You can be against State control of the press and against press crimes

 You can almost smell the fear seeping from the Daily Mail. They, like most papers are terrified that the crimes they have allegedly committed are going to be proved and the the State will step into regulate the press and imprison the guilty. 

It must be a worry. 

The Mail has the problem of the actor Hugh Grant who says they acted illegally in getting information from him and about his family. The allegations are very damaging to the Mail. 

As part of their spin operation the Mail on Sunday has an article telling the world that Hugh Grant supports the Mail.......well that Hugh Grant is against political/state control of the press.  Grant calls the idea "abhorrent". 

He is right. The destruction of a free press would undermine or democracy and alow corruption and illegality to spread unexposed. 

For the Mail to seek to use their fiercest critic to defend themselves is fine. Many guilty people do the same. 

Two things strike me though. The first is that the Mail's worried editor, Paul Dacre has called for the state regulation of journalists. This state control is far in excess and much more draconian than regulating newspapers. 

Secondly they are missing the point. Being against state contort of the press doesn't mean you think the media can commit crimes without punishment. 

All the hacking, bribing, et al, the press have been engaged in are illegal under current laws. 

You can demand their punishment and be against the destruction of a free press. 

The Mail is scared and thinks its readers are stupid if this is the best they can do.