Story about Blair & his family nobody dares publish

stuartfanning

I wonder what it is. Here's a link to an Australian paper which alludes to it but also doesn't publish it.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/17/1095394011418.html?oneclick=true

angeldelight

The Evening Herald claims that too but as its theHerald I have my doubts about the accuracy of it!

stuartfanning

Here's the article as the link sometimes asks for people to register.


Keeping Tony Blair's secret all in the family
September 18, 2004

Page Tools
Email to a friend Printer format
For some sections of the British press, nothing succeeds like excess - but London's editors are steering well clear of one story, writes Peter Fray in London.

The political excesses of the British press are a wonder - or horror - to behold, but there is one story that for several months not even the most lurid paper has dared to touch.

It concerns an alleged crisis within Prime Minister Tony Blair's family and is widely considered to be behind this week's disclosure that Mr Blair nearly quit this year.

The source of that disclosure - Mr Blair's friend and celebrated broadcaster, author and Labour peer Melvyn Bragg - is said to be traumatised that his supposedly innocent comments have reignited speculation about the Prime Minister's future.

With Labour's annual conference in the offing this month, they brought renewed focus on the testy relations between Mr Blair and his obvious leadership rival, Chancellor Gordon Brown.

Worse still, Bragg mentioned the Blair family.

"The real stress was personal and family, which matters most to him," Bragg told the TV interviewer. "And my guess is that consideration of his family became very pressing and that was what made him think things over very carefully."

One unnamed cabinet minister, cited by the Daily Mail, called Bragg an "idiot". As the paper's Whitehall editor, Benedict Brogan, wrote, he (Bragg) lifted the veil on events that have been common knowledge in political circles since April, but not publicised.

The story in question has not only been doing the rounds of Westminster and Whitehall. The Age has been approached about buying the "scoop" directly or indirectly several times. The line is, here's a yarn the British papers have been too gutless to run.

It may be a sad comment on the standing of the Australian press that some people think it would run a story that - you will have to take my word for it - breaches the bounds of privacy and media responsibility.

But, it was the Australian media that late last year printed allegations that Prince Charles was getting more than breakfast in bed from his favourite butler, Charles Fawcett.

In the Charles case, the Australian media, including Fairfax, publisher of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald, was only filling in the gaps raised by the Prince's own private secretary who went on TV to deny a rumour that still has not been fully aired in Britain.

Sir Michael Peat's ploy spectacularly backfired and brought forth headlines such as, "Is Charles Bisexual?" (The News of the World) and "Not and Never lovers" (The Sunday Mirror) with a picture of Mr Fawcett and the Prince.

But the unpublished Blair story is more serious than Prince Charles' alleged bedroom antics. As a tabloid editor, who declined to be named, told The Age: "It is one of those things where putting it into print will have an effect all of its own."

The effect could well be very personal and distressing for Mr Blair, and despite the animosity between him and many sections of the media, no editor or broadcaster probably wants to have that on their conscience. And aside from any question of morality, it would be bad for sales.

But that will not stop some pretty fine lines being drawn in the next few days and weeks between what is and is not acceptable, especially with Mr Blair's future again in the spotlight and, in part thanks to his wife, Cherie Blair nee Booth, renewed focus on his seven years in No. 10.

The publication of her book, The Goldfish Bowl: Married to the Prime Minister, this week is starting to look like an unfortunate accident. It was co-written with Cate Haste, a social historian, who happens to be Bragg's partner.

In the book, the high-profile barrister and mother of four children reportedly talks about how living above the shop has cost her and her family privacy.

The book does not delve too far into the private realm of the Blair family, but it has given some media ballast to Bragg's comments and prompted Cherie Blair's former media adviser, Fiona Millar, to write about her own eight years with her.

In an article in The Guardian, Millar said she expected the pressure to conform and perform "took its toll on Cherie, possibly contributing to some of the ill-fated decisions of the past few years as she struggled to assert her independence".

How important is privacy to Cherie and Tony Blair? Is there another agenda here?

It remains possible that the speculation and discussion about the family's private struggles may be a way of Downing Street softening people up for a spectacular Blair exit at the Labour conference in Brighton this month.

