I have to say that I find the tone of this post likely to be counter-productive. Of course it's easy for me to say, since I'm an armchair reader rather than someone who has worked this lonely beat for many years. However, perhaps we need to differentiate between the Louise Grays and other hacks?
Aside from Booker and Delingpole, there is little enough interest from MSM in these kind of stories. Is it really useful to attack someone with such vitriol when he steps out his comfort zone?
And rather than simply reproducing blog posts on his byline, he does appear to have spent time to show the web of nepotism underlying GLOBE.
Two things irritate me here, exceedingly so.
The first is the attempt to "own" the story ... no one else exists except the mighty Sunday Telegraph, so when Lewis writes the story, recycling old material, he puts his name on other people's work and calls it his own. If I as a blogger did that, very quickly there would be comments pointing it out, perhaps with some sardonic comments on other blogs. If an academic did that, it would be called plagiarism.
What I would do, of course, is link to the previous stories, and then take them further. But the great, almighty MSM doesn't do this!! It is so grand and up its own arse that it can't possibly acknowledge that anyone else exists.
My second problem is the pretentiousness of Lewis's title. This is straight out of "environmental operative" territory - one of the names for a dustman. He's a journalist doing a straightforward, reasonably competent rehash, adding a bit of additional detail ... but missing out a lot of other detail. But everybody's an "editor" these days ... and an "investigations" editor ... pah!
Excuse me for taking the piss ...