>> I can't say I know much about it, but why would it be discredited before
>> it's even been published?
The way in which publication was handled is, to my mind, unusual.
Normally if an official Commission is to publish a report it'll be scheduled for release at a particular time. Depending on the report's origin/status timing might be tied to it being 'tabled' in Parliament.
Before publication embargoed copies will be issued together with a fairly neutral press release. The media will produce some 'informed speculation'.
In this case it looks as if those points Number10 wanted to lead in todays news were fully detailed in advance. The Commission's Chair was in the coveted 08:10 slot on the Today programme.
While that methodology may have suited No 10's agenda (see headlines in Mail, Telegraph) it also meant that reputable organisations, eg The Runnymede Trust, as well as Unions and Opposition had more than a whiff too.
Given that the report denies stuff that was given in evidence to it it's not difficult to see why it's being potentially discredited was easy to foresee.
|