Source: The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald

frodi

Anybody out there want to breach morality & privacy and spread the rumour?

/gets popcorn in anticipation!

grumpytrousers

doh.ie wrote:

It alludes very badly to whatever it is, beyond quite widely involving 'the family'.
Is it suggesting an affair or that Cherie may have wanted to leave Tony?

THIN ICE ALERT

AFAIK even Popbitch won't touch this with a stick....if you think you know what it is, then write it down, put it in an envelope, get a mate to sign and date the envelope and when the story breaks, open the envelope and your pals will think you're great

OTHERWISE STFU...

doh.ie

Whoops - deleted post won't take the quote with it! You're welcome to edit it out, Grumpy.

grumpytrousers

doh.ie wrote:

Whoops - deleted post won't take the quote with it! You're welcome to edit it out, Grumpy.

I'm no mod....just getting delusions...

what we want to avoid is speculation...i'd think that quoting a real newspaper which said nothing...lightly skirted around the issue (if indeed, there IS an issue) is probably okay.

it's when somebody says, for instance, "Is it true that professor plum killed Dr black with the lead piping" that we run into difficulties...

*closes "bluffers guide to libel defenses"*

doh.ie

Sorry, misread profile - thought you were a mod.

In any case, that's still relatively harmless and obvious speculation and not something I think UK papers would shy away from.

Hobbes

If hes sleeping with Bush I already guessed that.

mike65

Bragg lets slip that Blair was considering resigning, so what?

edit> Is that shock story that Cherie Blair and Carol Caplin (her lifestyle guru)
are in bed together? No thought not. "Family pressure" is the most I can find and it would'nt be a suprise if that were the reason esp with a young child in the family.

Mike.

stuartfanning

Could it be because of this.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/293456.html

Corega

Unfortunately it seems it was the wrong person who downed the pills.

mike65

Ah yes Tony Gosling. Fruitcake.

Mike.

Sand

You know, I had read indymedia before and i just dismissed them as the the art student Fox News.... the right sort of stories for the right sort of people people. Brainless, but harmless. Moronic crap, but hey some people buy the sun and some people read indymedia.

Given the obvious gloating over a *possible* suicide bid by a 16 year old girl who just happens to be related to a man who the writer clearly *hates* - not disagrees with, not dislikes, hates, as there is no other explanation for the sheer bitter joy he takes in relating his theory - my opinion of indymedia has fallen even lower.

*If* this is true, then The Sun and the News of the World at least has respected the tragedy that a suicide bid of a non-public figure can bring to a family, whereas Indymedia has not. Think about that. For paranoid freaks who moan about the people spying on their personal lives all the time and the near future of 1984 they have absolutely no f0cking dignity.

gandalf

Who cares this is their personal business. I am surprised that the tabloids held off, unusual for them.

The man should be judged and reported by the press on his decisions in office and the leadership of the country (and they have plenty to work on there!). What happens in someones family is their and their close relatives and friends business. That article on Indymedia does rank as extreme double standards, I agree with Sand if it was someone they were more sympathic towards we would see them outraged about the invasion of their privacy by the corporate press.

This is a non-story really.

chewy

thing is indymedia didn't write that story and indymedia.org.uk has very different editorial policy to the irish one or any other indymedia, they are all entirely different and moderated to the minimun degree, that being the entire purpose of the site to report what isn't reported...

you say your estimation of indymedia has lowered but who are you referring to the person who posted up the initial article or person who posted the second reply or the person who made the sniping comment further down or the last poster, who? which of those people have disgusted you...

of course theres going to be assholes in the world, every section of society has them... big deal

i actually think irish indymedia would have removed the story move for the horrible postings afterwards more so then posting the story

where as popbitch is a company which can be sued, indymedia aren't so it not just a mater of taste for them its money...

when indymedia say they don't take responsiblity for any posted they really don't, the fbi wanted their user logs last week after someone posted details of the republican delegates on nyc indymedia they couldn't give to the them cos they don't log them...

i think there is some interest in the story re what the papers are willing to hide and what they aren't, someone praised the papers for not reporting this story they've gone far lower before...?

