Write the stories days (or weeks) ahead - preferably slagging Bill Roache off - then have certain key phrases and headlines that can be changed at the last moment, when we know the verdict.

So their multi page coverage is generally nasty and mean spirited, making him out to be a lecherous, fractionally mad cult follower.

The front page is superficially positive but just read the rest - and between the lines.

His composure is described as "steely".

Hmm; reminds me of when I was "ogling". Or "smirking".

Dear old Leveson really didn't have a clue, did he?

Mind you, he was on a hiding to nothing. You will never change the animal.
Which is why I gave up on traditional media and went mainly online 14 years ago.

I read the Mail online:
A. Because it's free
B. lot's of pictures
c. I can make outrageous comments without fear of being identified
D. it's free

It does do "stuff" very well; example, today's excellent literary section. Instant Amazon Kindle purchase for two favourite old classics, now republished - Zuleika Dobson and Aspidestra... straight onto my iPad mini, ready to read next summer.

Baz Bamigboye has also long been the best film and theatre person; his spread is the best in Britain.

I love their Saturday TV supplement - that and Sunday's Culture are my guides of choice.

I'm always most amused by the shameless way they respond to the journalist's horror of the blank page by doing so many two page 'stars who look like their dogs' or 'celebs and their changing hairstyles' picture features. You can almost hear the sighs of relief as another couple of pages are 'done' without any of that painful writing malarkey.

It's gone quiet on DLT this week because most of the proceedings concern his time on commercial radio, and of course the Mail is only outraged by these allegations when it involves the BBC.