Mirror faces questions after Newmark honeytrap sting

NEW press watchdog IPSO faces its first major test after a formal complaint by Conservative MP Mark Pritchard against the Sunday Mirror.

Mr Pritchard said the newspaper had used "questionable techniques" to obtain explicit pictures from fellow Conservative Brooks Newmark who resigned from his post in the Cabinet Office.

In the sting, a male freelance reporter adopted the false identity of "Sophie Wittams" and set up a Twitter account describing himself as a "twenty-something Tory PR girl".

Following flattering messages from the mysterious Ms Wittams, Mr Newmark agreed to swap "sexually explicit images".

But, of course, Mr Newmark did not receive an image in return of Ms Wittams, instead receiving a "sunbathing selfie" of Charlene Tyler, a 26-year-old from Boston in Lincolnshire.

Ms Tyler told the Daily Telegraph yesterday it was wrong for the paper to have used her photo without permission, and that Mr Newmark had done nothing wrong.

However, this was not the only image to have been used by the freelancer without permission.

The avatar of the fictional Twitter account with which Mr Newmark communicated was a picture of Swedish model Malin Sahlén.

And she has told Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet: “I do not want to be exploited in this way and that someone has used my image like this feels really awful, both for me and the others involved in this.

“I am shocked and it is unpleasant for someone to use the picture without permission.”

Sunday Mirror editor-in-chief Lloyd Embley has now apologised to both women, explaining: “We thought that pictures used by the investigation were posed by models, but we now know that some real pictures were used.

"At no point has the Sunday Mirror published any of these images, but we would like to apologise to the women involved for their use in the investigation."

Nevertheless, the newspaper boss stood by the story, claiming it was in the public interest.

The public interest defence is much used by newspapers and, in this case, it mainly relates to Mr Newmark's role as co-founder of the Women2Win organisation.

Women2Win is aimed at attracting more Conservative women to Parliament - and the Sunday Mirror will argue Mr Newmark's conduct contradicts this position.

Based on previous rulings, though, the newspaper would appear to have a pretty weak case, if nothing else because of the use of entrapment.

"Fishing expeditions", as they are known, must surely carry a more substantial public interest argument than this. Even the Sun and the Mail have said they turned the story down.

Ultimately, the article has done no favours to any of the parties involved. Mr Newmark has lost his ministerial salary and must try to rebuild trust with his wife and five children.

Meanwhile, the Conservatives have suffered an awful start to their party conference in Birmingham, a double-whammy coming in the form of Mark Reckless's decision to defect to UKIP.

MP for Rochester and Stroud, Mr Reckless became the second Tory to resign and seek re-election on the UKIP platform after Douglas Carswell's move in Clacton just over a month ago.

Finally, this story has done nothing to rebuild the already-pathetically low levels of trust between the national press and the public.

Coincidentally, it came at the end of a week in which it became apparent the same Trinity Mirror group of newspapers was also heavily involved in phone-hacking.

Phone-hacking, fishing expeditions, honey-traps - all of them are bound to produce a juicy story - but are any of them actually news?

Proper journalism sticks to the facts of what has actually happened or discloses serious levels of hypocrisy and/or incompetence.

It does not seek to manufacture the story for its own monetary gain.

Irresponsible reporting on suicide

THE NEWS of the suicide of much-loved actor and comedian Robin Williams has unsurprisingly generated a huge response from the media over the past couple of days.

A lot of it has been a genuinely heart-warming remembrance of a hugely talented man who played a big part in my childhood for his roles in Mrs Doubtfire, Jumanji, Aladdin and Flubber.

And there were, of course, many, many others.

Williams' greatest success came in his portrayal of a psychiatrist in Good Will Hunting, for which he won an Oscar in 1997 as Best Supporting Actor.

But, while there is much to eulogise about the fine catalogue of work which he has left behind, it is massively disappointing to see the front pages of several of the tabloids this morning have instead focused heavily on the nature of his death.

Worse still, the biggest culprits have shown scant regard for the well-thought-out general advice provided by the Samaritans on the reporting of this sensitive topic.

"Tortured" is the prominent, one-word headline on the front of the Mirror - while the sub-heads carry speculation that money troubles were the trigger for the suicide.

The Daily Mail has reserved the whole of its front page for Williams - but again concerns itself solely with unconfirmed speculation surrounding his passing.

Meanwhile, the Sun and the Daily Star - as well as, surprisingly, the normally more reserved Metro free-sheet - all use dramatic language and describe in some detail exactly how he took his own life.

