As any observer of Rupert Murdoch and his stable of media outlets knows, the mogul went so far out of his way to defend Tony Blair in office that some say that, were it not for his staunch support over Iraq, the former prime minister would have fallen earlier.
But in recent weeks, Murdoch-watchers may have noticed an apparent change of approach. A trickle of stories that are damaging to Blair has appeared in the Sun and the Times in a way that would once have been unthinkable.
For example, the Times — the paper which did more than any other to “out” David Kelly as the BBC’s source with the help of “Whitehall sources” — ran a story the other day on a pathologist calling for an inquest into Kelly’s death.
Unfortunately the Times paywall makes it very hard to find a link, but here is one to a Press Association account of another Times story, revealing that the British Legion was unprepared for the donation from his book proceeds that Tony Blair says he planned to give them for years.
Easier to read is this Sun story, meanwhile, saying that Blair wanted less regulation two years before the economic crash.
Thus, the Sun found itself attacking two things it has previously long supported: an anti-regulation stance and Tony Blair.
What could have brought about this change of heart? Perhaps it is simply that Blair is no longer perceived as powerful or important enough. Or maybe — just maybe — it has something to do with Blair choosing to publish his book (A Journey, out next week) with Random House, as opposed to HarperCollins, which published Peter Mandelson’s The Third Man.
Random House is run by Gail Rebuck, wife of Blair’s former aide Philip Gould, while HarperCollins is owned by one Rupert Murdoch.
Content from our partners
Related
