Abridged from the Daily Telegraph:
This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party. We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.
We are proud to be the champion of British business and enterprise. In an age of cheap populism and corrosive cynicism about wealth-creating businesses, we have defended British industries including the financial services industry that accounts for almost a tenth of the UK economy, sustains two million jobs and provides around one in every eight pounds the Exchequer raises in tax.
We will take no lectures about journalism from the likes of the BBC, the Guardian or the Times. Those media outlets that are this week sniping about our coverage of HSBC were similarly dismissive in 2009 when we began to reveal details of MPs’ expenses claims, a fact that speaks volumes about their judgment and partiality.
They have seized with almost indecent glee on the latest allegations – even though many of those allegations are almost a decade old and in many instances have been reported and explored before. We believe we are not alone in our suspicion that those outlets have given this issue such prominence partly because of their deep-seated hostility to business and partly with the intention of doing political harm to the current government and the Conservative Party in particular.
As we have reported extensively, Ed Miliband has missed no opportunity to use this case as a weapon against the Conservatives and their supporters, an attack that he has broadened to take in anyone who takes perfectly legitimate and legal measures to reduce their tax bills.
For the avoidance of any doubt, we have no regard for the opinions of rival media organisations. None is the paragon of moral or journalistic virtue that their criticisms this week might suggest. All have their own self-serving agendas, both political and commercial.
Unlike the BBC, we receive no support from taxpayers. Unlike the Guardian, we are not cushioned from commercial reality by a generously-endowed charitable trust. Unlike the Times, we receive no subsidy from tabloid stablemates. Unlike all three of those, we must generate a profit in order to remain in business and provide our readers with the world-class journalism they expect and deserve. Despite the ever-growing pressures on the media industry, we do produce that profit and, as a direct result, that journalism.
We are proud to do that which our critics cannot or will not do: to combine journalistic excellence with commercial success. We do so for you, our readers. We will continue to do so.
‘Guardian’ has-
“Telegraph owners’ £250m HSBC loan raises fresh questions over coverage.
“Barclay brothers secured loan for loss-making company shortly before Telegraph reporters were allegedly discouraged from running articles critical of HSBC.”
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/19/telegraph-250m-loan-hsbc-editorial-changes-yodel?
Will anyone do an ‘Oborne’ at ‘W1A’, about influence of NUJ on politics?
‘Telegraph’ (£)-
“BBC admits receiving millions in grants from EU and councils.
The BBC received millions of pounds from the European Union and local authorities over the past four years, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.”
(2012.)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/9055183/BBC-admits-receiving-millions-in-grants-from-EU-and-councils.html
But not a word about why ‘Pyscho Seiken’ has driven away a host of Right-wing and libertarian writers and replaced them with the likes of Ridell, Hodges and Sanghani.
Nor of the readers who have followed them.
Still, it shows it stung. Pretty desperate stuff when a former pillar of the establishment feels it needs to proclaim its integrity.
… and replaced them with the likes of Ridell, Hodges and Sanghani
I find Hodges interesting at times, but Sanghani…. Oh dear…
You forgot to include Alice Arnold, wife of Clare Balding, who promotes the Torygraph’s latest ‘value’, feminism.
They say `… We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets.`
hard to see the connection of values with what is written by Ridell, Hodges and Sanghani, and the paper’s new found infatuation with feminism.
I’m still a DT weekday regular, so must declare an interest before commenting.
I thought Mary Riddell was introduced to bring home to us readers just how delusional the Labour Party are and help keep us seeing the Conservatives as the least worst option by far.
Alison Pearson would seem to be a rising star and the deputy editor, (cannot remember his name at present) usually produces a thoughtful piece.
The John Timpson column in the financial section is an absolute joy of common sense, which makes one wish he would be ennobled and bring his experience to bear in the Lords, even if he chose to be a cross bencher.
I have at times got sufficiently annoyed with the DTs lack of effort to support the coalition to consider stopping, but then many buy the paper they do, because it generally aligns with ones take on the world, so are prepared to put their hand in their pocket.
If only we had the same choice as to whether to similarly support the broadcast version of the Guardian …..
I also read the DT & still find it the least bad option for news that hasn’t a left bias. Charles More & Janet Daley speak the most sense of any commentator now,
But what got me seething this morning was on the Today programme when they came to the subject of the Telegraph’s editorial who did they get to comment but that old lefty Roy Greenslade! It beggars belief!