'Guardian will have to start charging for online content,' claims media analyst Lorna Tilbian

The Guardian is in a "financial mess" the Daily Telegraph tells its readers today in a hostile review of the newspaper's finances.

The Telegraph quotes Lorna Tilbian, a media analyst at Numis, saying: "The Guardian is being artificially propped up by Auto Trader and they will have to change things because a good, vibrant business shouldn't need to reinvest every penny it generates.

"The problem they've got is that they're never going to get back the revenue they've lost from public sector advertising, circulation is on a long downward slope and they are giving away their digital content.

"I think they will have to start charging for their online content if they are to improve their finances."

Headlined 'Riches to rags as Guardian bleeds £33m in a year', the Telegraph article does slip in some praise for Andrew Miller, the chief executive of GNM's parent company, Guardian Media Group.

It says: "Staff at the newspapers are putting their faith in the fact that as chief financial officer of Trader Media Group he [Miller] spearheaded Auto Trader's transformation from a successful magazine to an equally successful – and profitable – website.

"He has recognised that there needs to be clearer leadership and a clear sense of direction for the company, and he has got a plan," said one insider. "There is a lot more confidence than there was this time last year, before he took over."

The Telegraph concludes: "Even if Mr Miller manages to double digital revenue, however – and it is a big if – he still wants the print editions to save £25m over the next five years to generate money for investment in online content.

"Unless they can do so, the future of The Guardian and The Observer, in hard copy at least, will remain uncertain."

Twitter bows to court action and hands over user contact details to British councillors and officials

Twitter has bowed to a court action brought by local councillors complaining that they were libelled in tweets, the Telegraph reports.

The individuals who brought the legal action were councillors and officials at a local authority, South Tyneside. They launched the case in an attempt to unmask an anonymous whistle-blower who calls himself Mr Monkey.

The Telegraph says: "The action is believed to have cost council tax payers hundreds of thousands of pounds.The unprecedented ruling has prompted a row over freedom of speech, with experts warning that it may lead to a flood of actions by lawyers in other cases seeking to obtain personal information about people who breach super-injunctions or post libellous messages on Twitter."

The Telegraph adds: "In their attempt to unmask Mr Monkey, the South Tyneside councillors and officials went to court in California, where Twitter is based.

"They obtained a ruling ordering the company to release contact details, location information and computer addresses of the individuals behind four accounts on the website. The court granted the order after it was told, by lawyers for the council, that messages posted on the accounts had been libellous."

The Telegraph notes the case "comes as lawyers for Ryan Giggs, the Manchester United footballer, attempt to obtain details of individuals who named him on Twitter as the holder of an injunction to protect details of his personal life."

• More background to this story at the Sheilds Gazette

Clive James returns to tv criticism for Telegraph

Clive James has joined the Daily Telegraph to write a new weekly TV column for its Saturday Review supplement.

James was tv critic for the Observer from 1972 to 1982 but left to write books and make tv programmes.His new column for the Telegraph starts next week.

James has written an article for the Telegraph today about how he has fallen back in love with television.

Daily Telegraph 'gummed' by the PCC over Cable

The news that the Press Complaints Commission had upheld a complaint by the Liberal Democrats against the Daily Telegraph, over its undercover operation that caught out Business Secretary Vince Cable, was the talk of those attending a panel discussion on paywalls at City University last night.

I told someone that the Telegraph had apparently been "lashed" by the PCC. They replied: "The PCC is toothless, it can't impose sanctions and it can't lash anyone." Someone else suggested that the adjective should be that the Telegraph had been "gummed" by the PCC.

Editors usually take their PCC punishment in silence but there is a strong statement by Telegraph editor Tony Gallagher, as reported by MediaGuardian, about the PCC ruling.

Gallagher says the Telegraph accepts the ruling but says the PCC adjudication "has alarming implications for the future of investigative journalism".

He said: "To be effective the use of subterfuge was necessary. Our revelations led to the demotion of a member of the Cabinet, apologies from a string of junior ministers and condemnation from their party leader."

Gallagher added the decision: "Increases the obstacles facing newspapers wishing to carry out legitimate inquiries based on material which is often by its nature incomplete - and it limits their ability to expose matters of legitimate public interest which those in positions of power would rather shield from public view."

'Claims Bin Laden used wife as shield were false'

The Daily Telegraph reports today that The White House admitted last night that its initial account of the way Osama Bin Laden died at the hands of US forces had been riddled with errors - including claims that he had used his wife as a human shield.

That claim led to several UK papers, including the Telegraph and Daily Express, splashing that Bin Laden had acted like a coward, cowering behind his wife.

The Telegraph says claims that the al-Qaeda leader had died while firing an automatic weapon at commandos were withdrawn, with President Barack Obama’s spokesman admitting “he was unarmed”.

It adds: "A dramatic description of bin Laden using his wife as a “human shield” and forcing her to sacrifice her life also proved to be false. The woman was still alive and was taken into custody with several of the terrorist’s children.

"In an embarrassing climb-down, Barack Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, admitted that the previous version of events — which came mostly from the chief US counter-terrorism adviser, John Brennan — had been put out “with great haste”.

