Is the British press biased against Blair?

It’s one of the firmly-held convictions of the former prime minister’s defenders. They’ve even set up a website to combat the tendency.

But is it true? Is the media a pack of Blair-baiters? Last week we got a chance to test the theory. Tony Blair published his memoirs. If the press were irredeemably biased, such a provocative event would surely bring forth an almighty gush of bile and hatred. And the British press would line up, like Blair-hating automatons, to rubbish the man. Wouldn’t they?

Actually that’s not what happened.

Here’s a list of the newspapers which were broadly pro-Blair last week in their editorial lines:

The Telegraph

The Financial Times

The Sun

The Evening Standard

The Economist (from the Bagehot column; not strictly a leader, but close)

And here’s the list of those which were broadly anti.

The Express

The Mirror

The Independent

The Daily Mail

The Guardian was neutral. And of the antis, only the Mail can be characterised as utterly  hostile, refusing to recognise any achievements whatsoever from his time in office.

So what does this teach us? Not much about Blair. But perhaps we should be sceptical of the hysterical argument made by some of his ardent supporters that the media as a whole (rather than some individual organs of the fourth estate) has it in for the man.

Judging from last week, it seems to rather like him.

UPDATE: Forgot to mention The Times in the pro camp. Its leader is behind the paywall but it made Blair sound like a cross between Pericles and Abraham Lincoln, though without their flaws.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye - Breaking views from Independent commentators -

• Paul Volcker stands tall against the banking lobby
• "Not growing inequality"
• A defence of competition in health care
• Prime Ministers shopping
• Bill will survive; Andrew will not