Don, are you implying that Osborne refused to meet Elliott or that the Grauniad censored itself…?

Although, for the life of me, I can’t figure out why Dave and His Chums should give a flying f*rt what the Grauniad says about them…

I’d agree about Elliott being the man to expose the flaws, lies and delusions, but note that he’s not been allowed very near Brown or Darling, either. Nor Myners, for that matter, despite him being formerly of the Guardian Media Group…

This sounds like exactly the kind soft-touch journalism that, to be honest, Labour used to enjoy regularly. The deal between Labour and the media was that ministers would be given articles like this to make big announcements without them being closely scrutinised, and in return the journo/newspaper would get insider access, and scoops. Now the media scent a Conservative victory, the deal is the same, but the players have changed. The liberal media is being noticeably soft on the Tories because they don’t want to be frozen out after the election. Expect a lot more of this sort of thing.

Alas I fear this sort of thing will continue as long as there is an incestuous relationship between politicians and the media.

Written from a true partisan Labour perspective!

It’s just not fair, those middle-class journalists betraying the honest working class masses! They should be put up against a wall and shot!

What’s working class about this thomas?

Labour, supposedly, is working class, Sunny. Or at least that is Don’s perspective – Don’s damning attack on Harris is based on him “making New Labour look timid and in the pockets of the rich.”

But inequality has risen under Labour, so Don’s characterisation of Harris’ conclusion as inaccurate is itself a misrepresentation of the truth.

What about today’s news of further collapses of final salary pension schemes? Is the opposition to blame for that too, or is it the fault of the previous government over 12 years ago?

Where are Don’s facts? He doesn’t have any, so he writes a story about the media’s reflection of reality instead of that reality. If Don is representative of Labour then it is no wonder they are doing so badly – they are hopelessly out of touch!

This is very damning of Harris. Osborne came across in the interview as quite touchy, only willing to touch on certain aspects. I think the many CiF features written by Harris fills in where perhaps his opinion lacked in the interview. At worst, this was how Harris wanted Osborne perceived, someone who stands up to the bankers and gains their support simultaneously. All talk obviously, and didn’t Harris carefully imply this when mentioning inheritance tax?

Hi thomas,

Maybe try the article again, but this time reading the actual words rather than whatever on earth it is that you are on about?

Hi Don,
Maybe try the comment again, but this time notice that I did read the actual words not just the pathetic attempt to defend your indefensible attack – in particular you may notice the use of the quoted reference of your words to indicate an instance of your inaccuracy.

If you are prepared to get off your high horse and provide evidence for your own conclusions I am happy to listen to your critique, but unless and until you do so your response will stand as the nonsense it is for everyone to see.

The phrase ‘churnalism’ used in this context is a plain smear, as it suggests honest reporting would provide partisan judgement on the interview he conducted rather than merely presenting it as it was conducted. Clearly you have jumped to the assumption of John Harris’ own politics and how he should further them. Maybe you have failed to notice that The Guardian is no longer subservient to the Labour party leaderships line.

It would be a fair criticism to attack the particular questions posed or to attack the sub-editor who supplied the headline which fits the editorial perspective you so dislike, but it is symptomatic of your own inaccuracies that you prefer to mount your campaign against the wrong targets.

As it is your article is a distortion of the facts – it was not, in my humble opinion, favorable to the tories, instead it was another negative for your Labour party. However this is problematic for you since you cannot defend Labour from their failure on ‘progressive’ issues (such as the increases in inequality seen under their regime).

Your misplaced partisan loyalty is damning for those you pretend to support and damning for the style and substance of the type of politics you promote.

Just as with the McBride episode, the attempt to deflect damage by twisting the *story* from one about real facts into one about media process is demeaning and dishonest.

You have been caught up in a web of your own making. I pity you.

So forgive me if I demand you live up to the standards you set yourself, you are obviously well-meaning, but you show a stunning incapacity to make strategic choices consistent with your beliefs.