It is, in fairness, a fairly slow time for politics news at the moment. But it’s striking all the same to open this morning’s papers and see almost all of them running what’s not only basically the exact same story, but also the exact same groundless spin on it.

THE SCOTSMAN: “Jim Murphy tells Scots Labour to back tax powers”

DAILY RECORD: “Labour leadership frontrunner Jim Murphy set to back full income tax-raising powers for Holyrood”

THE GUARDIAN: “Scotland [is] to be offered total control over income tax after Labour U-turn. Labour’s policy shift will be confirmed on Tuesday by Jim Murphy, the favourite to become the next Scottish Labour leader.”

THE HERALD: “Murphy to support handing full income tax powers to Holyrood”

THE TIMES: “Murphy calls for full income tax devolution”

BBC NEWS: “Scottish Labour leadership candidate Jim Murphy is calling on his party to support the full devolution of income tax to Holyrood.”

STV NEWS: “Labour candidate Murphy calls for ‘full devolution of income tax'”

EVENING TIMES: “Murphy in call for full devolution of income tax”

There’s only one thing conspicuously missing from all of the stories – a quote from Jim Murphy saying he backs the devolution of full income tax powers to Holyrood.

Murphy was asked the question directly just two days ago on Sunday Politics Scotland and completely bodyswerved it with some vague non-committal waffle that amounted to a fobbing-off of responsibility for the decision to the Smith Commission. And if you search the stories in today’s papers, the only thing you’ll find that even approaches a concrete quote is this:

“Even before the Smith Commission reports, we should agree to the full devolution of income tax to Scotland, if that is what emerges.”

Our emphasis, there. But it’s exactly what he said on Sunday, and in essence it’s nothing but an abdication of responsibility. Yet every newspaper makes an unqualified statement of Jim Murphy’s personal view that’s backed by no visible evidence.

It’s almost as if, cynical readers might be forgiven for thinking, Murphy’s press team had sent out an identical press release to all of the media’s most sympathetic Labour hacks – Magnus Gardham, Torcuil Crichton, Severin Carrell, Andrew Whitaker – and they’d all printed it with only the most superficial of edits.

It seems abundantly clear that none of the bylined reporters have been given the full speech. All the stories carry the same inconclusive quotes, such as “It is a clear signal to Scotland that we have changed” without any quoted indication of what “it” is, or “This will result in there being no hiding place for those who want to talk about radical politics but then fail to deliver them” with no quoted indication of what “this” is. Yet all of them magically reach identical conclusions.

Not a single word that’s actually quoted couldn’t equally be applied to Labour’s official devolution plan of partial control of income tax. When the speech is delivered later today it might turn out to be more unequivocal but on the basis of the actual evidence supplied it’s still the same hedged, fudged, evasive, base-covering position. After all, if Murphy was going to unambiguously back full income tax devolution, why not just say so clearly and simply on Sunday in front of a nationwide audience?

The fact that none of the stories in the media this morning press Murphy for such a straight answer illustrate that none of the reporters actually spoke to him. They were fed exactly what Murphy wanted them to print and they ran it obediently.

(The Scotsman in fact did it two days running. Yesterday it ran a piece headlined “Jim Murphy backs full devolution of income tax”, in which diligent readers would have read on to find the reality was the rather less definitive statement “Mr Murphy refused to rule out supporting the devolution of all of income tax”.)

It’s perhaps also worth noting in passing that Jim Murphy’s view on the full devolution or otherwise of income tax to Holyrood is a matter of supreme irrelevance to anything. He’s currently just a backbench MP with no particular influence on Labour policy, and if he does succeed in becoming Scottish branch-office leader he’s pledged that he’ll sit at Holyrood rather than Westminster, so if Labour win the 2015 election he’ll have no say at all in the government that actually passes the devolution legislation.

Anyone seeking an explanation for why people have reacted so enthusiastically to the launch of The National might like to reflect not on whether it supports one particular position, but perhaps on the fact that readers are just desperately clinging to anything that might offer the hope of something approaching actual journalism.