The decision to take Rotherham council under central government control followed the shocking confirmation, by an independent inspector, into its handling of child sexual exploitation.
Rightly, the cabinet of Rotherham’s metropolitan borough council resigned en masse in the wake of Louise Casey’s scathing report.
Wrongly, the members have spent years denying the truth and had the gall to claim they were victims of a “politically motivated” campaign of lies mounted by the “Murdoch press”.
That was never a convincing defence. So let’s be clear about this: the “Murdoch press”, meaning the Times, deserves nothing but praise for its initial exposure of this vile criminal activity and for highlighting the wholly inadequate political response in its wake.
The paper’s investigative reporter, Andrew Norfolk, has been garlanded with journalistic honours (Paul Foot award here; journalist-of-the-year award here; Orwell prize here) for his uncompromising work on this shameful story.
Casey’s report said of the council that by declaring Norfolk’s articles to be untrue “with no apparent grounds for doing so”, it showed “extraordinary complacency”.
Complacency is only the half of it. Wilful blindness might be better, or even breathtaking cynicism. A Labour council clearly thought it could avoid scrutiny by raising the spectre of Rupert Murdoch.
Much can be said of Murdoch, and I’ve said a lot of it, but it is unbelievably foolish to label every paper he owns, every editor he appoints, every journalist who works for him, as being without merit.
The Times under its previous editor, James Harding, and its current one, John Witherow, deserves only praise for its work on the child protection scandal in Rotherham. They were right to back Norfolk.
Murdoch played no direct part in those editorial decisions about Rotherham, of course. But his company provided the funding, and we must accept that he has sacrificed countless millions of pounds to publish the Times since he acquired it in 1981. No paper. No stories. No holding of power to account.
The Rotherham councillors were extraordinarily naive to think they could evade their responsibilities by suggesting they were being hounded by the Murdoch press.