Hacks flop as Wendy wins

It’s been quite a week for Scottish politics – Alex Salmond threw down the gauntlet / grandstanded his way to a successful vote on the SNP’s first budget on Wednesday. Then Wendy Alexander received the long-awaited verdict on her “impermissible” donations.

Wendy’s relief at the news that the Electoral Commission chose not to forward her case for possible prosecution was short-lived. The public and political reaction to the handling of the case has her at the centre of yet another bitter slanging match between the SNP and her Labour colleagues.

That, though, is what we expect of politics. The quality of political journalism on the matter, on the other hand, has been to say the least disappointing. Rushing to hit the airwaves or websites, The Scotsman and The Herald trumpted: “Wendy cleared”. Very nice for her – except of course she wasn’t.

The Commission’s own report indicated that:

In respect of a possible offence under section 56, the Commission has concluded that, while Wendy Alexander did not take all reasonable steps in seeking to comply with the relevant legislation, she did take significant steps.

The inaccuracy of the headlines immediately prompted a torrent of angry comments on the titles’ websites while Labour supporters gloated, pointed to the headlines and went off to celebrate.

The Herald’s commentators have come in for a particularly rough ride of late, with the pressure apparently getting to Douglas Fraser, who chose to brand some anonymous correspondents as “internet vermin”. Fraser has apparently been the recipient of personal abuse as well as accusations of pro-Labour bias though Robbie Dinwoodie is faring slightly better.

In his blog, Dinwoodie says :

Ms Alexander herself seemed to favour "vindicated" which I find a bizarre word to use in connection with and admitted breach of the law. She also referred repeatedly to her being "cleared" by the commission, a word which of course appears nowhere in their finding.

Is there an implied admission that his own title – at least the website – got it badly wrong?

The message of how to accurately report what was actually said was apparently lost on The Scotsman’s Hamish Macdonell whose later piece on Wendy came under the headline: "In the clear (for now)". Macdonell goes on to say:

There had been speculation Ms Alexander would be cleared but Mr Gordon would not – because an illegal donation had been received and Mr Gordon was responsible for securing it.

But when the commission issued its report, both Mr Gordon and Ms Alexander were cleared of any offence.

Notably The Scotsman also copied the previous day’s Scottish Daily Mail with a montage of the many expressions of the rubber-faced Alexander.

Even the Labour-supporting Daily Record, which appears to have abandoned Alexander, was more forthright in its reporting with the strapline: “Watchdogs Won't Call Cops But Rule Labour Leader's £950 Donation Was Dodgy” over Magnus Gardham’s piece:

The Electoral Commission found she broke the rules but said it was "not appropriate or in the public interest" to call in prosecutors.

The ruling was slammed as a "whitewash" and a "not proven verdict after a guilty plea" by SNP MSPs.

The paper's leader left the SNP and Labour to fight amongst themselves while still delivering a solid kick to Alexander while she is down:

Alexander said she had been vindicated. Her opponents cried "whitewash". Neither was quite right. The Electoral Commission decided it was "not in the public interest" to report Alexander to the procurator fiscal.

They did not, however, clear her completely. They found the £950 gift - from a tax exile who is not allowed to make political donations under the rules - was, indeed, "impermissible". And they found Alexander failed in her legal duty to "take all reasonable steps" to ensure the donation was above board.

In mitigation, she did take "significant" steps to check and, as we already knew, she handed the cash back as soon as she knew it was dodgy. So watchdogs decided to leave it there.

They were immediately criticised for not being tougher. But the black mark they left next to Alexander's name means they can't be accused of a total whitewash.
She has survived the scandal - but only just. And big questions remain about her ability to bounce back and turn Labour into an effective opposition at Holyrood. The party have lurched from disaster to disaster during her short reign as leader.

The tabloids regularly take a battering (quite often deservedly so) but they have left their quality rivals standing in terms of accurate balanced reporting on this one.

Meanwhile Brian Taylor made the simple observation:

Has it damaged Labour? Yes. Quite simply, yes. Asked if she’d considered resigning, Ms Alexander replied: “Not in a meaningful way, no.”

In a meaningful way, she now has to show she’s up to the task of taking on Alex Salmond.

One wonders will the papers learn any lessons themselves – in a meaningful way.