Sir, After 31 years as a journalist, finally I am discovering what it is like to be on the receiving end of the press. Your media analysis (Feb 8) attacked a 14,000-word chapter about The Observer in my book Flat Earth News by focusing on the alleged weakness of a single sentence, which recorded the belief of some Observer journalists that the contents of e-mails from Alastair Campbell had found their way into leader columns. On this most slender of foundations, it went on to suggest that the whole chapter was inaccurate and/or unchecked.

The reality is that there is no dispute that in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, The Observer published a series of high-profile stories which were false. I spoke to their authors at length and traced their origin to a fascinating strategy of manipulation by intelligence agencies and Downing Street. I interviewed more than a dozen Observer staff. I obtained internal documents. I discussed the whole thing with the deputy editor who specialises in foreign coverage, who was rather cross but reasonably helpful.

It seems bizarre to use a single sentence to question the validity of such extensive research. I stand by what I wrote. Surely the question which we should be asking is why it took a freelance journalist from outside The Observer to inquire into the reasons for such disastrous misreporting.

Nick Davies
London SW1

Explore Letters

• Feedback