Alastair Campbell is angered by the servility and lack of independence of the news media.

I'll go on to explain why in a moment but I just want to let that sentence stand on its own because I'm pretty sure it'll strike many people as strange. Like Davina McColl being angered about trashy TV or Thierre Henry by the lack of honesty & fair play in football. It's just weird.

The specific relates to the virtual news blackout over Matt Driscoll's c.£800k award for damages for bullying when Andy Coulson - now David Cameron's head of communications - was Editor of the NOTW. Alastair is appalled at the complete lack of coverage and suggests editors and broadcasters are intimidated by Coulson and mindful that he's the right hand man of the likely next PM hence the blackout.

On that he's probably right. Who doesn't worry about the media cosying up to politicians in the ascendency? It does undermine the idea of a free & fair press so calling that out isn't strange in itself.

But for Alastair to do it is just bizarre. OK, everyone knows his background is tabloid press or that he too was right-hand-man to a prospective PM in regular contact with News International but does he really think that doesn't matter? Does he really think people trust his objectivity here? As I pointed out in his comments:

"The implication of this post and a few others you've written recently is that the terms of your interaction with the media pre-1997 were materially different from the way Coulson etc. interacts now. Perhaps that's the case but there's no discussion or evidence of that. Is there any evidence that media servility to Cameron now (or hostility to the PM) is materially different to the media environment pre-1997? We know from your diaries the truth is more subtle than the Malcolm Tucker caricature but the point remains managing the news environment and Labour's interaction with it WAS a part of your role and one you did very well.

If there is a material difference that has serious implications for democracy and people from left & right would be very angry about it. But by not actually making that case you risk coming across as simply bitter and resentful that the media focus is not where you want it to be and not surprisingly broadly independent apolitical types (like me) will have little sympathy..."

I actually have a tremendous amount of time for AC. He's flawed like the rest of us of course but, as I hinted in my comment, I think the Malcolm Tucker thing is an overblown TV caricature that does him a diservice and his openness about and support for mental health issues is to his credit. He was also extremely good at his job whatever way you look at it.

I just wish he had a little more self-awareness...