Cork

Sand wrote:

*If* this is true, then The Sun and the News of the World at least has respected the tragedy.

Pity the Sunday Indo put a story today on page 1 concerning the Blairs.

Irish newspaper standards have really fallen & it is about time we got a Press Council.

Redleslie2

Sand wrote:

Brainless, but harmless.

What's the difference between Indymedia relaying these rumours and some anonymous bloke on the interweb like Sand doing so? Apart from the fact that one is taken reasonably seriously and the other isn't.

mycroft

Ah yes Tony Gosling. Fruitcake.

Agreed Gosling is so out there that he's been banned from several IMC UK lists, and lawyers have been threatened on both sides.

Furthermore if you scroll down the thread you'll see this

This article was hidden by garcondumonde for the following 'reasons'

It's hidden, meaning the UK Indymedia took the article down from their site.

Unfortunately for the idiots who run uk indymedia it's still on the web, so a google search would find it (althought the internal site search engine won't)

I think it's irresponsible of UK indymedia to leave it available somewhere on the web, but it does show some level of editorial control.

As for the articles "importance" thousands of teenagers take their lives every day, and their parents aren't world leaders, even if the story is true, trying to connect the two events is really low.

Sand

thing is indymedia didn't write that story and indymedia.org.uk has very different editorial policy to the irish one or any other indymedia, they are all entirely different and moderated to the minimun degree, that being the entire purpose of the site to report what isn't reported...

This is an issue I have with Indymedia - when the going is good Indymedia is ready to take credit for having such a great site ready to get "the truth" out there - and when theres criticism to be taken on-board, suddenly its oooh, nothing to do with us.

Now from the aspect of the Art of War you can only applaud this formless entity. Indymedia can criticise the corporate dominated mainstream press, but they themselves cannot be criticised because Indymedia doesnt exist when youre looking for someone to take responsibility for the stories/propaganda run on the site. Brilliant.

As a credible source though its severely devalued - who takes responsibility for the stories being honest? No one. Slag of the corporate media all you like, but when The Mirror was caught telling porkies Piers Morgan took the reponsibility and fell on his sword.

Because of this the News of the fricking World which I wouldnt use as kitty litter has taken a more responsible position on the Blairs personal troubles than indymedia has. Thats indymedia quite accurately ranked as a news source I think.

i think there is some interest in the story re what the papers are willing to hide and what they aren't, someone praised the papers for not reporting this story they've gone far lower before...?

I dont think its a matter of hiding a story - this isnt some secret dossier showing Blair was lying about WMD or some such. This is of absolutely zero public interest because it does not affect public policy. End of. Publicising it in the manner Indymedia have done is actually harmful to the psychological well being of the child, which cant be great to begin with.

Now if you want to claim that Blairs home life is going to impact his work, fair enough - but youll quickly find yourself lining up with people who believe women sitting interviews need to inform their potential companies if theyre planning to have kids in the next few years, or if theyre going to marry, or if theyre practising catholics......

Pity the Sunday Indo put a story today on page 1 concerning the Blairs.

Irish newspaper standards have really fallen & it is about time we got a Press Council.

I believe read that story, and it referred only to personal troubles in the Blair household that might mean Tony Blair might stand down shortly. I.e. it tackled the public interest part without exploiting any problems the Blair family may currently be having. thats pretty responsible reporting I think.

Dont try to exploit this to justify FFs attempts to prevent the press from publishing anything negative about them. If anything the Irish media needs more protection so that it can report on corruption in public life more readily.

mycroft

This is an issue I have with Indymedia - when the going is good Indymedia is ready to take credit for having such a great site ready to get "the truth" out there - and when theres criticism to be taken on-board, suddenly its oooh, nothing to do with us.

Links?

Indymedia Ireland anyway have always pointed towards individuals when they've broken/or exposed a story the person responsible if they choice to expose themselves. Otherwise IMC Ireland has stop independent.

1. RTS individuals steped forward in may 2002 and exposed themselves and what they saw.

2. Irish government deines US troops in Shannon IMC Ireland camerapeople come forward with footage of troops.

At no point have IMC Ireland allowed a story up that they felt morally and editorially breached their guidelines. I'd like you to back up those allegations of yours....