Even though it really should not matter how he did it - or why he did it.

Indeed, it simply does not matter. For, while journalists are admittedly usually there to explain how or why events have occurred, in this case and other similar ones, reporting the fact that he did it and that it is newsworthy because of his talent really should be enough.

Moreover, beyond the fact that Williams had depression, trying to guess at a trigger at this stage - even if it is a so-called 'educated' guess - is truly nonsensical, and actually not at all classy.

After all, ultimately only he knows exactly what thought processes he was going through.
 
Thankfully, some of the broadsheet newspapers produced some more thoughtful coverage.

The Guardian still dedicates a significant proportion of its front page to Williams - but simply reflects, in classy pictorial form, on his comedic versatility. A tribute from Russell Brand sits neatly below.

A further tribute is posted in the Times pull-out, the T2, a small mention of which is made in the strap-line at the top of the front page just below the masthead.

Credit where it is due, then, to those sensible editors who have perhaps taken a bit of thought before laying out the front of their newspaper.

Now, if only the tabloids would follow suit and end their rather grisly attempts at one-upmanship, determined by sensationalism and nothing more.

From today's evidence, though, there is fat chance of it happening any time soon - and so I'm off to watch Williams as the unforgettable Euphegenia Doubtfire.

You never know, it might just cheer me up.

RIP Robin McLaurin Williams (1951-2014), aged 63. May you never lose your little spark of madness.

Samaritans

08457909090 

Available 24 hours-a-day, 365 days-a-year to provide confidential emotional support for people who are experiencing feelings of distress, despair or suicidal thoughts.

Nothing to fear?

NEWSPAPERS have nothing to fear from the regulatory Royal charter drawn up by the three main parties at Westminster according to shadow culture secretary, Harriet Harman.

So why, then, is there still so much resistance from the Fourth Estate to the proposal almost a year on from the published report following the Leveson Inquiry?

Leading the charge against, Daily Mail editor Paul Dacre has claimed that the row last week between his paper and Labour leader Ed Miliband showed exactly why politicians should not be involved in press regulation.

Mr Dacre wrote in his own newspaper and in the Guardian: "Some have argued that last week's brouhaha shows the need for statutory press regulation. I would argue the opposite.

"The febrile heat, hatred, irrationality and prejudice provoked by last week's row reveals why politicians must not be allowed anywhere near press regulation."

Indeed, it could be added, perhaps slightly flippantly, that the consensus between the political parties is the perfect reason why the charter should be rejected.

Moreover, this is hardly a lone crusade by the Mail. Inevitably, the Murdoch-owned pair - the Sun and the Times - are against the plans... but then so is the left-wing daily, the Mirror.

The Telegraph and the Express are also opposed - and so, quite clearly, is the editor of Private Eye, Ian Hislop following his rant on the latest episode of Have I Got News For You.

The only notable outsiders are the Guardian, which is tentatively in support of the Royal charter, and the Independent, which wrote in an editorial: "To ignore the Royal charter would mock the very democracy the press claims to guard."

And the biggest problem for the press is that this is one of those seemingly rare occasions where the politicians are actually carrying out the will of the majority of the British public.

After all, it must be remembered exactly the context in which the whole debate on the future of the press began.

It began, of course, with the shocking revelations in July 2011 that the now-defunct News of the World had hacked the phone of the murdered teenager Milly Dowler.

Many other complainants had already come forward. The majority at first, like Hugh Grant and JK Rowling, were already in the public eye.

However, after the Dowler revelations, others then became aware that they had also been victims - and many of them, like the falsely-accused Christopher Jefferies, were categorically not.

Ever since, unsurprisingly, the tide of opinion has been against the newspaper industry. On this matter, it had effectively lost the moral high ground.

Yes, the newspapers can point out that the likes of Mr Grant and Mr Jefferies gained recourse in the courts within the existing legal framework - and, in suggesting statutory regulation, this was something which Sir Brian Leveson seemed to disregard far too easily.

But, whatever Mr Dacre and others claim, the above fact is exactly why the Prime Minister David Cameron insisted on a Royal charter, rather than a whole new set of laws.

In other words, the existing framework is generally accepted to work just fine - but there simply must be more done to make the press more accountable.

After all, none of what has actually been proposed would have prevented the Mail from publishing slurs about Mr Miliband's dead father or, more importantly, stories like the Telegraph uncovering the MPs' expenses scandal.

