A “FERAL BEAST:” Actually, I think he’s being kind in that the term suggests a lack of bad intent.

UPDATE: Reader John Chalupa says I’m missing the point here:

Why did Blair attack the media?

1. Iraq criticism aside, the media exposed Blair’s Saudi bribery scandal.
2. Blair may be providing cover for an EU assault on free speech (with an eye toward a job in Brussels?).

Corroborating quotes from the linked Guardian article:

Moving on to the regulation of newspapers, Mr Blair said changes were inevitable…He also questioned whether papers needed some system of accountability that went beyond sales. He said: “The reality is that the viewers or readers have no objective yardstick to measure what they are being told. In every other walk of life in our society that exercises power, there are external forms of accountability, not least through the media itself.
……….

The prime minister’s aides admitted he had thought long and hard before making the speech, but felt free to do so now that he was, in his own words, leaving office “still standing”. Ministers conceded privately that the regulatory structure of newspapers may change over the next decade, but did not believe it would lead to direct regulation. “It is possible we could end up with a kitemark that websites pass certain tests, but it is a long way away,” said one minister.

There is also ministerial and industry scepticism that EU legislation and the convergence of newspapers and broadcasting would see a single regulatory structure for newspapers and TV.

The coming EU legislation is likely to make the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, responsible for regulating the internet, but is likely to leave unregulated the content of newspapers on the website.

Well, this isn’t inconsistent. I’m against Euro-style press regulation, of course. But much of the British press has been even more shoddily political and dishonest in its war coverage than its Ratheresque counterparts here. Lack of patriotism and honesty, plus lack of self-discipline, are likely to lead to calls for regulation. And if it were any other industry putting out a similarly shoddy and corrupt product, the British press would be demanding government regulation, wouldn’t it?

I’m sure that government regulation will be worse than press freedom, but irresponsible behavior tends to produce demands for government regulation. I should also note that one of Blair’s targets was the BBC, which is both exceptionally politicized and government funded, making Blair’s criticisms more significant in that case.