As a credible source though its severely devalued - who takes responsibility for the stories being honest? No one. Slag of the corporate media all you like, but when The Mirror was caught telling porkies Piers Morgan took the reponsibility and fell on his sword.

Stories on the wire are checked on IMC ireland againist standard search engines, unsupported allegations, the author is asked to support them, any story on the front page is fact checked and built by volunteers with editorial privledges.

I dont think its a matter of hiding a story - this isnt some secret dossier showing Blair was lying about WMD or some such. This is of absolutely zero public interest because it does not affect public policy. End of. Publicising it in the manner Indymedia have done is actually harmful to the psychological well being of the child, which cant be great to begin with.

I agree thats why I've asked UK indymedia to justify this article.

chewy

well your point about credit and avoiding critiscism is that the credit is giving to the individuals as much as possible and indymedia is only one form of open publishing... where if someone post are story it can be corrected by further posters so as the same as the press you don't just read one person point of view and believe... indymedia should be read daily with a good dose of other sources mainstream and alternate and then you make up your own mind...

Sand

I'd like you to back up those allegations of yours....

Sure thing...

Indymedia, when the going is good

The Independent Media Center is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world, despite corporate media's distortions and unwillingness to cover the efforts to free humanity.

Wow - Go Team Indymedia - Fight the power!!!!

Indymedia, when the going is bad...

The Indymedia newswire encourages people to become the media by posting their own articles, analysis and information to the site. Anyone may publish to the newswire, from any computer that is connected to the Internet, by clicking the 'publish' link on the www.indymedia.org page and following the easy instructions. Indymedia relies on the people who post to the Indymedia newswire to present their information in a thorough, honest, accurate manner. While Indymedia reserves the right to develop sections of the site that provide edited articles, there is no designated Indymedia editorial collective that edits articles posted to the www.indymedia.org newswire.

Hey, what happened to "we?" Suddenly theres no one willing to put a hand up and say the buck stops here?

Like I said, I admire the marvellous grey middle ground Indymedia has found where it can celebrate its contribution to the good fight, and yet disown itself when something embarrassing happens - like mocking a potential suicide bid in the Blair household. You lads should give seminars to Fianna Fail TDs

Stories on the wire are checked on IMC ireland againist standard search engines, unsupported allegations, the author is asked to support them, any story on the front page is fact checked and built by volunteers with editorial privledges.

Thats more like it, but I remain confused as to why Indymedia hasnt accepted that you run an editorial policy - In the quote above from the IMC FAQ list, they deny having an editorial policy - all theyre willing to admit to is a group that clean up duplicate postings, commercial advertisements ( ironic ).

Ive seen mention of an apparent editorial policy, but when I try to open the link to it on the publish screens, its dead - Im guessing given the open publishing ideal its no more restrictive than the no dupe postings or commercial advertisements, and if things go bad- we dont know you?

And a second point of note - you run stories against standard search engines - given that the corporate media is attempting a news blackout, and thus can be trusted does this really matter? Or are you just checking it against say blogs?

I agree thats why I've asked UK indymedia to justify this article.

Id be interested to find out how they respond.

well your point about credit and avoiding critiscism is that the credit is giving to the individuals as much as possible and indymedia is only one form of open publishing... where if someone post are story it can be corrected by further posters so as the same as the press you don't just read one person point of view and believe... indymedia should be read daily with a good dose of other sources mainstream and alternate and then you make up your own mind...

I think Ive already dealt with the first half of your post above - the second, the part about reading a lot of sources and making up your own mind is as much common sense as it is a cop out.

After deriding the corporate media, no one is willing to claim the IMC is any more accurate. Why shouldnt I file the IMC away with the News of the World for kitty litter? Ones full of corporate biased crap, and the others full of protestors biased crap.

