From the current issue (1318) of Private Eye:
“Politicians and journalists are always going to mix informally, as well as formally…The guiding principle should be one I applied during my time as a journalist, told to me when I was a financial writer in the 1970s well before the days of FSA regulation. It was described as the Private Eye test: can you defend what you have said or done if it appeared in Private Eye, not that private contacts or conversations should appear in Private Eye, but could you defend yourself if they did. This always seemed to be me [to be to me] a good and workable guide.”
Witness statement to the Leveson inquiry from Peter Riddell, former political editor of the Times. The square bracketed editorial correction is mine.
Although this is Private Eye patting itself on the back, it’s well entitled to do so given the excellent investigative journalism it continues to practice. Long may this heroic work continue.