Your editorial (9 November) accepted without question the claims made in the statement by Prince Harry’s communications secretary, then used them as a vehicle to attack the tabloids, including the Mail, which, of course, is a middle-market paper with __more than three times as many ABC1 readers as the Guardian.
This was disingenuous to say the least: the statement was clearly addressed to the media in general, and in particular social media. No section of the British press was singled out for criticism.
Indeed, as far as the Daily Mail is concerned, we have received no complaints from the palace and were not responsible for any of the alleged wrongdoings listed in your editorial.
Throughout the recent debate over section 40, which threatens the Guardian’s journalism just as much as the Daily Mail’s, the Guardian’s leader columns maintained a dumb silence.
Now the paper – which refused to join Ipso – has the presumption to tell Ipso how to conduct its business. Very rich when you submit to no independent regulation and, to use Sir Brian Leveson’s phrase, insist on “marking your own homework”.
You appear dismayed that the tabloid press, which is allegedly already in severe decline, was not finished off by Leveson. Psychotic hatred of popular newspapers aside, what right does a newspaper that lost __more than £60m last year have to lecture those that are commercially viable and succeed by having their fingers on the pulse of public opinion?
May I humbly suggest that if the Guardian spent as much time examining its own deficiencies as it does obsessing about the Mail, it would be a much more readable paper. Why, it might even make a profit.
Alex Bannister
Managing editor, Daily Mail
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com