Rewriting war history

Rupert Murdoch (left), with son Lachlan next to him, after Newscorp profits doubled in 2003....
Rupert Murdoch (left), with son Lachlan next to him, after Newscorp profits doubled in 2003. Photo: Reuters.
An editorial written by The Times last month is the closest thing being offered as a defence by News Corp over its papers’ pro-war stance.

Earlier this month, I emailed Robert Thomson, the former editor of The Times and now global  chief executive of News Corp.

Pressing for war story here
Cleaning up Baghdad story here

According to The Independent, Thomson, a publicity-shy Australian, was said to be closer to Murdoch than any other man.

"In 2002 and 2003, crucially, he swung The Times behind the war."

I asked if the pro-war press irresponsibly reported the Government line on Iraq without proper fact-checking, making itself, effectively, an arm of the official propaganda machine.

I also asked him if Rupert Murdoch enforced a pro-war line at The Times and if there was any critical in-house inquiry questioning how the newspapers got it so wrong, especially regarding faulty intelligence, and to prevent it happening again.

News Corp’s New York-based chief communications officer Jim Kennedy replied: "While we appreciate your reaching out, I wanted to let you know that we won’t be commenting on your story."

(Current Sun editor Tony Gallagher didn’t reply to an email for comment. Sun political editor David Wooding, whose byline appeared on the "clean war" story, initially replied saying he was on holiday. "Perhaps you will contact me when I am back in a week’s time as, like you no doubt, I value my unblemished reputation for fair and accurate reporting". He never resurfaced, despite several emails.)

Kennedy shared The Times’ leading article on Chilcot, written on July 7.

It starts: "The Chilcot report will serve as the definitive account of a military experiment that went disastrously wrong for want of basic planning and due diligence."

The Times admitted supporting the decision for war, but rather than a mea culpa, a forensic analysis of having fumbled faulty intelligence or failing to fact-check, the blame was laid at familiar feet.

"We did so on the basis of intelligence on weapons of mass destruction that remained privy to the prime minister and his closest aides but which he insisted, in private as well as public, was incontrovertible. It was anything but."

The leader sees Blair’s comment to Bush "I’m with you whatever" as a secret commitment to war.

It makes no comment on its proprietor’s advances to Blair in March 2003.

The war’s link to a "dodgy" intelligence dossier has, The Times says, "fuelled mistrust of the security services and cynicism about government".

The loss of faith by the public has deepened, The Times says.

It now extends to "the scorn shown for ‘expert’ opinion in the recent Brexit campaign".

That scorn can be pinned to Michael Gove, the former justice secretary who led the Brexit charge with Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson.

Gove said during the Brexit debate: "I think people in this country have had enough of experts."

Who is Michael Gove?

In 2003, he was assistant editor of The Times.

In December 2002, as the calls for war intensified, he wrote: "Why is it that so many of those whose political creed should be driven by the desire to emancipate those who are suffering choose to object to a course of action which would deliver millions from misery?"

Add a Comment