We all know that governments court the press, but at what point do such relationships become dangerous to the credibility of both parties.
[adsenseyu1]It should come as no surprise that, once cornered, Rupert and James Murdoch would start firing shots across the bows to remind politicians who they got into bed with.
Both Jeremy Hunt and David Cameron were in close personal contact with Murdoch Jnr on matters regarding the then proposed BSkysB takeover bid and it looks as if the Culture Secretary was prepared to divulge confidential information beneficial to the bid.
As the Leveson inquiry progresses it becomes more apparent by the day that David Cameron is not being altogether transparent in his recollections of his meetings with Rupert Murdoch.
The Question is why? Have no doubt Cameron is being advised to be either open or selective on his recollections so why is he choosing to conveniently not mention all his encounters with Murdoch since he became PM?
Last night Murdoch revealed that he had met with David Cameron on five more occasions than the Prime Minister was prepared to disclose.
The two occasions which Cameron has admitted to meeting Murdoch on were substantial or involved just the two men, however there have been five other occasions where the two have met and talked at parties or other events.
This demonstrates what harmful effect a little information from the Murdochs can do to political reputations, but have no doubt this is just a warning shot.
It is here that an unlikely hero enters the frame.
Former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown has vehemently denied allegations by Murdoch in the Leveson inquiry.
Yesterday Murdoch informed the inquiry that Gordon Brown had said he would wage war on Murdoch’s empire in retaliation to Murdoch’s war on Brown’s government.
Also Murdoch questioned Brown’s state of mind at the time.
Gordon Brown is someone who never enjoyed the relationship with Murdoch that his arch rival Tony Blair did and continues to do i.e. Blair is godfather to Murdoch’s daughter.
In the past Gordon Brown has accused Murdoch’s empire of hacking into the medical records of his deceased son.
The seriousness of Gordon Brown’s riposte cannot be overstated because the implications are simple. If Murdoch is seen to have born false witness during the trial then how much of his testimony can be believed and that has (to a far lesser extent) implications to the legitimacy of the testimony of his son, James, seeing as the father and son represent the same company and have mutual interests.
Brown may have been waiting for the perfect time to retaliate against Murdoch and the lack of closeness between the two means there is probably very little dirt for Murdoch to throw back seeing as there can be no guilt by association with a man who he was not associated with.
Is Gordon Brown about to make a political comeback whilst blowing a kiss to those who contributed to he downfall?