On Sunday I posted THIS story which contained a transcript of an interview between Sunday Times journalist Isabel Oakeshott and Oliver Letwin. Isabel's STORY was based on Oliver Letwin supposedly saying that there would be "no limits" to private sector input into the NHS. After CCHQ became aware of the story they issued a complete transcript of the interview which I reprinted. Nowhere was the phrase "no limits" to be found. This had the dual effect of suppressing an embarrassing story and making Isabel Oakeshott's story look dodgy to say the least.
On Tuesday, Isabel phoned me to ask if I would mind listening to her tape of the interview as she felt that my calling her story "preposterous" was highly damaging to her reputation and that CCHQ's transcript was not accurate. I met her in Bournemouth and listened to the relevant part ofthe interview. In fact I listened to it five or six times. Isabel was adamant and convinced that she could hear Oliver uttering words. I wasn't. I could hear that he said something, but it sounded more like a series on 'Nos'. I could not hear the word 'limits'.
But I was troubled. Isabel seemed a genuinely decent person and was obviously quite upset by the whole fuss it had caused. I then got Sam Coates (Tim Montgomerie's deputy on ConHome) to listen to it several times. He thought Letwin had said the words, but again, wasn't sure. I promised Isabel to ponder further.
I then made further enquiries about this and have learned that Isabel's colleague David Cracknell (Sunday Times Political Editor) phoned CCHQ Press Office on Friday and told them that the interview with Letwin was useless because they couldn't get a story from it. Stranger and stranger then that they put this so-called "non story" on the front page.
My conclusion from this is that it's a situation where both sides genuinely believe they have right on their side. Isabel clearly believes that Letwin said it, while CCHQ are vehement he did not. The BBC has listened to the tape and believe that Letwin said it, while The Times's Sam Coates (not the same one as mentioned above!) wrote a STORY saying he had listened to it but couldn't tell what was said.
Isabel Oakeshott is clearly aggrieved and I understand why, but the evidence on both sides is inconclusive. So my only advice to her is to buy a better quality tape recorder and don't speak over her interviewee's answers!
37 comments:
Good advice Iain.
However is it not labours position (OR at least Tony's) that their hsould be no limits?
On another note, is there any way a person whose blog is listed in your estemed publication to get a free copy if they could not attend a conference?
BTW, how did that publication go down?
Hmmm - that's what comes of muttering vaguely about vapourware policies...:)
The crocodile cries because he cannot eat you.
Bullies always feel extraordinarily sorry for themselves.
Sympathy fatigue.
Why not just ask Letwin to clarify?
She feels aggreived ?"Thats a lie !!!!"
(One of many with this thought I suspect)
Noteworthy though that the BBC has started publishing full transcripts of every interview with Letwin it conducts. I'm afraid it all rather confirms the view many have of Letwin's slightly shaky connection with let's call it "accurate recall" of positions he holds.
Poor Cameron - he's got a buffoon (BJ) and a liar (OL) in the forefront of the public eye when he's trying to make serious headway. All rather goes to show how shallow the senior Conservative talent pool is in the current smaller parliamentary Tory party - they really need about 50 or 60 talented new MPs to make up a proper government. Judging from the ludicrous A-listers we're seeing so far like the memorably absurd 1950's upper-crust cardboard cutout Rees-Moggs, one wonders if this can happen. Alas, another 5 years of NL under the loathsome GB beckons....
Get the audio (just the relevant 20 seconds or so) and post it here, or broadcast it on 18 Doughty St, and then put it to the vote. I'm itching to give my two cents and I'm sure others are too.
But David Cameron at the first Built to Last roadshow in W London that I attended said that he thought Labour's 15% limit on private sector involvement in the NHS was arbitrary, and that he did not wish to go down the road of setting limits to private sector provision of NHS work. I can't understand what the fuss is about. That event was recorded by a cameraman (for the BBC?).
I really cannot understand the fuss. Surely if Letwin believes that the provider of the service is irrelevant, who receives the service and how they receive it is what matters, why would he object to the words "no limit"? It is a classic free market position and one that regrettably, as benedict points out, seems to be New Labour's position also. It seems to me to be yet another example of the Cameroonies going for style and spin over substance.
Just ask Letwin if he really said it, and put the audio on here if you can. anything else is just a waste of time.
The last time this happened to Letwin did he not "go to ground" erecting posters?
Is he being held in the same "safe house" as Goldsmith?
nsfl-couldn't the team that sorted out the moon landing sort this one?
