Tony Blair said he made his speech (a "lecture" according to the Downing Street press notice) on politics, public life and the media "after much hesitation". But when he compared the press to a "feral beast tearing people and reputations to bits" it is safe to assume he had decided against holding any of it back.
There is a certain, perhaps intentional, irony in that an address against the value placed on "impact" in today's media has given headline writers plenty of choice phrases and soundbites to choose from. The prime minister is after all an experienced media operator, as are his team.
Some may say, however, that he has a point. The pace of 24-hour news cycles probably does mean governments have to work harder to prevent speculation hardening.
Others may, however, detect a note of sour grapes despite Mr Blair's insistence it is "not a complaint". When he singles out the Independent for criticism, soon after comments on the coverage of the Hutton inquiry, it is hard not to think the prime minister was not thinking of the Independent's Whitewash? front page on the day following the publication of the report.
Or the lines below:
"So - for example - there will often be as much interpretation of
what a politician is saying as there is coverage of them actually saying it. In the
interpretation, what matters is not what they mean; but what they could be taken
to mean.
"This leads to the incredibly frustrating pastime of expending a largeamount of energy rebutting claims about the significance of things said, that bears
little or no relation to what was intended."
Here's the speech. Here is a news report.
What do you think? Is the British media a "feral beast"? Have news and views become confused? Is 24-hour media to blame?
