Europe needs to get real on defence; Britain needs to get real on Europe
13 February 2025
My golden rule on frenzy survival lost in mists of time
-
Post
-
8 September 2010
Many thanks to James Macintyre of the New Statesman for failing to shed any light on something I may or may not have said about how long it is possible for someone to survive a media frenzy.
It appears that he spent considerable time trying to track down the original source for the oft-reported 'rule', attributed to me, that if a bad situation is dominating the headlines for (*variously reported as) a week, nine days, ten days, eleven days, twelve days, a fortnight or a month*, then the person at the heart of the situation is toast.
It does not appear quite as often as some of my other greatest hits, like 'we don't do God' or 'bog-standard comprehensive' (both off the cuff accidents by the way) or even 'New Labour, New Britain' (very deliberate) but it has been getting a fair few run-outs recently as a result of headlines continuing to focus on Andy Coulson and phone-hacking, despite several of our largest media organisations willing it away via under-reporting.
So when James contacted me yesterday, after his searches proved fruitless, and asked what exactly did I say and when, I had to confess I could not remember, and it might well be that I never said anything on the subject. If there is anyone out there who remembers otherwise, it would be nice to hear from them.
I suspect if I did say something of this ilk, it would have been in Opposition. Once we were in government, I put the lobby briefings on the record and notes of them will survive somewhere, so James or other intrepid seekers-after-truth would have found any reference had it been from an official briefing. Had it been from a chat with a journalist which led to a story on the subject, the cutting would have survived somewhere, in paper or online form.
So my best guess is that I applied it to a Tory situation when we were in Opposition. But I cannot remember which, if any, it was.
Now I am left asking myself, having been described fairly often as the author of this 'golder rule,' what I imagine the rule to be. And the more I think about it, the more I realise there isn't one. It will depend on the circumstances. Coulson has actually not been dominating the news that much, not least because of the 'willing away' strategy referred to above. I can think of situations where ministers and others survived frenzies lasting well beyond a week, or much longer. I can think of others - David Laws would be an example from the coalition - where the denouement came before the frenzy had really even started.
So it will all depend on the facts at the time. If Coulson is telling the truth when he says that he knew nothing of the phonehacking going on at the News of the World, then with the strong backing of the PM, he will survive. If it becomes established, by police or Parliament, that he isn't telling the truth - and essentially what we have is the word of one or two reporters against his - then in all probability he won't. But that it not going to be over in a week or a month.
So the rule is that there is no rule and if I once said there was, given there appears to be no record of it, and it has been reported so variably, this new rule replaces that old one, unless and until someone manages to succeed where James has failed, dig up the original source, and we can review the new 'no rule' rule in the light of whatever I said in whatever circumstances applied at the time I was laying down the old rule.
4 minute(s) read
Recent Posts
It depends on the circumstances? Is that the new rule? Not quite as memorable as the old one …
The incident must dramatically weaken his tenure, though, even if he isn’t shown the black door soon.
excellent, that’s clear then!
You know you said it … the rule was 13 years … the whole period of Labour government was characterised by media frenzy, but you got through a lot … it is why they still don’t like you, Blair etc
I really like the way you make unclear things seem so clear
Clegg was doing as he was told at Prime Minister’s Questions. Straw not that good. Too lawyerly. Clegg quite political with his reference to Gordon calling Coulson. Don’t like the Murdoch editors courting the Milibands. Sup large spoon
Previously this morning I posted a comment to Mr Macintyre stating that my impression has always been that 11 days is the correct number. I recall, for example, Sky News using it.
Andy Coulson is in a sensitive post. He should be like Caesar´s wife – above all suspicion. Regardless whether he is telling the truth or not, he should step down to clear his name. This story has “legs” to go on and on.
People in top jobs should usually have the self-confidence not to be worried about 24-carat rubbish stories and speculation built on rumour. Mr Hague should have just simply denied the insinuations.
As for the NOTW story itself, one former journalist told the Independent that there was a culture of fear at NOTW. Andy Coulson was a focused editor – no was not taken as an answer. All means “fair or foul” were employed in the pursuit of a story.
