A so-called 'journalist' exhibits his 'professional expertise' in the Guardian. Unfortunately this example of 'writing' is, in recent months, replicated also in the Telegraph and the BBC.
Commenting on the Damian McBride affair, Michael White(wash) tries to pin the blame on the blogosphere in attempting to have the " ..... media print damaging claims (in this instance via Guido Fawkes) against the political class – whether they are true or false." He then continues " He shouldn't have been dabbling in what sounds like squalid stuff but it helps to understand why people like him do what they do. They do it to protect their boss and undermine opponents whom they think enjoy an unfair advantage in a corrupted media environment."
That last remark sounds more like an excuse for McBride's actions, wishing to lay the blame at the door of someone in the 'media environment' who dares to say something that is critical, someone who McBride and his ilk cannot 'control'.
The corrupted media, Mr. White - of which you are one, along with the likes of Nick Robinson - are the ones who have omitted to hold politicians to account and in so doing continue to write and air your sycophantic articles thus promulgating politician's lies and half-truths. Let us consider the phrase 'what sounds like squalid stuff' - you mean, Mr. White, you have not read copies of the e-mails? So how come you can write a critique on the subject? Thats an example of 'professional journalism'?
And the newspaper industry wonders why sales of their products are falling?