Clarence Mitchell speaks out following Leveson Inquiry

Clarence Mitchell speaks out following Leveson Inquiry

Matt Cartmell, prweek.com, Friday, 10 February 2012, 9:37am

Clarence Mitchell has told PRWeek that he 'takes some comfort' from yesterday's Leveson Inquiry, where there were revelations about the News of the World printing extracts from Kate McCann's diary.


Former News of the World news editor Ian Edmondson revealed yesterday that former editor Colin Myler ordered that Mitchell should be told only in ‘very woolly’ terms that the newspaper would be running a story about the McCanns, without giving any indication of a plan to publish the diary in full.

Mitchell, who works as PR representative for the McCanns, told PRWeek: 'What Edmondson said entirely supported my version of the events, and while its true we did discuss a possibility of a piece going into the paper, I was left with the distinct impression it would be a minor piece, and that it would be entirely supportive.

'It should never have happened. I take some comfort that Edmondson has supported my version of events. It was a fairly insalubrious episode.'

Mitchell, who is Burson-Marsteller's MD, added that he did not rule out being called up to speak in the inquiry in the future.

Elsewhere in the inquiry, Max Clifford dubbed phone-hacking a ‘cancer that now hopefully has been cut out’.

Following his appearance, Clifford told PRWeek: ‘The British public is starting to be aware of the excesses of the media over the past ten years. If nothing else comes out of it, we hope we will have a free press in a democracy.

‘I hope we have an effective press complaints authority that will take care of ordinary members of the public, who at the moment have no-one to protect them.’

Speaking after the inquiry, PRCA chief executive Francis Ingham said that one of the themes to emerge was ‘how central PR professionals are to many, if not most, of the stories those newspapers carry’.

'Given I am clear that our industry performs a predominantly beneficial role in society, the more it is understood, the better,’ added Ingham.

W Communications founder Warren Johnson added: ‘The appearances of Max Clifford and Clarence Mitchell before the Leveson inquiry have highlighted the surprisingly low turn out from the rest of the PR industry.


'The recent Independent story on Bell Pottinger has certainly served to spark wider public interest in the influence that parts of the PR industry do, or allege to, wield. My wider concern, though, is that the inquiry may further erode trust in and credibility of the press, which in turn could negatively affect the role of PR in the eyes of clients and consumers alike.


http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/1116614/clarence-mitchell-speaks-following-leveson-inquiry/

yeah i bet he takes comfort,if the truth be known he is sh***** a brick.

'What Edmondson said entirely supported my version of the events, and while its true we did discuss a possibility of a piece going into the paper, I was left with the distinct impression it would be a minor piece, and that it would be entirely supportive.

The idea that the PR spokesman for people at the heart of a serious criminal enquiry can determine what is written about his clients in the press is in itself an eloquent comment on the state of both the press and the criminal enquiry itself.

'It should never have happened. I take some comfort that Edmondson has supported my version of events. It was a fairly insalubrious episode.'

I suspect Clarence knows a thing or two about insalubriousness.

candyfloss wrote:Mitchell, who is Burson-Marsteller's MD, added that he did not rule out being called up to speak in the inquiry in the future.

Who are Burson-Marsteller?

Here's their U K website. http://burson-marsteller.co.uk/

What's the betting some of them have been on here trying to "manipulate" us.

Stella wrote:Burson-Marsteller (B-M) is one of the largest public relations (PR) agencies in the world and also the most reviled due to its mercenary attitude in choosing clients and contracts, and its frequent run ins with activists for environmental and other progressive causes. When helping its industry clients to escape environmental legislation or sprucing up the image of some of the most repressive governments on Earth, B-M brings to bear state of the art techniques in manipulating the mass media, legislators and public opinion. ]

So missing Madeleine McCann no longer has any police force looking for her because her parents allowed the investigation to be shelved so they could hire someone from one of the largest PR agencies in the world who are the most reviled etc....

....together with the most feared libel lawyers.

Just what a missing child needs. I'm sure Madeleine must be thrilled about that.

Quite Happy Chick.

Just how did someone with Clarence Mitchell's experience end up protecting supporting the likes of the McCann's?

Stella wrote:Just how did someone with Clarence Mitchell's experience end up protecting supporting the likes of the McCann's?

Because he was told to.

Ross wrote:

Stella wrote:Just how did someone with Clarence Mitchell's experience end up protecting supporting the likes of the McCann's?

Because he was told to.

I agree. He was just following orders and at that time was employed by the Government. The Labour Government.

B-M brings to bear state of the art techniques in manipulating the mass media, legislators and public opinion.

"Madeleine's Fund-Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd" article 2C.6 - alone or with other organisations seek to influence public opinion and make representations to and seek to influence governmental and other bodies and institutions

Looks to me both companies have the same objectives...despite one being a public donated monies search fund for a missing child