The headline over the Mail Online news story about the appointment of Sir John Thomas as Lord Chief Justice does not conceal its glee, "Tough judge with little patience for immigration lawyers beats Lord Leveson to post of judiciary chief."
He is not "Lord Leveson" but leaving that mistake aside, a couple of sentences in the article itself also draw the eye:
"His appointment to the increasingly important post of Lord Chief Justice was a blow to rival candidate Lord Justice Leveson, whose report calling for statutory curbs on newspapers has been at the centre of a continuing political storm since it was published last November."
A continuing political storm? Surely that should read "a continuing media storm". And, in the interests of full disclosure, should have added "led by the Daily Mail."
Joshua Rosenberg rightly refers to "media criticism" as a major factor in his Guardian report.
The next sentence in the Mail piece is still more contentious:
"Criticism of aspects of the report - such as the apparent cutting and pasting of some sections from Wikipedia - is thought to have undermined Sir Brian Leveson's chances."
Thought by whom? By the judicial appointments commission? By the government? By the Queen? Or by the Mail?
By contrast, the piece published in the Mail's print edition was headlined more straightforwardly, "Tough new chief for the judiciary", and referred to Leveson's report being "at the centre of controversy" rather than "a continuing political storm."
*This posting was amended to make clear the differences between what the Mail ran online and carried in print, at the foot of page 4
