The majority of commenters to my posting yesterday about Hugh Grant's bugging of the former News of the World features editor Paul McMullan appear to have misunderstood my central point.
There were no sour grapes on my part, not consciously anyway. I was certainly not being critical of Grant. As I said, it was a good wheeze, which was carried out well.
My central point was that the stories related by McMullan had been aired before, not least in The Guardian, but also on public platforms.
But his allegations about the NoW's newsroom culture (and admissions of his own involvement) had never gained such a large audience before. It required celebrity involvement to secure widespread public interest.
Why? Because, except for The Guardian and Channel 4's Dispatches, the rest of the media had ignored what he had to say.
My other (admittedly obvious) point was about the power of the net. Though the Grant piece got plenty of publicity following its publication in the print version of the New Statesman it did not get anything like the coverage it has enjoyed since the magazine put it online.
However, I am told by McMullan that my claim that there was nothing new in what he told Grant was wrong in one detail: he had never revealed before that he had hidden in the bushes while doorstepping his former boss, Rebekah Brooks. Credit then to Grant for that revelation.
Finally, I commend this clip from Channel 4's 10 O'clock Live in which McMullan was confronted by John Prescott following the News Statesman article. It's a corker.
