News International plan to sponsor Academy causes concern... at the Guardian.

And that's because they don't have any money to sponsor one of their own.

Here's a really well-informed and completely impartial account by the Observer/Guardian on how this plan by Murdoch represents a bold grab for our children's souls. Teaching material will include the Sun, the News of the World, the Times, and, for an international perspective, students will spend all of Wednesday afternoon watching FOX News.

Well, not really. But here are some choice quotes from the article:

"The plan will alarm Murdoch's critics who claim the tycoon's media empire, which spans broadcasting, publishing and internet interests around the world, already wields formidable influence over the UK's political system and society." Unlike theirs :-(

"Concerns about Murdoch's dominance resurfaced at the last general election when all four of his UK newspapers came out in favour of the Tories, an event that represented a considerable blow to Labour's hopes of clinging to power." Just like the Guardian coming in behind the Lib Dems then...

There's no evidence in the piece of course, because all of this is just simply common knowledge, and therefore it's beyond doubt. Just in case you were skeptical, however, here are some incontrovertible quotes from some impartial commentators:

"Some people will say they are not telling people what they should think through their newspaper but teaching our children what to think in our schools." Tom Watson, Labour MP.

Paul Farrelly, another Labour MP, said: "It would be of considerable concern if the sort of bias we see in the Murdoch press was fed through to our children through the school system."

The best quote came from Denis MacShane, who said "The notion that Rupert Murdoch's values should infect our children is a real horror story. It shows the extent to which the Conservative party is becoming a wholly owned subsidiary of News International."

Wow. "A wholly owned subsidiary." That's not an exaggeration, is it. Now, I know that the Guardian and the Observer don't like Murdoch but this is going a bit far. I mean they're trying to invest in education, which is a worthy thing to do, and Murdoch has a track record of sponsoring schools in deprived areas in the US. So it's probably about time that people at these papers - who pride themselves on their intellectual approach to life - remembered that Murdoch is just a media mogul, not actually the devil reincarnate, and that not everything he does is evil. 

Andy Coulson: A Story?

Is this a big deal or not? If you read the Guardian or listen to some Labour MPs you'd get the impression that the heart of government is filled with criminals; read the Murdoch press, Guido Fawkes or Iain Dale and you'd think that nothing untoward has happened. The truth is probably somewhere in between.

Coulson resigned from his post at News of the World in January 2007 when the paper's royal editor, Clive Goodman, was jailed for intercepting the voicemail messages of royal aides. He became the Conservatives' Director of Communications in June 2007, 5 months later.

Coulson had been lined up for an appearance before the Press Complaints Commission but his resignation meant they lost interest. The same is true of the police, who decided not to pursue the question of how many people were involved in similar voicemail interceptions and, importantly, who these people were and how far up the scandal went. This meant that the line drawn under the scandal by Coulson's resignation was a squiggly one.

The story had disappeared until last week, when a piece in the New York Times alleged that the interceptions had been common practice and that Coulson had actively encouraged them. These allegations come from a former NotW hack called Sean Hoare, whose credibility is clouded by the fact he was sacked by the paper for alleged drink and drug problems. The accusations have clearly been timed for maximum political impact, coming just days before the end of the parliamentary recess. Labour are, naturally, seeking to use this issue for political gain.

On the one hand then, you have those who seem to suggest that this is simply not news. Coulson, they say, did not know about these practices and there is no evidence to suggest that he did aside from the bitter grumblings of a former employee. Furthermore he did the honourable thing in 2007 and resigned from his post as editor of the NotW, and should not be punished twice. They also suggest that the story is being driven by the left wing press, particularly the Guardian, and Labour MPs who all despise the power of Murdoch in British press and who want to hurt his paper, the NotW, and his former protoge, Andy Coulson.

On the other hand, some are alleging that these new revelations give the police cause to reopen their investigation. Moreover, they point out, that initial investigation was deeply unsatisfactory, as the police failed to make any effort to go past the work of Goodman and look at others working for the paper, meaning that Coulson was never actually exonerated.

On a simple level - removing the politics from the situation - this is a big story. It is clear that the original police investigation was not perfect. Whether this was intentional or just a result of the pressure always on the MET is not clear, and probably never will be. There is evidence to suggest that the interceptions were widespread at the NotW, and indeed at other newspapers as well - something which must lead us to lament the spinelessness of the PCC. If the allegations can be proved - and we must remember of course that he's innocent until proven guilty - then he'll have to resign and may well face jail. But that's a big if.

With the politics put back in however, while there is some evidence to suggest that Coulson knew about these practices, what matters is what can be proven in court. I just cannot see Coulson in the dock, unless we are suddenly presented with concrete evidence, for example an email from Coulson approving it. Frankly, I doubt that the police investigation will get anywhere, as they have little to gain but a lot to lose from it. Assistant Commissioner Yates has already said he'll talk to the New York Times, Hoare and Coulson, but I'd be surprised if these discussions went anywhere at all.

What is more realistic is that Coulson will be forced to resign from the government. He has already broken the cardinal spinner's rule and become the story. If this doesn't go away quickly he will be under a lot of pressure. The coalition just does not need this now, as it has big fights on its hands over the next few weeks.

The problem if he goes is that it instantly raises a big question about the judgement of David Cameron, who faced down scepticism at the time from his own backbenchers about Coulson's appointment. Simply because of this I expect him to stay, but this matter will continue to be a headache for the government, and a big story in the press.