Happily, the draft proposals also include a vital opt-out for local and regional newspapers which even Sir Brian found to be rarely in the wrong.

And all of it is far superior to the rejected newspaper industry's alternative charter - which was frankly little more than a rehash of the failed and discredited Press Complaints Commission.

Quite predictably, there have already been howls of anguish that the proposed Royal charter is the end of the 'free press' as we know it.

This is a pretty bizarre assessment considering that much of the national media is so 'free' that it rests in the hands of just a few wealthy men...

And, sadly for journalism, the cliché that you should not believe everything you read in the papers is particularly true of the reporting of the Royal charter.

The proposals will be put to the Privy Council for final agreement on 30 October.

The Sun takes the paywall plunge

THE SUN newspaper took a momentous step yesterday by joining its Murdoch stablemates, the Times and the Sunday Times, and putting its online content behind a paywall.

Subscribers will have to pay £2 per week for access to Sun+, the website version of Britain's biggest selling paper.

But, while the stats have shown for years that the Sun has been a success off the news stands, it has begun its online revolution from a rather low base.

Recent figures put the pre-paywall Sun website readers on 1.8million unique browsers per day. This compares poorly to the market leader, the still-free Mail Online of the Daily Mail, which attracts an average of 8.1million visitors.

Meanwhile, the Guardian - with 4.8millions daily users - comes next, ahead of the Daily Telegraph, with 2.7million.

As direct tabloid rivals, though, it will be the increase in the Daily Mirror's online traffic which would have been of most concern to the Sun.

Even before the paywall was erected, the Mirror had made a march on the Sun - and, yesterday, it cleverly used the front page of its website to declare "the best things in life are free".

So what does the Sun have to offer to tempt subscribers?

Easily the biggest booty which has been publicised is the newspaper's £30m+ investment in Premier League highlights.

It is an apparently a good enough move that media commentator Steve Hewlett "can see [it] working" - but I remain a lot more sceptical.

For a start, the BBC's Match of the Day will show exactly the same goals a little later but on a free-to-air basis.

And, for anyone out on the town on a Saturday night or too hungover to watch the Sunday morning repeat, MotD will even be on iPlayer for the first time in this coming season.

As for the Sun's other potential unique selling points... Want breaking news? Then, look no further than the BBC or Sky websites.

Desiring a right-wing rant against immigrants or welfare 'scroungers'? Try the Mail Online, if you must. There, you will also find enough vacuous celeb gossip to preclude the need for the Sun.

Finally, charging for Page 3 tits - on the internet of all places - just sounds totally ludicrous.

Of course, the Sun - and its new editor David Dinsmore - could prove me wrong - and, indeed, the whole journalism industry remains optimistic that some sort of paywall scheme could work.

Already, though, some of the Sun's biggest-name retail advertisers, such as Tesco, Currys and Marks & Spencers, are holding fire on running activity on the Sun+ - at least until it can prove that it has sustained evidence that it is reaching its ambitious subscriber targets.

The Sun has responded by launching an ad campaign of its own, but the £10m spent there just adds to the spiralling costs which will need to be recouped by getting readers on board.

Estimates suggest the Sun will need to attract more than 250,000 subscribers to cover the loss of online advertising and make back its outlay on the digital Premier League football.

It will do well to get anywhere near that. The website of Rupert Murdoch's other daily News UK title, the Times, went behind a paywall in July 2010 and is ailing badly, reaching fewer readers now than the Independent and the London Evening Standard.

The crux of the matter seems to be that, unlike those of other major newspapers, the News UK websites do not give away any content for free.

By contrast, in March, the Telegraph began employing a metered paywall which allows a limit of 20 free articles before those wanting more are invited to take out a free trial subscription, and then a paid one, from a cost of £2 a week.

This allows casual consumers of the Telegraph, like myself, to pass by the website every now and then, with more ardent readers having to subscribe.

So far, the tactic has been pretty successful with no discernible downturn in traffic, and perhaps a metered paywall is the way forward for newspapers looking to make money from its online content.

All the while, the Sun - and the Times - are having to rely entirely on the loyalty and goodwill of their readers. Good luck to them with that.

The boy in the bubble

THE ALMOST continual media coverage of the birth of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge's first child has finally started to settle down in the wake of some actual news happening.

By contrast, on Monday, it was relentless and largely unwatchable.

