There are some who would tell us that Alistair Campbell's masterstroke as New Labour press supremo was to win over the Sun from the Tories at the last election. There are those who would still have us believe that neutralising (rather than neutering) Rupert Murdoch's organs is an essential prerequisite to any further electoral success in the future.

But you can't go down in sewers without coming up smelling of shit.

It's barely a fortnight since the Sun was urging Peter Mandelson to come clean about his sexuality on the grounds that "honest and able politicians have nothing to fear from the truth." The fact of someone being gay is such a commonplace these days, te paper told us, that the only remarkable thing about it is that some people still think it worth remarking on.

And then Mr Murdoch's News of the World decided to devote its front page to the unremarkable fact of a hitherto little-known Cabinet minister being homosexual. The little turd that is Nick Brown's ex-lover created a blockage behind which all manner of bigger turds backed up, and instead of taking a cleaning rod to the system, the Murdoch Corporation's sewage operatives reverted to type by letting all the shit they could find seep up to the surface.

"THE SUN SPEAKS ITS MIND: TELL US THE TRUTH TONY," squelched Monday's front page. "Are we being run by a gay Mafia? How many skeletons are still in the closet?"

(A Collins Dictionary definition aside to Sun political editor Trevor Kavanagh, following his BBC interview quibble about the pejorative meaning of these questions: Mafia n. 1. an international criminal organisation founded in Sicily and carried to the US by Italian immigrants. 2. any group considered to resemble the Mafia.)

"The revelation that a FOURTH member of the Blair Cabinet, Nick Brown, may be gay has set alarm bells ringing," the Sun informed us. "Not because people despise gays, or fear them, or wish to pillory them. But the public has a right to know how many homosexuals occupy positions of high power."

Really? Why? And if so, do we have a similar right to know how many top journalists masturbate and how often, which of them are fetishists, who gets off on the page three pin-ups, who pays prostitutes, who uses poppers, who likes leather, who wears panties, who prefers lace?

The Sun tries to persuade us that: "We have a RIGHT to know about secret liaisons which might explain why certain policies are persistently pursued, or worrying matters kept secret." In reality, its interest in such knowledge lies in how it can help it to sell papers, make profits and exercise power -- over both individuals and the political process as a whole.

This prurient self-interest is riven right through with hypocrisy. "Before anyone accuses the Sun of invading Brown's privacy," the paper editorialised on Monday, "let us make this plain. We have known he is homosexual for a long time. We chose not to publish the fact. We also have in our possession a tape of a conversation between Brown and a rent boy. Once again we have chosen not to publish details."

Well, why not? Either we "have a RIGHT to know about secret liaisons which might explain why certain policies are persistently pursued, or worrying matters kept secret" or we don't. The Sun can't have it both ways: telling us that Nick Brown has had some sort of liaison with a rent boy but then declining to share with us the details in some spurious act of unwillingness to invade the poor man's privacy.

This is the nastiest kind of cant. (Collins Dictionary definition aside for Peter Kavanagh: Cant n. 1. insincere talk, esp. concerning religion or morals. 2. phrases that have become meaningless through repetition. 3. specialised vocabulary of a particular group, such as thieves, journalists, or lawyers.) And, no matter what Alistair Campbell and Co may see as their success in winning over parts of Rupert Murdoch's empire to New Labour in 1997, it remains the Sun's principal stock in trade.

Downing Street should be clearer in its disgust about this sort of thing; and more specific in its condemnations. Tony Blair might also be more personally forthright in his defence of those who come under such media attack. Ron Davies -- the victim of a violent robbery, when all else is said and done -- should not have been left with no option but to resign. Nick Brown should not now feel under any pressure to go either. Neither committed the only unpardonable sin of saying one thing in public while doing another in private. Both should have been given the full backing of the Prime Minister until and unless it could be shown that their private behaviour had any impact upon their ability to do their jobs.