Andrew Neil...

The Blair government is in the grip of an unprecedented crisis with as yet unimaginable consequences. It stands accused of running a spin machine so ruthless that it led to the suicide of an honourable public servant - yet many of our national newspapers would rather put the BBC in the dock.

No impartial observer could deny that the BBC has questions to answer. I think it can defend its decision not to name David Kelly as its major source until after his death. After all, if it had been confirmed before his suicide, what sources would have trusted its promises of confidentiality in the future? And if it had denied he was the source, the Government would have suggested others, until the name was revealed by a process of elimination.

But there is also a more serious suspicion that, in accusing the Government of embellishing secret intelligence to make the case for war with Iraq, the BBC's Andrew Gilligan exaggerated what Dr Kelly had told him - and that could have contributed to his suicide. Gilligan has categorically denied this accusation and his BBC bosses are standing by him.

It is a sideshow, however, compared with the predicament of the Government, which stands accused of mercilessly hanging out Dr Kelly to dry. Yet that is not how some papers see it. The scandal was barely 48 hours old and the Government was in turmoil - but by Monday the big guns were turning with suspicious unanimity on the BBC.

"BBC battles to save its reputation," roared the front page of Monday's Times. "First cracks of unity in BBC board" was its splash the next day, even as parts of the Government's story were unravelling. The Sun, its Wapping stablemate, pursued the same anti-BBC agenda, with its usual subtlety: "You Rat", Monday's front page screamed at Gilligan, while inside it gunned relentlessly for the BBC and its bosses.

Others have fallen for the Government's efforts to switch the heat away from Downing Street and on to the BBC. Monday's Guardian was full of BBC tittletattle dressed up as hard news (though it ran a balanced editorial on the BBC yesterday) - but Rupert Murdoch's papers have been the worst offenders.

It is even rumoured that his News of the World was all set to blow the Government out of the water when a last-minute call came (either from Murdoch or one of his executives) late on Saturday to attack the BBC. Of course, this is denied in Wapping. But it would explain the odd way in which the NoW handled the story. "Has Blair got blood on his hands? No. Are the BBC to blame? Maybe." You can imagine what these headlines might have said before that call.

Murdoch regards himself as editor-in-chief of The Sun and NoW, so nobody should be surprised if he dictates the editorial line. The Times is meant to make up its own mind, but its anti-BBC headlines and milk-and-water editorials suggest that editor Robert Thomson thought that there were Brownie points in attacking the BBC.

But he may be mistaken in thinking that it is wise to align his paper so closely with the Government. Its severest criticism of the Government is of "institutional failing" - bet that really hurt in Downing Street - while depicting the BBC as the real villain.

It is hard to divorce this sort of coverage from the fact that Murdoch's holding company owns 40 per cent of BSkyB (and would like to own all of it, which is why he has little interest in Channel 5).

With ITV in possibly terminal decline, BSkyB's only serious opposition is the BBC. If it can be discredited, abused and undermined in the Kelly crisis, then so much the better for BSkyB.

A conspiracy theory too far? Perhaps. But consider what else was making the news as the Murdoch papers (The Sunday Times being the exception) railed against the Beeb. At the weekend a spinning Downing Street insisted that the decision to "out" Dr Kelly as the source had been entirely a matter for civil servants - obviously a nonsense. By Monday, it was clear that Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's fingerprints were all over the decision. By Tuesday, nobody was in any doubt that Hoon would not have acted without 10 Downing Street's approval.

Tony Blair has categorically denied having anything to do with it. If he is telling the truth then the nod to Hoon must have come from his spinmeister, Alastair Campbell - which means Hoon and Campbell will be casualties of the Hutton inquiry. If it transpires that the PM was in any way involved, then even his position becomes tenuous.

Consider that and tell me the BBC is really the story.

More readers, fewer sales? Go figure...

The Independent on Sunday has just taken out a full-page ad in the UK Press Gazette to boast that its readership rose 8.4 per cent in the six months to April, in stark contrast to its nearest rival, The Observer (down eight per cent), way ahead of The Sunday Telegraph (up 1.7 per cent) and even beating the mighty Sunday Times (up 7.3 per cent).

Better still, Sindy readership among those elusive under-45s so valued by advertisers was up an astonishing 18 per cent.

Something to boast about, you might think. Except that, contrary to the Sindy's current promotion line - The Full Story - these ads are very far from the full story.

For a start, they refer to readership, not circulation, and all readership changes - up or down - over short periods should carry a prominent health warning.

Unlike ABC, the independent auditor of newspaper sales which counts every copy sold (from 1p bulk sales to fullprice), the National Readership Survey (NRS) samples the public to find out what newspapers they are reading. As such, the figures are subject to huge short-term sampling swings and errors.

I remember once proudly presiding over a 50,000 increase in Sunday Times sales only to discover that readership had supposedly plummeted by more than 100,000. The same statistical aberration seems to be occurring at the Sindy - but in a more helpful direction.

During the period for which it is boasting an 8.4 per cent rise in readers, the Sindy's circulation actually fell five per cent on the year-on-year rolling six-month average. How can readership rise eight per cent when sales fall five per cent, you might reasonably ask.

The NRS is an invaluable guide to longer-term movements in readership but short-term swings are pretty meaningless.

As one wise old newspaper executive once said to me: "Ignore them when they're bad, boast about them when they're good."

I guess the Sindy is simply following that advice.

Hacks not off the hook

As anticipated on this page early last month, chief executive Sly Bailey's review of Trinity Mirror (to be unveiled at the end of the month) will not include the disposal of any major titles. Instead the axe will fall on distribution, advertising sales and marketing. Hundreds of jobs will be lost in the process.

Journalists at Britain's biggest newspaper publishing group will be relieved that editorial budgets do not seem to be part of the costcutting. But they should leave the champagne firmly corked.

I am sure Bailey will make substantial savings in cutting bureaucracy and waste. But the markets - remember Trinity Mirror is a public company - will not take her seriously if she does not also tackle the group's famous editorial extravagances. I suspect Bailey has concluded that it will cause less of a row if she does it by stealth.

A Short-lived spoof

BBC2's Daily Politics team went off on our hols with a spring in our step now that we've become a regular feature of Dead Ringers, the hilarious BBC spoof show. Indeed we were so chuffed by our new-found fame that we decided to run the Dead Ringers spoof of me interviewing Clare Short prior to my real interview with the former international secretary in our last show before the summer recess. So we ran a clip in which my impersonator asks what she made of a particular claim by Tony Blair, to which "she" replies: "I was so surprised my chin dropped ... a centimetre."

Chuckles all round with yours truly leading the laughs - until I noticed that the real Ms Short's chin and the rest of her visage were locked in a cement-like grimace.

The ice was broken only when co-presenter Daisy Sampson came to the rescue by staring hard at the guy impersonating me and asking innocently: "Why have they got Clive Anderson presenting the Daily Politics?"

'St Trollops' is bad for my reputation

Much hilarity down St Tropez way when Saturday's Daily Mail arrived with its double-page spread on "St Trollops", which claimed that our modest little seaside resort was being invaded by well-bred young English gels in search of wealthy older men. "I think they're getting at you," I remarked to Samantha, 23, and Davina, 24, as we dropped anchor off Club 55 for a spot of lunch. "Perish the thought," they chorused, as they helped me down the gangplank and on to the dinghy. "But you have radioed ahead to put extra Cristall on ice, haven't you?"

I think I might give St Trop a miss for the rest of the summer. Frequenting a place where younger women chase older men can get you a bad reputation. So I'm grateful to the Mail for this startling and fearless piece of investigative journalism. Now, where did the girls put my slippers and walking stick?