From the breakfast announcement that Kate had gone into labour and been taken to the private Lindo wing of St Mary's hospital in London - to the moment, 10 hours later, that she had popped out an 8lb 6oz sprog - the likes of the BBC and Sky provided all-day coverage of... nothing much.

That much was confirmed by the brilliantly frank BBC royal correspondent Simon McCoy, who was forced to wait outside the hospital to report on any news.

He admitted on air: "Plenty more to come from here, of course - none of it news because that will come from Buckingham Palace but that won't stop us."

Meanwhile, this was - we were told by Prime Minister David Cameron - "a very exciting occasion and the whole country is excited". 

And it was certainly afforded the sort of breathless coverage - both at home and, in fairness, elsewhere around the world - which befits a landmark event.

Surely, though, there was far too much fuss over what was - on a basic level - a woman in childbirth, something which has been happening for thousands of years.

Private Eye perhaps best summed up the arrival of the third-in-line to the throne on the front page of its latest edition, which states simply in large letters - "WOMAN HAS BABY" - adding in tiny print at the bottom, "INSIDE: Some other stuff".

Of course, for the likes of the Sun and the Daily Mail, baby George Alexander Louis was gold dust in the generally quiet summer season.

Top cringe marks must go to the Sun for taking the unprecedented step of changing its masthead for the day to 'The Son'.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail website benefited from its biggest ever audience - 10.5m unique users, and its print edition was unsurprisingly a "Royal Baby Souvenir Special".

Amusingly, though, in the midst of the copious amounts of print, the Mail had the nerve to criticise the BBC for its over-the-top coverage. Incredible.

At least those looking for an alternative view would have found some job with the Mirror and the mini version of the Independent.

The Mirror, though joining in the gushing of the new royal in its editorial, gave room to republican commentator Brian Reade - while, rather pointedly, 'The I' led with the headline: "Born to Rule".

Media Guardian commentator Roy Greenslade has claimed that the media was simply "giving people what they want" - and it is true that the baby has arrived at a time when the royal family is riding a wave of popularity.

An Ipsos Mori poll last week showed 77% of Britons were in favour of remaining a monarchy over a republic, close to its best-ever level of support.

However, another poll, by Yougov, found that only 14% of UK adults were "very interested" and 32% were "somewhat interested" in the royal baby.

As you may have guessed from the tone of this post, I fell into neither of those groups - though I should point out that this does not necessarily make me a strident republican either. It really was just too much coverage for something which is relatively insignificant to me.

Indeed, I have watched and read less news this week than in a long time but I will always remember it as a few days that Britain went baby bonkers.

And there has not even been the Sunday features or the ITV documentaries yet...

Superinjunction farce leaves Giggs exposed

THE WORST-kept secret in Britain was blown out the water yesterday when a Liberal Democrat MP used parliamentary privilege to expose Ryan Giggs as the married Premier League footballer hiding his affair behind a superinjunction.

John Hemming, MP for Birmingham Yardley, revealed that Giggs was the man at the centre of the gagging order during an urgent questions session at the House of Commons.

But, while Mr Hemming's revelation was an unexpected part of the debate, it came as no great surprise to the many people who were already aware of Giggs' name being used in relation to this on Twitter.

Mr Hemming was able to make his statement without fear of prosecution for contempt of court as he is afforded the protection of absolute privilege in the Commons.

However, that protection does not extend to the media in areas of strict liability such as contempt.

And so that meant the BBC was originally in the frankly farcical position of being able to tell us an MP had blown Giggs' cover but without using the Welsh footballer's name.

Meanwhile, the superinjunction officially remained in place, much to the frustration of the Sun newspaper who had appealed twice to the High Court to have it removed - but failed both times.

The second of these failures came just minutes before Mr Hemming stood to speak in the Commons. 

And so, this morning, in a rare show of unity in strength by the national press - albeit perhaps an unintentional one - every newspaper had Giggs on its front page.

But, despite the Sun's attempts in the courts, top marks must actually go to the sub editors at the Mirror for their brilliant pun, 'Naming Private Ryan'.

Of course, Giggs is not the only philanderer failing to keep his name out of the public eye with the use of a superinjunction.

Last week, the former boss of collapsed bank RBS, Fred Goodwin, was similarly 'outed' in Parliament when Lib Dem peer Lord Stoneham used absolute privilege to reveal his name during a debate in the Lords.

And, earlier this month, BBC presenter Andrew Marr was technically in contempt of his own gagging order after he performed a spectacular U-turn by revealing the details of his affair himself.

