As a grey-haired middle-aged journalist (and pilot) I must say the Mirror's stories gave me a professional chuckle. They follow two celebrated tabloid maxims:
1...Don't let the story get in the way of a good headline.
and
2...Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
The thing is, any individual or group contemplating responding to the Mirror directly should understand its journalists are not interested in facts, only in selling more newspapers. If they were interested in facts, or in doing something that really exposed wrongdoing, they'd be working for a real newspaper or a specialist magazine.
Your reasoned arguments will be as welcome as a visit from the Press Complaints Commission, and about as affective. As your resident journo I can only repeat a point made in an earlier posting: don't feed this so-called story and thereby turn it into a widely read issue that others, eg: anti-noise groups, can latch on to.
As for that MP fellow, Flying Lawyer hits the nail on the head. He's only interested in the oxygen of publicity the Mirror provides. He probably knows full well the Mirror's story is rot, but cares more for his own public profile.
As for all those official bodies who might now be looking into this claimed expose just in case the Mirror is on to something?...well, there lies the real danger. Ill thought through restrictions might just follow, and so I suggest it is to those bodies we as a group should address any comment.
So, to recap:
Engaging with the Mirror will get you nowhere.
Engaging with Mr Keetch may get him to shut up, but not much else.
Engaging with the proper authorities may deflect future restrictions, and could open doors to future grown-up discussion as and when real concerns arise.
Time to choose, ladies and gentlemen
Oh, and how do I know all of this?
Trust me...I'm a journalist.
