George Osborne and Peter Mandelson, innocent victims of gutter journalism

How depressing it is to see the UK media yet again focusing on minor gossip and tittle tattle rather than the major policy issues of the day. It is disgraceful how it is hounding George Osborne over what is essentially a non-story about a non-existent political donation. Just as bad is how it has resumed its pathetic vendetta against Lord Mandelson. The media muck rakers have twice forced Peter to resign twice, and twice he has been cleared. Peter 2, Media 0.

People’s lack of trust in politicians and the political process is far less to do with politicians than it is the constant lies, innuendo and spin disseminated by what is laughingly called the ‘quality’ media.

It’s interesting to see that both Tom Harris and Iain Dale share similar perspectives, although I do wish Iain would be equally sensible when he writes about equally ludicrous allegations against Labour politicians.


About Stuart Bruce

International communications consultant and PR trainer specialising in online public affairs, digital corporate communications, online PR and social media; frequent national media commentator and conference speaker.
  • Sam

    completely agree except that to say its Mandy – 2, Media – 0 is err… very strange.

    Nobody in the media got sacked for bigging up the untrue allegations that made Mandy resign, twice. I reckon the score, regardless of right or wrong, is the other way around.

  • http://iaindale.blogspot.com Iain Dale

    Stuart, I understand why people tend to forget, but there have been several occasions when I have defended Labour & LibDem politicians on allegations far worse than this. Peter Hain being a good example. I also did not even mention Mandy and the Russian Oligarch.

    But it fits people's narrative to allege that i just toe a Tory party line. C'est la vie.

  • http://www.pr-consultant.co.uk Stephen Newton

    I'm not so sure.

    Osborne stands accused of conspiring to procure an illegal donation and discussing how such a donation might be laundered. He appears to have owned up to the second part of that allegation and that should be enough to force him to fall on his sword.

    On the other hand, Mandelson is alleged to have a conflict of interest because he met and accepted hospitality from someone dodgy. Mandelson doesn't seem to deny the charge, but points out that Russia is so corrupt you can't avoid dodgy people. This is probably true and highlights the difficulty of dealing with Russia.

    Osborne is fair game as it was he who first broke any confidence the various parties felt entitled to. I suspect his mistake was not to attack Mandelson, but to shine a light on the Russian and ensure his name was dragged through the mud.

    How do we know it's not the oligarch that has leant on Rothschild?

  • http://profile.typekey.com/stuartbrucepr/ Stuart Bruce – Wolfstar

    OK Iain, mea culpa, sorry. You're right you didn't mention Mandelson and the oligarch. My mistake, although my defence was that I was on holiday and wasn't paying as much attention my RSS feeds as normal ;-)

  • http://www.robskinner.typepad.com Rob Skinner

    Stuart
    Agree with you that the media's obsession with condemning people as guilty – even when they're not – is damaging. Mandelson's second 'resignation' was in many ways unfair. But his first resignation was just, given his failure to declare his loan from Geoffrey Robinson.