There's an old rule in politics: if your opponents are fighting amongst themselves, you are winning.

By that measure the Downing Street spin, or propaganda, operation is being remarkably successful.

We political journalists are fighting amongst ourselves following a lengthy attack on many of our current interactions with government by the veteran columnist Peter Oborne.

Peter is an old friend of mine and a maverick. In his career he has resigned on principle several times from news organisations employing him.


He also happens to be married to a senior cleric in the Church of England. Perhaps that is why he has always placed such a high premium on truth, including writing several books about lying and politics.

Image: Information, much of it unreliable, is handed out as 'a favour' to hand-picked journalists

The headline above his diatribe is: "British journalists have become part of Johnson's fake news machine", alleging "from the Mail, The Times to the BBC and ITN, everyone is peddling Downing Street's lies and smears. They are turning their readers into dupes".

He goes on to cite several recent examples where prominent mainstream media outlets reported things as fact from government sources which turned out not to be true. They include:

The widely followed up front page splash in the Mail on Sunday - "Number 10 probes Remain MPs' 'foreign collusion'". This implicitly accused people like Oliver Letwin and Hilary Benn of treason. There was no such investigation ordered by the government.

Number 10 sources said Amber Rudd was given "every opportunity" to seek legal advice before she resigned. Not true.

Number 10 sources suggested that details of Operation Yellowhammer were "deliberately leaked by a former minister to influence discussions" and pointed journalists towards Philip Hammond. As Mr Hammond pointed out angrily the documents were dated in August, after he had left the government.

Image: No reporter should give credence to what this government says on the record

The frequency and inaccuracy of the anonymous briefings by Downing Street sources is matched only by the inaccuracy of the prime minister's own public pronouncements.

He said he would not prorogue parliament and attempted to. He said he didn't want an early general election and has tried to bring one about for the past month.

He said he would not send a letter to the EU requesting an extension of membership and then he did. He said he would take the UK out of the EU on Halloween "do or die" and he hasn't.

My point is that demonstrably no sensible reporter should give credence to what this government says on the record, let alone what shadowy sources, who aren't prepared to put their names to their claims, are alleging.

Rees-Mogg and son heckled outside Westminster

Of course it is the first duty of journalists to report what they are told - but there is an important difference between saying "the government says it is going to do such and such" and "I can reveal from my exclusive sources that the government is going to do such and such".

Journalists vie to have the best "sources" but spin doctors on both sides are using this against them.

There are fewer and fewer attributable briefings and interviews given to news organisations on an even-handed basis, because the politician in question feels obliged to explain himself to their readers or viewers.

Instead, information, much of it unreliable, is handed out as "a favour" to hand-picked journalists who inevitably are reluctant to bite the hand that feeds them - not that they often get the chance as interviews are kept needlessly short and gobbets are chucked out from behind a screen.

Take Thursday's announcement that the prime minister will let MPs give proper consideration to the EU Withdrawal Bill provided that they agree to have a general election on 12 December.

Mr Johnson did not launch his plan at Prime Minister's Questions or during the several speeches he has made to parliament this week.

He actually pulled out for the third time from his appearance at the Liaison Committee, where he could have discussed the idea with senior MPs from all parties.

In 25 years as Sky News' political editor I never sought favours and was never given them, perhaps because I worked for challenger companies rather than the legacy duopoly of ITV and BBC.

The Leader of the House, Jacob Rees-Mogg, did not announce it in his regular weekly statement to MPs of next week's business at Thursday lunchtime.

Instead, Laura Kuenssberg, the BBC political editor, was invited in for a brief pool interview - delivered to all broadcasters - in which he outlined his latest wheeze.

She had limited opportunity to ask him follow-up questions as to how he expects to make it work. All that stood was his statement.

Peter Oborne calls this "client journalism" in which reporters have become clients of their sources, reported without challenge or contradiction that what they say as fact.

In 25 years as Sky News' political editor I never sought favours and was never given them, perhaps because I worked for challenger companies rather than the legacy duopoly of ITV and BBC.

Since I moved into anchoring five years ago I have less need for direct contact with political press offices - my sources are the people I interview and talk to away from the cameras and I prefer real politicians to their unelected advisers.

:: Listen to the All Out Politics podcast on Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker

I am expressing a personal view here, not speaking on behalf of Sky News. But I can confirm that I and my Sky News colleagues still work with the same "no favours" impartiality.

It hasn't done us much harm. In this year's news consumption survey by the industry regulator Ofcom, Sky News is rated top above BBC, ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5 for accuracy, impartiality, diversity of opinion, depth of analysis, international news and the calibre of its journalists.

Although he denied he ever said it, the mantra associated with Jeremy Paxman in his prime was "why is this lying b****** lying to me?".

Frankly, I thought it was over the top back then. But in these times trust is clearly not justified.

I think journalists need to remember Paxman's law every time they do an interview, whatever it's about, or get a piece of information from a source.

Sky Views is a series of comment pieces by Sky News editors and correspondents, published every morning.

Previously on Sky Views: Paul Kelso - Boris Johnson's Brexit deal has achieved the impossible, but not in a good way