"I did not come into journalism to go around gagging journalists," Marr told the Daily Mail, rendering his superinjunction invalid.

But, as the latest issue of Private Eye magazine succinctly pointed out, he had in fact spent the last three years of his career doing exactly that.

Now, the real issue here - as is often the case with media furores - is one of the public interest - i.e. is it in the public interest that people know about these affairs or is the right to a private life a more important consideration?

Well, the answer usually lies somewhere in between but, in the Marr case, the superinjunction should surely never have been imposed as the sheer hypocrisy of it absolutely wreaked.

As Private Eye notes, Marr is "a hack of three decades-standing, a respected writer on the history of journalism and a former political editor responsible for countless ministerial grillings".

And the satirical fortnightly magazine also reveals a Marr quote in which he opposes exactly the sort of gagging order which he himself had used.

"There is an argument about whether to allow a judge-made law to accumulate or to have a clean, honest, open debate in Parliament," Marr has said.

"I'm on enough of a traditionalist to believe that is what should happen rather than allow it to be settled by judges."

As for the other cases detailed in this blog, there is a compelling argument for Goodwin's injunction being overturned in that his affair took place in the months leading up to the collapse of his ailing bank.

The Giggs case is less clear cut than those of 'jug ears' Marr and Fred 'the Bed' Goodwin - but it is still wrong that some rich people use the law as a playtoy while other less fortunate have their private lives exposed.

Of course, the three cases mentioned here are just a drop in an ocean of gagging orders.

For a start, Private Eye states it is aware of no fewer than 53 superinjunctions and the nature of these instruments often means that the media cannot even mention that there is a court order in place.

Perhaps most importantly, it should be pointed out that not all of these injunctions will simply be a Who's Who gallery of shaggers.

Some of the orders will be protecting companies like Trafigura who used a superinjunction to hide the fact that they had been charged with dumping toxic waste off the coast of west Africa.

In line with events this week, this gag was also unmasked by a combination of 'mischievous' Twitter users and Paul Farrelly MP in Parliament.

It is becoming pretty clear that even superinjunctions are no guarantor of keeping your name out of the public spotlight.

That news will not sadden any journalists out there - especially considering the fact that these gagging orders are often evidently being used when the details are in the public interest.

Perhaps those who feel they have been mistreated by the media should use the law already in place to make their point, rather than hiding behind the gagging orders.

For the avoidance of doubt, the existing law is article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights - the right to privacy...

This is balanced, of course, by article 10 - the right to freedom of expression.

Forty years of The Sun

THE SUN celebrated forty years as a tabloid today in typically brash style with pull-outs, celebrity interviews and prime-time television advertisements.

It has a chequered history, to say the least, but remains Britain's most popular daily with just under three million sales and a readership of almost eight million.

The tabloid version of the paper was actually pre-dated by a broadsheet which had replaced the loss-making Daily Herald in 1964.

The broadsheet continued to lose circulation and money which led to owners International Press Corporation putting it up for sale.

Enter Rupert Murdoch. He had recently acquired the News Of The World and was looking to add a daily as a stable mate.

The Daily Herald had been a Labour-supporting newspaper and Murdoch vowed to retain its political allegiance, appointing socialist Larry Lamb as its first editor.

But that all changed in the late 1970s when the James Callaghan government stumbled from one crisis to the next.

The Sun switched sides in the run-up to the 1979 election and left its readers in no doubt that it thought they should do the same.

'Vote Tory This Time' was its unequivocal headline and the public duly did so, giving Margaret Thatcher a landslide election win.

Kelvin McKenzie became editor in 1981 and remained loyal to the Conservatives throughout Mrs Thatcher's premiership in the 1980s.

Notably, it supported the government during the Miners' Strike and, later in the decade, the introduction of the poll tax which would effectively bring to an end the Thatcher era.

The 1980s would also feature a circulation war between The Sun and The Daily Mirror with price cuts and an emphasis on brash headlines.

The battle with The Daily Mirror explains, partly at least, why The Sun became more jingoistic than previously.

On the sinking of Argentine gunboat Belgrano during the Falklands War, 'Gotcha' was the front-page headline.

Labour leaders Michael Foot and Neil Kinnock were lampooned mercilessly alongside other figures on the Left of British politics.

Mr Foot was judged as being too old before the 1983 election but The Sun supported the re-election of conservative Ronald Reagan to the US Presidency a year later.

This was despite the fact that President Reagan was two years older than Mr Foot.

