For the past couple of weeks, HSBC have dominated headlines over accusations that they have conducted a scheme allowing worldwide tax evasion on a massive scale for some of the richest and most corrupt individuals on the planet. Despite public outcry and condemnation, HMRC has decided not to bring prosecutions against HSBC, and only one of more than 1000  people in the UK suspected of avoiding tax in this way have been prosecuted since HMRC received details of the bank’s activity back in 2010.

It was also revealed that the Tory party has several donors, peers and an MP holding Swiss accounts with HSBC, so it is unlikely that we shall see a push from the government towards bringing prosecutions anytime soon. A few days into this story, it became common to hear people mention ‘HSBC’ and ‘the Telegraph’ in the same breath. This is because, whilst HSBC dominated headlines for most news broadcasters and newspapers, the coverage in the Telegraph seemed comparatively light. So scarce was the coverage that it became something of a joke, as though the Telegraph had been hiding under a rock for the past few days. But it soon became apparent that the Telegraph’s lack of coverage was neither ignorant, nor innocent.

Peter Oborne, the now-former chief political commentator for the Telegraph, published an article on Open Democracy entitled: ‘Why I have resigned from the Telegraph’. According to Oborne, HSBC, a significant contributor to the Telegraph in terms of the advertising it buys, is so vital that it has been able to affect the level and direction of reporting that occurs at the paper. For example, in 2012, the investigation team at the Telegraph received a tip-off about a number of HSBC accounts being held in Jersey. A few online articles were published (three of which are apparently no longer available to view), and then after this, nothing. Reporters were apparently told to destroy any documents and information related to the investigation. Any stories remotely critical of HSBC were either discouraged or simply suppressed. This is because, following the investigation into the Jersey accounts, HSBC suspended its “extremely valuable” advertising account with the Telegraph.

Thanks to Oborne’s disclosure, we also see just how far the divide between business and reporting, between editorials and adverts, has been broken down

Following this move, all efforts were made to try and retrieve the business of HSBC, and approximately a year later they restored it. The Guardian has also reported that, shortly prior to the sudden crackdown on HSBC criticism, the Barclay brothers — the owners of the Telegraph — secured a £250,000 loan to support another company they owned that was making financial losses. This loan came from HSBC. So when, in the past couple of weeks, a massive scandal surrounding HSBC came to light, the Telegraph chose reduced reporting over the risk of reduced funding. For Peter Oborne, this was the proverbial ‘straw that broke the camel’s back’.

In resigning in the way that he did, and by publishing his article to expose the nature of events that occur behind closed doors, Oborne has done a great duty for us all. He has drawn attention to the fact that the information we receive is ultimately controlled by a select elite few who operate with their own agendas in mind; these agendas not often extending to a full and free press that might damage their own reputations.

Thanks to Oborne’s disclosure, we also see just how far the divide between business and reporting, between editorials and adverts, has been broken down. Just consider the commonplace nature of native advertising in online articles. We see how the quality of news is slowly eroded, and instead of being informed about real issues that are important and impactful, we are flooded with trivial stories to distract us and keep the circulation of the paper high, but at the cost of its reputation. Every day, we trust the various forms of media to keep us informed and up-to-date with the goings on in the world, and yet, despite holding this great power, we seldom question those figures behind the media and the motives that they might have.

Oborne reminds us that there are many respectable journalists who carry out their job with the honest intention of factually reporting the most important stories.

It is not uncommon to hear activists and public figures question the motives and allegiances of the media and its increasingly elite circle, for they often have nothing to lose. But to have a conservative commentator for a conservative paper come out and expose just how far the roots of business have crept into the objective reporting of our national papers is significantly more enlightening.

Oborne has also done a great service for those in the field of journalism. In a country that is still dealing with the revelations of phone-hacking and buying-off of police, politicians and other officials that was common practice amongst so many on Fleet Street, Oborne reminds us that there are many respectable journalists who carry out their job with the honest intention of factually reporting the most important stories. In holding on to his integrity by sticking to his principles and choosing full disclosure over financial gain, Oborne has set an example for journalists present and future.

Liam Kerrigan