And guess who was more responsible about this story?

wheels of ire

Oddly enough , although I might be described as a media junkie,this passed me by as I had assumed that the acrage of coverage of pressures of family/work-life balance etc were more bits I could skip.
Then a friend dropped by tonight bearing the same story, and I have now found this on boards, without looking.
I never thought I'd say anything good about the Sun but I would agree the reticence on this story is an unusually good thing.
Butit raises some issues about about privelege, power, and selectivity.
Would the Beckhams kids (if of the right age) get the same treatment ?

seedot

The discussion about what the red tops would have published and whether a b list celeb would get the same privacy was part of the discussion on Indymedia UK when this was published. The decision there was that the story should be hidden - however due to differences in the code behind indymedia ireland and indymedia uk hide means diff. things. You have to search really hard to find a story that has been hidden in indymedia.ie whereas a lot of the sites in the Indymedia network have a diff. version - it doesn't appear on the standard navigation but is still available at the previous url, facilitating linking and appearing on google searches.

Sand makes some valid points about Indymedia - especially the amorphous nature of the network. For many who are involved it is a form of NetWar (TM Rand Corporation - worth a google). One of the key points to remember is that each node makes up its own rules and as long as it abides by some basic principles (non-hierarchical, open publishing) it can devise its own editorial rules and tech solutions. Indymedia.org is probably the worst example to look at editorial policies, since it removed its newswire (the free for all publishing bit) from general view a couple of years ago since it couldn't control the noise to signal ratio. Indymedia.ie is a pretty tightly controlled version - and as an editor I would say it is fairly successful (at what I'll leave to your interpretation - the marketing professional in me could site page views but thats just mine is bigger than yours childishness ;-).

But at least Indymedia encourages discussion on whether a story like this should be published, where the boundaries are and how the decisions are made. Bull**** excuses such as public interest or national security to publish / bury a story are constantly challenged and each individual collective (we're all commies so we have a network of free, autonomous collectives) is constantly revising its rules. If you follow the link you will see not only a story that imho is an intrusion on privacy followed by various mindless attacks on Blair, but also, mixed in, a discussion on when and how an issue like teen suicide attempts should be covered. This is a good thing (the discussion - not, again my personal opinion, the story).

Indymedia may print news you feel is just propaganda. But I believe that so does most of what passes for media - just we're used to that particular message so it is not as obvious. Boards is a technocratic dictatorship - and a well functioning one. Indymedia.ie is a fairly open, benevolent oligarchy. Some sites in the network are anarchistic ghettos or worse - completely uncontrolled spampits. Each is a result of different attitudes to editorial control and as such each contributes to our media awareness.

As for accuracy - you can always improve it. Be the media.

bonkey

wheels of ire wrote:

Would the Beckhams kids (if of the right age) get the same treatment ?

Not a hope - they'd be front-page news.

jc

mycroft

<snip> Sands rebuttal

:eek:

Seriously Sands is that it? two links to FAQ and Mission Statement? Thats your argument?

I'm disappointed. And y'know what? A little hurt. I don't think you're trying

Like I said, I admire the marvellous grey middle ground Indymedia has found where it can celebrate its contribution to the good fight, and yet disown itself when something embarrassing happens - like mocking a potential suicide bid in the Blair household. You lads should give seminars to Fianna Fail TDs

If anything the original mission state of IMC is a little naive. It hopes that the people who post, will post with the same idealism and attitude as the original founders. Unfortuantely as the site was bombarded with Neo Nazis, Conspiracy theorists, Pro Israeli, Pro US, anti US all kind of nuts, the editorial policy had to develop and grow to accept that not everyone feels the same way as the collective.

What the editorial collective do is remove articles that they feel breach their editorial guidelines, and promote and highlight articles they feel promote their worldview, and politics, and are representive of good original journalism.

After deriding the corporate media, no one is willing to claim the IMC is any more accurate. Why shouldnt I file the IMC away with the News of the World for kitty litter? Ones full of corporate biased crap, and the others full of protestors biased crap.

Seedot has answered your question re a matter of code.

I posted this article in news/media (requires free registration) about approaching any media with one eye on the media's bias.

And a second point of note - you run stories against standard search engines - given that the corporate media is attempting a news blackout, and thus can be trusted does this really matter? Or are you just checking it against say blogs?

Jesus Sand and people call us paranoid and suspicious of mainstream media! If the story is in another country, you can always check with it's indymedia. You could join IMC editorial lists were a healthy discussion about the pros and cons of articles and debate over the hiding/promoting of articles