During the Miners' Strike, The Sun prepared a front-page with a photograph which made Trade Union leader Arthur Scargill look like he was doing Nazi salute.

The printers, in disgust, refused to publish it. But they would be the next victims when Murdoch moved the paper to Wapping and nearly all of them lost their jobs.

On the back pages, England football manager Bobby Robson also suffered as a result of the tabloid war with false allegations about his private life.

After a 0-0 draw with Saudi Arabia in the build-up to World Cup 1990, the paper pleaded, 'In The Name Of Allah, Go!' Robson would lead England to the semi-finals.

His successor Graham Taylor got an even worse press as an ageing England team struggled at the Euro 92 finals and failed to qualify for World Cup 1994.

After failing to beat Sweden in 1992, Taylor was branded a 'turnip'. His face was super-imposed on a picture of a turnip on account he could not beat the Swedes, a pun on the other root vegetable.

It was an image which stuck in the mind of the public and, undoubtedly, it dealt a blow to Taylor's reputation for the rest of his time in charge.

But McKenzie's most shameful football moment came in 1989 when, under the headline 'The Truth', The Sun reported on the tragic events at Hillsborough Stadium.

It blamed Liverpool fans for causing a crush which killed 92 people and accused the fans of robbing the victims and preventing them from receiving help even though the opposite was true.

The Sun's sales figures on Liverpool have never recovered since, even when the paper hit its record high circulation in November 1995 of 4.8 million copies.

The birth of the Internet and 24-hour news broadcasts put an end to those kinds of figures. But The Sun remains powerful in political circles.

After its switch in 1979 and the successful prediction in 1992 that John Major would gain an unlikely election victory, The Sun has always liked to look as if it is backing a winner.

In the run up to the 1997 election, New Labour director of communication Alastair Campbell held meetings with Murdoch to ensure Tony Blair would get the paper's endorsement.

Like Mrs Thatcher 18 years before him, Mr Blair was elected by a landslide.

Mr Blair retained The Sun's support throughout his premiership as he disgruntled many in his party faithful by mainly pursuing Thatcherite policies such as privatisation.

More recently, of course, The Sun has returned to supporting the Conservatives at the next election with the front-page headline 'Labour's Lost It'.

This is a recognition that Mr Blair's replacement Gordon Brown is looking as beleaguered a figure as Mr Major in 1997 and The Sun dare not risk supporting him.

Their move is still a risk - there are months until election day and polls suggest that the public remain somewhat sceptical of David Cameron's Conservatives.

A recent attempt by The Sun to smear Mr Brown's sincerity towards the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan also back-fired.

The story came about after Mr Brown wrote an untidy letter with several spelling mistakes to a recently bereaved family of a soldier.

But most people have felt it unreasonable to criticise the PM for his poor handwriting on account of his poor eyesight and indeed praised him for his sincerity in writing to each of the bereaved soldiers' families personally.

So... political flip-flopping, jingoism, fabrication, smears. How does The Sun remain so popular?

Well, I think personally that it remains an entertaining read. In particular, it has continued its tradition of memorable headlines in recent years.

'How Do You Solve A Problem Like Korea' when North Korea tested a nuclear weapon and 'Super Cally Go Ballistic, Celtic are Atrocious' when Inverness beat Celtic in the Scottish Cup stick out.

Also, many of its mainly male readership will buy the paper for its extensive football coverage, and some others just to ogle at Page 3, rather than its right-wing political coverage.

Its status as Britain's biggest-selling daily is in some ways self-fulfilling as PR firms flock to get their celebrity client an interview or their book serialised.

This has become particularly evident since the advent and subsequent popularity of telly talent contest such as the X Factor and Britain's Got Talent.

To its credit, The Sun provides unmatched offers to its readers with the most famous being the annual £9.50 holiday giveaways.

Campaigns such as the Help For Heroes charity and the long-running Free Books for Schools also hit a public note.

Finally, its website is now much-improved from the untidy effort with which it began.

Figures showing that there were 22,994,391 unique users in the month of September are a testament to its improvement.

That puts it in fourth place in the increasingly important battle for online readership, behind The Mail, The Guardian and The Telegraph.

Now, to see if Murdoch's next move will pay off - a plan to charge readers a fee for reading online news on News International websites.

The surprising result of a study by the Boston Consulting Group shows that apparently 48% of the public would be willing to pay.

But I remain sceptical that The Sun, or indeed The Times, is popular enough for that.

Surely, readers would just go elsewhere.