Of course Andrew Lansley on the Today programme yesterday morning was asked whether there should be limits and clearly said no. If it is such a big thing that Letwin didn't say there should be no limits (as is being argued by CCO) why hasn't Lansley back tracked?
Post the audio on-line - if they don't or can't post the audio they should retract the story and apologise.
Until they do they that they pair of them come across as monumental mischief makers whose reputation deserves to be drag thru the political gutters.
ANON. SAID
( Why anon ?)
`Conservative talent pool is in the current smaller parliamentary Tory party - they really need about 50 or 60 talented new MPs to make up a proper government`
Yes but not just the Conservative Party, the whole of political life is going to pot due to the utter exclusion from it of just about anyone with any expierience wit or ideas .
How do we solve this when the next round of tedious yes-wimmin and please-men are even now grovelling their way into onanistic policy talking shops and wasting everyones time practising at local level .
I have tried to do something as a gesture about this by applying to stand for Mayor . From all I read here such a gesture is well timed and ...lets face it as a blind baboon ccould do better than KL .. why not ?
Perhaps new media will eventually undercut this frothy scum settling at the top of the country
Oakshott was clearly trying to damage the Tories as she kept pressing Letwin on "no limits". The trouble with intellectuals like Letwin is that they rarely have political commonsence ( a shit-detector) and think they can have a civilised chat with someone from a hostile newspaper.
Sarah Montague was at it on the Today Programme when she kept pressing George Osborne: "Are you ruling out tax rises?"
Osborne (being honest) had to concede,"no" and predictably, the headline at 9 0clock was "George Osborne doesn't rule out tax rises under the Tories".
Osborne saw off the worst offender, the slimeball Andrew Neil, just after Cameron's speech, but Letwin, I'm afraid, shouldn't be let out on his own.
Or perhaps she should change her Coates more often.
Check out Blogonymous.
Is this what government is going to be like? Once again, w.r.t the meedja it's much easier to get a right-wing agenda through if you have the label of Labour rather than Tory.
Tony and Cherie go for a little walk around the gardens of No.10. Suddenly,Tony wips off her knickers and throws them to the ground.Cherie: 'Tony,you randy devil,what about the security cameras?'Tony:'Sorry darling.There's a wet patch on the grass and I don't want to get my shoes dirty.'
It's certainly a tricky one.
I hope he didn't say "no limits, no", doctoring transcripts (I can see how they thought they could have got away with it if so) is a serious business, but...
I can't think what else he could have said to match the sound I heard, Isabel's reaction seems very sincere, and the rest of his answer fits with him starting of by saying "no limits no".
Nothing that could be held up in court, but definitely enough to create a lot of room for doubt.
Iain good new poster for the Tories on Recess Monkey; your sure to love it!
Iain, "Isabel Oakeshott is clearly aggrieved and I understand why, but the evidence on both sides is inconclusive." Why? If OL had clearly and unequivically said that on tape I could understand her point of view. If you and Sam can't even agree on the recording then he didn't!
Now on other matters, we have had Guido's drunken reports from Bournemouth, so how about a post on being sober with a drunken Guido?
I agree that is good advice, but on the other hand these are not unintelligent people, so why would he say soemthign he KNEW was being recorded, and then deny he had said it?
Labour seems to have no limits, even down to hundreds of thousands, if not million plus by now, of operations in the NHS being carried out in the FRENCH private sector.
Like Bliar having his NI press conference in the middle of what he knew would be Camerons speech, which also BTW showed how petty and vindictive a little shite Bliar is, or close to it, this is Labour clutching at straws.
This is a stupid situation for the Times to be in. Are you telling us that they took one 'comment', and built a story around that! Surely, if this is what she thought she heard she should have clarified, asked him to explain, and allowed him to expand (especially as, if Letwin did say the words 'no limits', it was in complete contrast to everything the party has been saying over the past year). That way, he would have been able to explain what he meant.
I am afraid the blame lies with the dizzy journo who was probably thinking 'scooptastic', and not 'hang-on, let's make sure I heard him corectly'.
This is a sad endibtment of modern journalism. It would not have happened 20 years ago. Journos used to chaeck their facts and get them verified. These days it all driven by competativeness and journos rushing for a headline.
That is why we so often get two papers talking to the same politician, but coming out with completely different stories!
I suspect that Ms. Oakshot is on the rack, and looking for a way out!
I'd sack her if I was the editor. This is a basic mistake which is pretty unforgivable. And I am a pretty unforgiving type of guy!
