Taking the Blair bait

Alas, I fear my indefatigable colleague John Rentoul is correct when he remarks  that not many people read leading articles. But I don’t think its fair of him to dismiss the evidence I so painstakingly assembled (thanks Google!) quite so casually.

Notwithstanding their disappointing readership, leading articles are a pretty close representation of a newspaper’s political and ideological standpoint. They tend to be the product of close consultation between senior editors and the comment/leading writing team. And those same senior editors, of course, oversee not just the comment pages, but the news and features sections too.

So my question is this:  if “most” British newspapers are infected with “the Blair-hating world view”, as John argues, why would so many leading articles be immune from the sickness?

I don’t deny that several newspapers, not to mention lots of commentators, have it in for Blair. And much of the criticism is grossly over the top. But I also feel that, just as John suggests that those who overestimate the numbers killed in Iraq undermine their own case, he overdoes it when he accuses the British media, as a whole, of being biased against Blair.

Recent Posts on Eagle Eye

• What to do about Syria?
• "It’s almost as if New Labour didn’t happen"
• Top 10 Useful Words For Which English Has No Equivalent
• Blair on Syria, tax and immigration
• Is Cameron an asset to his party?

• takeoman

  Rentoul J. has no interest in facts or evidence,which is why he rarely if ever uses either.
  What do you think that those who underestimate or totally ignore the numbers killed in Iraq do to their case?