Clive Goodman was filing expenses for a substantial sum to be paid to Mr Mulcaire. Did not anyone ask what it was for?
Ps. Mark Thompson, the head of the BBC, has had an unpublicised meeting with Steve Hilton at Downing Street. Will the BBC now help the coalition to convince voters that Mr Osborne´s ideological cuts are inevitable? There was recently a big article in a leading Finnish weekly Suomen Kuvalehti about Britain written by a Finn. The conclusion was that debt is not a big problem and cuts are oversized.
Great blog, reminds me of a scene from Yes Minister. I’m not a great fan of rules unless they are deeply meaningful but 11 days sounds right to me that’s about the point I lose the will to take any more notice
The incessant nature to seek out a person to sack and blame for all ills is not the way forward. Yes if Mr C wishes to step down then so be it, but to hound does little to capture positive responses or encourage constructive debate. 11 sound like a watershed in terms of time, as what credence do or should we give to people, punishment to fit the crime maybe.
Either way it should be recognised that Karma has a funny way of resolving these matters. Being Irish gives me the distinct advantage of seeing how frequent the British Media like to tramp on someone, especially there own.
There is one Rule, even you must admit, which applies to most frenzies: “a week is a long time in politics”. So, if this media non-hissing is still missing after a week, there will be tears before bedtime. OMG – that’s 2 rules…
Olli – Im sure that you are well aware Finland has never had a debt probably – with one of the smallest bond markets if not the World certainly the EU.I don’t see how someone from that country can make a salient point on this.Finlands AAA credit rating is rock solid – the UK’s is not.If we loose that and our interest rates go up we are toast.
Apart from this New Labour expanded the Public Sector beyond belief and now we hear that places like Middleborough so reliant on the Govt for work are in deep trouble.Labour should not have favoured their heartlands for jobs and left them so at risk in the future.
30% rely on govt jobs there – thats a tragic mistake from the last Govt and very irresponsible and the protests should be targetted at Labours failure on economic policy – they left us up to our eyes in debt.
Lastly, have you ever personally said to yourself ” ill keep maxing up my credit card because debt is not a problem” which is what you quote from your Finnish friend.Debt IS a massive issue and anyone who disagrees is plain stupid or in denial…..ex PM GB’s epitaph ” in denial “
I understand the frustration that people have with Jack Straw’s performance at PMQs as it was a little dry. Maybe 3 questions on this was enough, then move on to something else. However I suspect Jack was playing the long game. Many of the answers Clegg was forced to give will turn out to be very embarrassing if and when Coulson is shown to be lying. It felt to me, that Straw was trying to get Clegg to condemn himself with his own words and he may have succeeded.
AFZ
The bond markets are now demanding more government debt. Interest rates have been going down in the UK. If government really listens to the bond markets, it would increase borrowing.
Under Labour Britain´s debt would have reached 80% of GDP. Under the coalition it will peak at 70%.
Real interest is not as high as nominal. Interest is not a problem.
And only at 90% of GDP the debt becomes a problem. Britain´s debt built up in the second world war was finally repaid half a century later.
IMF study suggests that UK could probably increase its public debt by another 50% beyond projected 2015 levels without triggering a crisis.
To clarify. There is no rule and by all accounts there Shouldn’t be one. If anyone has one please forward for all of us to laugh at, indeed make clearer so none of us can understand. Does this make sense!!!
[…] Campbell, Tony Blair’s former director of communications, has been attributed with the “golden rule” for managing a media frenzy – if the story grows legs and runs, and is still in the headlines […]
[…] who features in them is doomed. Or is it more than 10 days? Or even 12? Actually Campbell now says he never said it, which is a shame because the remark contains a kernel of truth. Sooner or later No 10 has to cut […]
[…] No serious competitor had dared say out loud he should stand down. He had utterly blown away the Alastair Campbell (Non-)Rule on Media Frenzy Survival (10 days’ bad situation in the headlines and the person involved is […]
[…] frenzy (although it is worth noting that Alastair Campbell, the supposed author of this rule, has no recollection of actually saying it). Trump seems to ignore all these principles, yet is still electorally hugely […]