technology to foster a healthier relationship between media, public and politics.

Posted By Polis, 'GUARDIAN' Blog

All the Blair lackeys should look at the hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq. Blame The Independent? It's sad, really sad that this crap is published in The Guardian. To you cynicism is a compliment.

'GUARDIAN' Blog

I think the behaviour of The Independent has been shameful. They keep banging on with their "views" about how Iraq was a tremendous mistake, and how many people have been killed and how it's in terrible chaos ... Don't they know that it's their job not to print their own viewpoint, but instead to print the "facts" about Iraq - which would be that it's a disaster, and hundreds of thousands have died and there's absolute chaos ... er wait. Oh, I see.

Seriously, Blair lives in an alternate universe. As Blackadder might say - "Sir, have you ever visited the planet Earth?"

'GUARDIAN' Blog

The most shameful thing about this was that he named The Independent and not The Guardian as the source of distress. With cheerleaders like Polly T it's not really surprising, but it is disappointing.

'GUARDIAN' Blog

Absolutely unbelievable. The man sucks up to Rupert Murdoch, the Mail, and the Express for over 10 years, and then he accuses The Independent of having too much opinion!

You still do bow to the god of spin, Tony. What the fuck was your attack-dog Campbell doing in 2003 when he tried to undermine the institution of the BBC and its reporting of your lies!

The Independent "bangs on" about Iraq, and the environment, not Princess Di, or house prices. It talks about serious government policy. The Sun and Mirror still editorialise in their headlines and stories ... And pretty much all of the tabloids are hugely biased against immigrants. They are still far worse than any of the "broadsheets" (whatever their size now).

Posted By Muriel_volestrangler, democraticunderground.com

You Brits should be grateful for papers like The Independent that got it right on Iraq and, more importantly, had the courage to say so. Compare that with the craven media we have in the US. Not one of them questioned the march to the Iraqian disaster and few have had the courage to say, "we were wrong". Blair's gripe is that the British press wasn't supine enough. To paraphrase an old saying, "As you spin, so shall you reap".

'GUARDIAN' Blog

In a country where tabloid media has such a bad reputation, where journalists in the Express and the Star rise up against their editors, who does Blair criticise? The Independent! Who knew the rot in the British media came from such an unexpected quarter? Obviously, Blair cares not a jot for quality media, he just hates anyone who disagrees with him.

Posted By Donnacha 'GUARDIAN' Blog

I find it dismaying how many people are defending The Independent. It is a hysterical, campaigning student newspaper. It's sad because it used to be a wonderful, balanced, grown up organ.

'GUARDIAN' Blog

Whatever your argument the fact Blair went after The Independent when it must rank close to the bottom of the media that present opinion as fact shows he has an agenda.

His agenda was to attack a newspaper that has above any other daily national attacked his policies and lies... If Bliar had gone after The Sun or Daily Mail then fair enough, but his rank cowardice has been blown open for all to see - why not open your eyes!

'GUARDIAN' Blog

He's wrong. Most media is far too self-obsessed to be "feral" at anything except navel-gazing and celebrity-spotting.

However, he cites The Independent specifically - a paper whose redesign gave it a brief burst of popularity, but which is now all opinion and no news and which lost me as a reader because of it. So in that one specific regard, he may be correct. Even Private Eye has a lower opinion percentage than the Indy! It is feral... and boring because of it.

Posted By Twinklebutt, Guardian' Blog

Blair's main beef that "reporting" has succumbed to the momentum of the political-hack agenda reflects the voracious technical and financial demands of 24/7 bulletins which have deemed that the actual timetable of events is now secondary to the news schedule... This has filtered down through politics to such a degree that it almost eclipses the actual job of reporting events. Endless interviewees. Endless experts. All booked to fill space ... But why on earth the Indy is singled out, rather than much greater culprits, is a subject for intense speculation.

Posted By Nationwide,'GUARDIAN' Blog

Briefly...

Sir: Tony Blair says that opinion and fact should be clearly divisible. Nothing new there for most of us. But I wonder where he places belief? Like many voters I sincerely hope that, after his passing, we will never again be governed by a politician's beliefs, crackpot or otherwise.

Alison Sutherland, Orkney

Sir: In reporting Tony Blair's description of the "feral" media, The Sun's leader of 13 June comments: "His sights were on the Daily Mail and the BBC - but the only newspaper he named was the tiny, defenceless Independent." I find this a puzzling description of your newspaper given that within a few hours of the Prime Minister making his attack, a candidate for the deputy leadership, Hazel Blears, had to run for her life as part of her office building collapsed around her. You clearly have more power than the Labour Party hierarchy thinks.

Stuart Goodacre, Lincoln

Sir: Assuming that you have quoted him accurately, the most shocking aspect of Tony Blair's attack on the media is his statement, "The media is a feral beast", instead of, "The media are ..." Is there no longer any hope of getting the word "media" used correctly?

J Michael Walpole, Birmingham

Sir: Attacking the messenger. The last desperate thought from a Prime Minister feeling power slipping away.

Jeremy Taylor, Wirksworth, Derbyshire

Sir: Why take any notice what this discredited has-been says? Might as well let him have his moan, since it probably makes him feel better at being shoved out of power before he'd completely saved the world.

R Williams, Wells, Somerset

Sir: Some of it absolutely needed to be said. Tony Blair was absolutely the wrong person to say it.

Peter Heath, Kingston Blount, Oxfordshire

Sir: I find it ironic that Saddam Hussein appeared to conduct his final exit with a degree of dignity which seems to be currently beyond Tony Blair. How sad.

Richard Comyn, Cavendish, Suffolk