"The about-turn left the US open to accusations of a cover-up and led to calls for video footage of the raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and images of bin Laden’s body to be released to end conspiracy theories."

Telegraph gives Cameron a bashing for 'apology'

It was the Sun yesterday which had a go at David Cameron over defence cuts, today the Tory-supporting Daily Telegraph criticises the Prime Minister for claiming Britain had caused many of the world's problems.

His remarks were made to students while on a visit to Pakistan, when he was asked how Britain could help to end the row over Kashmir.

The Telegraph quotes Cameron saying: “I don’t want to try to insert Britain in some leading role where, as with so many of the world’s problems, we are responsible for the issue in the first place.”

The Telegraph says in a leader, headlined No apology required: "If there is one thing we are entitled to expect from our Prime Minister when he is overseas, it is that he should not run down his own country in order to ingratiate himself with his hosts. Unfortunately, David Cameron, on a visit to Pakistan yesterday, seems either to have forgotten or ignored this rule."

The leader goes on: "He could learn something from his predecessor in No 10. On a visit to Africa several years ago, Gordon Brown responded to an attack on Britain by Thabo Mbeki, then South Africa’s president, by declaring that “the days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial history are over”, and that “we should celebrate much of our past, rather than apologise for it”. We agree. Our past is by no means perfect, but it ill behoves the Prime Minister to lay so many of the world’s ills at our own door."

• The Guardian in its coverage of Cameron's visit to Pakistan describes his remarks as having been "a semi-jocular aside".
  

Telegraph welcomes draft Defamation Bill and urges that it be guaranteed parliamentary time

The Daily Telegraph in a leader today welcomes the draft Defamation Bill and the recognition by the Government of the need to reform the libel laws.

It says: "There is now general acceptance that these antiquated, unbalanced and illiberal laws are damaging this country's reputation for free speech. Frivolous actions are brought in order to shut down responsible journalism or stifle legitimate academic opinion."

The leader also gets in a reference to the type of super-injunction granted to Sir Fred Goodwin. "Our libel laws work against the interests of justice and a free press, a trend compounded by the alarming expansion of judge-made privacy law through the imposition of blanket reporting bans known as super-injunctions."

It says of the proposals in the draft Bill: "A new requirement that any allegedly defamatory statement must have caused 'substantial harm' to a client's reputation before an action can proceed is particularly welcome. So, too, are the public interest safeguards to protect academics and others from being sued simply for expressing views – even if they are defamatory.

"The Government is to be congratulated for recognising the need for what would be the first wholesale reform of our libel laws since 1843. It now needs to make good these fine ambitions by guaranteeing parliamentary time for the legislation."

The leader also makes the point that it is "the small publications, local newspapers and individuals who are hardest hit by the excessive costs of defending themselves in the courts, and are often forced to settle rather than contest cases they might otherwise win".

Social media speculation puts pressure on judges to lift Sir Fred Goodwin's super-injunction

Judges are facing growing pressure to lift the super-injunction obtained by Sir Fred Goodwin amid speculation on the internet about the nature of the information he is trying to protect, claims the Daily Telegraph today.

The existence of the injunction was revealed under parliamentary priviledge on Thursday by John Hemming, the back-bench Liberal Democrat MP, during a business debate in the House of Commons.

The Telegraph says: "The terms of the injunction are so strict that the Telegraph is prevented from disclosing any details, but social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook were rife with speculation about why the former Royal Bank of Scotland chief executive had taken out the injunction."

Padraig Reidy, of Index on Censorship, tells the Telegraph: “The laws on injunctions and super-injunctions are stuck in the past and really do not take into account the speed and the way people communicate on the internet today.

“It is nigh on impossible once something has broken on social networking sites to put the cat back in the bag. On the internet there is a real sense of a right to information.”

Hemming told Parliament that the super-injunction even prevented Sir Fred from being identified as a banker and asked: “Will the Government have a debate or a statement on freedom of speech and whether there’s one rule for the rich like Fred Goodwin and one rule for the poor?”

The Telegraph says in a leader comment today: "Sir Fred “the Shred” Goodwin, who presided over the near-collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland, retired on an annual pension of £342,000 and also received a lump sum of almost £3 million. We have no idea whether he used any of this cash for legal fees to obtain a secret super-injunction banning the publication of information about him. But if it did cost him a lot of money, he must be regretting it. For, although the court granted Sir Fred’s wish, this week a Liberal Democrat MP revealed in Parliament one of the things the injunction was supposed to conceal: the very fact of its existence.

"Given their extreme nature and the public controversy that they engender, super-injunctions do not seem to be particularly hard to obtain. Over the past few years, British courts have been strangely eager to grant these gagging orders, whose basis lies in human rights legislation inspired by Europe. It is hard to avoid the view that judges are forging a privacy law on the hoof.

"Fortunately, there is one thing that trumps the “human right” to silence a free press, and that is the legal privilege of MPs to say anything they like in Parliament, which dates back to the Civil War. Secret super-injunctions are, in theory, extremely powerful instruments – but, thanks to that ancient freedom, this particular one lies in shreds."