That should read 'pretty FORGIVING' kind of guy. Must learn not to type so soon after drinking coffee!!! Wheeeee!
Why don't you get her to post the relevant part of the interview online and people can hear for themselves? Transcripts are always one person's interpretation of an interview, if only the transcriptionist's. My mother was in medical transcription for twenty years, and you would not believe the number of times she had to go back and listen to the dictation tapes herself. This is why a good records department won't erase the tapes for a good while.
Thrvtranscript shows the hack checked the no limits comment actually. That sometimes people talk over tape recordings and things are muffled is hardly revelatory. If the BBC, with all their audio technology listened to the tape and said quite caterogically the "no limits," comment was on it, why should anyone else doubt it, particularly when Letwin is known for his gafftastic tendencies?
And what part of anything he said subsequently was at odds with the no limits comment? Nothing at all. I agree with Iain; get a better tape recorder and don't blather over the importnat bits Ms Oakeshott. Otherwise well done. Great story. As for Mr Yalland; 20 years ago you were 17 and probably didn't have a clue about anything, let alone the morals and standards of journalism. I suspect you are a bit of a twat.
If the BBC, with all their audio technology listened to the tape and said quite caterogically the "no limits," comment was on it, why should anyone else doubt it
You are not seriously suggesting the BBC are either competent or unbiased are you?
This is a non-story cooked up by a second rate journo looking for a scoop and a bonus after spending a boring few weeks at conferences.
hangon: Yea? Really? What do you actually know mate?
(1) 20 years ago I was as active in politics as I am now (I was a member of the Young Conservatives) and used to avidly read the papers, watch 'here today and gone tomorrow' John Knot walk out of interviews, and bore my family with my opinions (that hasn't changed BTW).
(2)As a result of this long standing interst in current affairs which started with the death of Bobby Sands (when I was about 9), I actually studied politics at Uni and spent a year researching the changes in political reporting and journalism in the post war era (want me to list my findings for you?), which involved interviewing journalists and politicians.
(3)I have been a press officer for over a decade, working for Tory MEPs, National Air Traffic Services, and I was also the senior press officer for the Countryisde Alliance for many years! I sat in on MANY interviews just like the one that Oakshot had with Letwin, and I know how many times journalists come back to check their notes, how often they get the wrong end of the stick, and how often the rush to file copy without clarifying things and causing bust-ups as a result. Yes people go off mesage in interviews - but any jouro worth his/her salt would pick-up on that and clarify before rushing the story to print. Not least of all as there is nothing more embarrasing or damaging to a hacks reputation than someone saying 'er...I didn't actually say that and here is a transcript of the interview which I think proves I didn't'.
The very fact that press officers are now recording interviews (which only journalists used to do) shows the way that the trust between journalists and profesional press officers has been reduced is an interesting fact, don't you think! When I started out we would take rough notes - these days we parcticly make afadavits, so concered are we that we will be misquoted!
A simple 'Adrian, on what basis do you draw your opinions' would have revealed all this without you resorting to insults and looking like an arsehole!
Check your facts before diving into the gutter - or else you might not like where you land!
I would like to think you would apologise for your uncalled for rudeness, but I won't hold my breath!
A bonus? laughable concept. You have no idea do you? And what do you know about journalistic mores 20 years ago? You were 17 and as clueless then as you are now. Go off and shoot something, you'll feel better.
bongo: You really are a silly little boy/girl aren't you!
Read the above post which expains what I know about the 'journalistic mores' of 20 years ago! I researced the subject as part of my Uni dissertation!
I also spent ten years plus working as press officer and dealing with both good and bad hacks every day!
Argue the point and not the person!
There are still many good journos who check and double check their facts, but on the whole, standards of political journalism have declined. This has been fuelled by increasing competativeness in the media, 24 hours rolling news reporting, the internet - and numerous other things - including the fact that journalists now feel more insecure in their profession and pressured to produce 'scooptastic' stories rather than factually accurate news.
I would go on, but some people aren't worth the effort!
re adrian Yalland..
press officer = failed hack. sorry....
Hangon: you've flushed out a real trainspotter here.
Press officer = failed hack.
Sorry..........
Little Black Sambo Sad isn't it!!!
Letwin made it pretty clear on QT.
There arent any limits really, is what he's saying..
Civil Servent : I think you are confusing me with Alastair Cambpell! I have however often felt that the relationship between the press officer and the journalist is akin to that relationship between a dung-beetle and the dung! I just can't decide who is the beetle and who is the turd!
Post a Comment