Tom Watson MP has criticised the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson for giving News International and former News Of The World editor-turned Tory spin doctor Andy Coulson an easy ride over phone hacking allegations.
But anybody reading the story on the Telegraph's website will have had to fill in some blanks. The paper quotes a letter written by Watson to the Society of Editors:
"We found it 'inconceivable' that others were not involved in hacking. Where was Nick Robinson, the most powerful political editor in the land, during this period? Kissing Andy Coulson's a---."
Obviously the censored word is "arse". But at the tail-end of 2011 can the Telegraph really not bring itself to publish that word? Would the delicate conservatives of middle England really be swooning at the sight of Tom Watson's "arse" staring back at them from the pages of the Telegraph?
More importantly, isn't it integral to the accuracy of the story?
After all, if the story is that Watson has criticised Robinson isn't the nature of his criticism and the exact words chosen, central to the reporting of the story? And given it was reporting the words of a letter written by Watson, we might wrongly assume the censorship was Watson's. It wasn't, Watson was pulling no punches.
You can read Watson's full uncensored letter here.
Isn't it obvious by now that the inquiry has become The Tom Watson Show?
And what was Mr Watson doing during The Great Expenses Scandal?
Posted by: Andy Brim | Nov 15, 2011 at 00:05
I think Telegraph is just doing its job. Avoiding a lawsuit is better than publishing the actual word.
Posted by: BB Guns UK | Nov 17, 2011 at 11:39