Brandjack News

By Quentin Langley

It is not likely that the scandal of illegal phone hacking at the News of the World is over, but there is, for now, some breathing space. Fatuous attempts by the Labour Party and their allies to blame David Cameron for the whole thing are falling apart, as they were bound to do. Even the self-interested campaigns by the BBC and the New York Times are running into the ground, for the moment.

To recap the issues, News of the World broke the law – just as the New York Times did, hacking Sarah Palin's e-mails, as the Telegraph did buying stolen documents to break the Parliamentary expenses scandal, and as the Washington Post did, blagging phone records to crack the Watergate case. What the News of the World did wrong – very, very, wrong – was to hack the phone of Milly Dowler, a teenage murder victim, as well as celebrities and politicians.

This is the context into which the general public has always, rightly put it. The public has never cared about celebrity or politician hacking, that has been the obsession of celebrities and politicians. In that context calls for the Prime Minister's resignation have always been stupid. The PM at the time of the Milly Dowler hacking has already resigned. He resigned in 2007. He probably didn't know about the Dowler phone hacking, so it is almost certainly unconnected, though it seems his Attorney General did know that phone hacking was widespread. The PM at the time of the botched Met investigation into phone hacking has also resigned, following defeat in the general election last year.

So, who has emerged from this with credit. Ed Miliband, unconstrained by the legal issues which bind the government, was able to jump on the Milly-bandwaon a few days earlier than the PM. He was able to say things about the News Corp takeover bid for BSkyB which would have got any blocking of the bid overturned, if the PM had said them. He started off with a good crisis.

When Rupert and James Murdoch gave evidence at the House of Commons, James impressed me, though others were more doubtful. He answered most ofthe questions clearly and credibly. (Though, of course, I cannot testify to his honesty). When he didn't know, he said so, and promised to get back to the Committee quickly. He addressed all the MPs by name. His worst moment was fumbling Milly Dowler's name. I was left thinking he would be global CEO of News Corp by the end of the year.

Rupert was different. He often seemed disengaged and confused. He did not have the relevant facts at his fingerips. While accepting his point that News of the World accounted for one percent of his business, he should have shown more respect for the House of Commons by arriving prepared. On the other hand, he had moments of extreme lucidity as well. By this performance it does not seem as if he is consistently lucid enough to be global CEO for much longer.

Wendi Deng, of course, hugely impressed everyone. Count me in as President of her Fan Club. Perhaps she should be the Global CEO.

Keith Vaz at the Home Affairs Select Committee seemed to me like a grandstanding buffoon, while John Whittingdale at Culture, Media and Sport seemed understated but completely in command. That said, I know that others, not instinctively aligned with Mr Vaz, took a very different view. John Whittingdale should not have allowed members to address Rupert Murdoch as "Mr Murdoch" while addressing his son simply as "James". I realise there is scope for confusion, but "Mr Rupert Murdoch" and "Mr James Murdoch" would have been polite and respectful.

The House of Commons debate changed the political situation. David Cameron's performance was magnificent. This is what he does. He pulls it off when it is needed: his hustings speech in 2005; his conference speech in 2007; his performance in the third election debate in 2010. He is someone who can – remarkably – change the political climate with a speech. Oratory had been thought the lost – or largely irrelevant – art of politics. William Hague, Conservative Leader as recently as 1997 to 2001 – was an accomplished orator, who could not turn the skill to political advantage. YouTube has utterly changed the way people consume speeches, and the lost art now makes and breaks political careers. It continues to make David Cameron's.

That Ed Miliband failed to rise to the most significant challenge so far in his, admittedly brief, political career does not reflect well on him. His performance is already being compared to the speech Neil Kinnock flubbed in the Westland debate. The mood has now shifted under him. Even the self-interested media empires are letting this story drop. The BBC, which last week devoted all sixty minutes of a lunchtime news bulletin to News International, has rediscovered the famine in Somalia. Last night the left wing Channel Four News led on this topic. Today the BBC ran a bulletin which did not even mention the hacking scandal. Unless something new comes out, the story has moved on. Miliband saw his moment and missed.