The impact of Peter Oborne’s resignation from The Telegraph

The resignation of The Telegraph’s chief political editor, Peter Oborne, could have serious long-term consequences, writes Raymond Snoddy.

As an old political hand Peter Oborne knows very well the impact resignation speeches, or in this case resignation blogs, can have.

Sir Geoffrey Howe’s elliptical speech in the Commons in 1990 about Mrs Thatcher’s approach to Europe and her colleagues had little immediate impact. But most see it now as the catalyst that led to her departure from power.

In his attack on The Daily Telegraph management and the “fraud” on readers represented by its HSBC coverage, Oborne goes for the jugular rather than falling back as Sir Geoffrey did on metaphors about broken cricket bats.

It is still unlikely that anyone will resign at the Telegraph Group this week but the issues raised by Oborne’s resignation blog could have serious long-term consequences.

The well-researched diatribe suggesting that the separation between editorial coverage and the needs of the advertising department has all-but collapsed at the paper, and the damage being caused by an almost farcical enthusiasm for a digital-first strategy, provides a rare insider’s view.

Ironically media groups, which rage about the attempts to silence whistle-blowers, routinely silence those they sack by demanding confidentiality in return for compensation.

Oborne has had the courage to walk away from such a tempting embrace and express his concerns about what has happened at a paper he once admired.

The charge sheet against The Telegraph and its coverage of the affairs of HSBC is extensive and detailed. Oborne himself wrote a story about well-known British Muslims having their HSBC accounts terminated without reason. It never appeared.

An online story by banking correspondent Harry Wilson about a “black hole” in HSBC accounts was, Oborne says, swiftly removed from the website.

When other papers splashed on the fact that HSBC had set aside £1 billion to pay compensation following allegations of trying to rig the currency markets, The Telegraph managed five paragraphs on page 5 of the business section.

An investigation into HSBC accounts in Jersey in 2012 had, it is claimed, led to the bank suspending advertising with The Telegraph for a year.

This month’s revelations about special accounts at HSBC’s Swiss banking arm alleging widespread tax evasion schemes was covered extensively by the Guardian, The Financial Times, The Times and the Daily Mail.

There was nothing at all in The Telegraph on day one, Oborne notes, and just five slim paragraphs at the bottom left of page 2 on the Tuesday and seven paragraphs deep in the business section last Wednesday.

The implication is clear. The Daily Telegraph will do almost anything to protect its now restored HSBC advertising revenue even if this means distorting its coverage and, as Oborne alleges, perpetrating a fraud on its readers.

Then there are allegations of puff coverage of Cunard, another large Telegraph advertiser, and bizarre coverage of events in Hong Kong where HSBC has obvious business interests. No leaders on the weeks of pro-democracy demonstrations and the paper also remained silent, in marked contrast to other newspapers, on a committee of British MP’s being refused entry to Hong Kong.

Who is responsible for this? On most newspapers we could hold the editor responsible, although of course he or she could well have been leaned on by the proprietor.

In the case of The Telegraph there is no editor. The last one, Tony Gallagher, was sacked mainly because he wanted to remain the editor instead of taking on the vacuous role of “director of content.”

An editor chooses and takes responsibility for what goes into the paper; a director of content does God knows what.

Telegraph chief executive Murdoch MacLennan appointed the American Jason Sieken as head of content. Sieken proudly announced that his first appointment at The Telegraph was of a former divorce lawyer who was now a manufacturer of drones. He also announced that the days of the all-powerful editor were over.

Whether MacLennan or Seiken is responsible or not there has been a continuing exodus of some of The Telegraph’s most experienced journalists both frontline writers and the all-important desk people and sub-editors.

Oborne says the quality and accuracy of the paper has suffered as a result.

Under Seiken, the former Telegraph columnist says a “click culture” has developed where attracting the greatest number of online visits is the most important target rather than the importance or even accuracy of stories involved.

Oborne cites the case of Telegraph Online running a story about a woman with three breasts even though there were doubts about its truth before it was posted.

The trouble with the extreme sort of digital-first policy espoused by Jason Seiken is that it is still stories in print that have the greater impact than online, and that is where the majority of advertising revenue is earned.

There are repeated rumours, impossible to confirm, that Seiken is under increasing pressure at The Telegraph. If he were to fall that would bad news for Murdoch MacLennan who appointed him and therefore his way of running a newspaper.

The response of The Telegraph to the Oborne manifesto? Pitiful.

The paper criticised Oborne’s “astonishing and unfounded attack full of inaccuracy and innuendo on his own paper.” Unfortunately the paper felt unable to list the inaccuracies or rebut them.

Who comes out of this well?

Certainly not The Daily Telegraph and its top management or the paper’s owners the Barclay brothers. All have serious questions to answer about the integrity of the paper’s coverage when important advertisers are involved.

In a more strategic sense, are the Barclays making the fundamental error of believing their success in turning Littlewoods into an online-only retail business can be replicated on a national newspaper?

Not for the first time HSBC has shot itself in the foot. Obviously threatening to, or actually withdrawing advertising, is their response to bad news rather than concentrating on dealing energetically with any questionable behaviour revealed.

Oborne alone has behaved well here in the best traditions of whistle-blowing. He did not rush to print but first wrote to both Murdoch MacLennan and The Telegraph chairman Aidan Barclay expressing his concerns.

It was only when nothing happened, other than the embarrassing lack of coverage of the Guardian/BBC investigation of HSBC, that Peter Oborne acted.

He should be treasured rather than vilified.