COMMENT: Jeremy Hunt and the Murdochs

Yesterday was a truly amazing day at the Leveson inquiry.

James Murdoch, Rupert's son, initially seemed to be struggling with the questions and, apparently, was unable to recall various things, or said that something wasn't his recollection.

Then he dumped on Jeremy Hunt, the Culture secretary. He dumped on him from a very big height.

Hunt's behaviour, leaking information, having excessive meetings with the Murdochs, phoning them with secret information, etc. clearly suggests he is unfit for office, and I don't just mean to be a Secretary of State, I mean as an MP.

However, I don't think he should resign, or, preferably, be sacked just yet despite calls from Labour and many anti-Murdoch newspapers. It is right that Hunt has his day at the inquiry and, indeed, that we wait for Leveson's findings and report.

The evidence seems damning, and other MPs, on both sides of the House, are likely to be sweating rather more today, but to call for heads before the inquiry is complete is premature.

Yes, if Jeremy Hunt feels his position is now untenable then he should resign, but, if he thinks his position is untenable, he should stand down as an MP. It is not sufficient to stand down from senior office because of dodgy dealings and practises. Such dishonesty must be removed from parliament.

I await Rupert Murdoch's evidence today. I wonder if he will tighten the noose currently hanging limply around David Cameron's neck. Whatever he says, I'm sure it will be the most humble day of his life!

OPINION: Slow and sure wins the race...

Let's be honest, we all make mistakes.

Sometimes the mistakes are serious and life changing, sometimes they're inconsequential and forgotten before they've happened.

When yesterday, both the Daily Mail and Sky News wrongly announced that Amanda Knox had lost her appeal for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the Twitterverse (alongside various ant-Mail and anti-Murdoch commentators) exploded in outrage accusing these news outlets of trying to predict the news.

Now I'm sure every news broadcaster was ready with both guilty and not guilty graphics, information and discussions. It would be foolish not to be prepared for both circumstances as nobody was sure which way the judgment was going to go.

Surely it's like the obituaries of famous people... newspapers don't wait until someone dies then hastily scramble around for someone to write a few hundred words by way of tribute. No, all the leading newspapers will have ongoing obituaries that are regularly updated when new information is available or when they have done something else worthy.

I'm sure, for instance, that The Times has had an obituary for Margaret Thatcher since the early 1970s. In recent years, through a number of bouts of ill health and rumour, it must have been dusted down on many occasions and ready to publish should the Grim Reaper finally dare come for the Iron Lady!

But, I hear you cry, that doesn't excuse Sky News or the Daily Mail from using the wrong result. True, they were being professional by being prepared but to use the wrong result requires another explanation.

I think there are two reasons for the mistakes.

First. Simple human error. Pressing the wrong button, or pressing it too early.

The judgment handed down in Perugia wasn't straightforward and, of course, for the English-speaking press, it was in Italian and required translation.

The judge did find Amanda Knox guilty but of defamation, not the murder of her friend. I guess, via interpreters or translators some journalists weren't listening to all the detail, heard the word 'guilty' and went into action, launching headlines, pre-prepared column inches and appropriate comments to support the court's decision. A simple error.

Or was it?

The second reason is that they were in a race to be the first to announce the result. They were only skim-listening.

Just like when, at a general election, there's a handful of constituencies desperate to be the first to declare their result and the broadcasters all want to be the first to predict and call the final number of seats won by each party, so on rolling news programmes they want to be the first with the headline. Being first attracts viewers. Being first increases ratings. But being right is more important.

In fact, if a rolling news broadcaster isn't first with the news what is their point?

So maybe the mistake made by the Daily Mail and Sky News, amongst a myriad of other, lesser news organisations, is really our fault, and can be laid at the door of our seemingly insatiable desire for information AND NOW!

When I was growing up in Basingstoke in the late 1970s and early 1980s there was one infamous occasion when the local newspaper got the news very wrong.

Arthur Atwood was the elderly reviewer of local concerts and plays for the Basingstoke Gazette and he always gave, what appeared to be, very fair and thorough comments. The problem was that while I was reading his comments about an orchestral concert in which I should have played I realised that his detailed review was about a concert that had been cancelled. He'd written and submitted his x hundred words before the event and, when it was postponed, hadn't remembered to pull it from publication. Whoops!

So, I guess, we all mistakes but, as with so many of the personal mistakes we all make every day, maybe a little more time taken over things, a tad more care and a dose of honesty would prevent the errors and stop things going awry.

Let's be honest, if we heard the result of the Amanda Knox appeal at 8.48 last night or at 8.50 would it have mattered? Of course not. All that mattered was the accuracy of the information.