I don't like sloppy reporting. And I've just listened to what sounded like an example of just that on Radio Five. George Brook, the Saturday Editor of the Times was talking about stories in the news - perhaps in tomorrow's Times. The main story that had caught his eye is a series of unauthorised peeks into the secret files of Barak Obama. It seems that no-one has been apprehended for this crime, but Mr Brook concluded that the only motive behind it was to seek out 'political dirt'. Without presenting any evidence, he went further. He stated emphatically that this was obviously done by Barak Obama's Democrat opponents, or by the Republicans, looking for information to discredit him.
Well I'm sorry, Mr Brook, but it doesn't automatically mean this at all. The first thought that came into my mind was that it was the Obama camp itself which was responsible. Clearly, whoever had done the infiltrating had left enough evidence to ensure that the crime would be discovered - which is something I would not have expected the Clinton or McCain camps to have done. They would have remembered Watergate. And ask yourself who is the only person to benefit from revelations of this sort. Oh Dear, am I really more cynical than a the editor of a national newspaper.