MEDIA STUDIES
Reports of Peter Stothard's removal as editor are greatly exaggerated
STEPHEN GLOVER
0 n Tuesday morning, Peter Stothard, editor of the Times, called his departmental heads into his office and announced that he would be taking an immediate sabbatical lasting several months. The purpose was to study Internet opportunities for Rupert Murdoch's News International, the Times's parent company.
Most, though not all, of those present concluded that Mr Stothard had been given the sack. In the first place, he appeared rather unhappy; one witness describes him as looking 'startled'. In the second place, it is unusual for an editor to take time off on such a mission, the more so given that there must be hundreds of people more qualified than Mr Stothard to investigate the Inter- net. In the third place, it is a common prac- tice in News International not actually to sack editors in so many words but to give them other important sounding responsibili- ties which do not detain them for very long. Mr Murdoch has something of the paternal- ist about him, and feels a sense of loyalty towards those who serve him well. No doubt he also likes to avoid the bad publicity that can ensue when a long-serving editor is openly thrown out on to the street.
On Wednesday morning events took a dramatic and unexpected turn when Mr Stothard stood on a chair in the newsroom and addressed editorial staff in an eloquent and moving way. He told them that he had a treatable and non-cancerous growth which necessitated his departure for a few months. The former explanation of his taking time off to study the Internet was not specifically renounced, but Times staff were left in little doubt as to the real reason for his standing down for a while. Mr Stothard had evidently been stung by press reports, particularly in the Guardian, that his departure was linked to a peerage that Michael Ashcroft, the con- troversial Tory party treasurer, is rumoured to be receiving. As readers of this column will recall, Mr Stothard and Mr Ashcroft were last year engaged in a bitter libel battle which was called off after the intervention of Mr Murdoch. The suggestion that he had been sacked, and that this sacking was in some way linked to Mr Ashcroft's supposed elevation, was evidently more than Mr Stothard could bear.
Obfuscation in matters of health is surely pardonable, and no one will criticise Mr Stothard for his earlier version of events which gave rise to such wild and unfounded press reports. Even while he was trying to explain away his departure on Tuesday, there were some who wondered whether a medical condition might not be the true cause. Dur- ing the critical period of the paper's recent re-launch, he was sometimes absent, and told a colleague that he was involved in work that was even more important.
Mr Stothard's parting words to his staff were, 'I'll be back', and I'm sure he will be. Mr Murdoch would not dream of getting rid of an editor who had just recovered from what may be a rather serious illness. During Mr Stothard's absence, the 36-year-old Ben Preston will in effect be acting editor. (He is the son of Peter Preston, for 20 years editor of the Guardian.) This will give Mr Murdoch the opportunity to road-test young Preston, of whom some expect great things. But talk of Mr Stothard's removal is obviously very wide of the mark. From the bottom of my heart, I wish Peter a speedy recovery.
In my line of business I quite often receive anonymous letters from journalists alleging some injustice or impropriety which they would like the world to know about. Normally, one treats these with a great deal of caution, for obvious reasons. But a long letter I have received from a Mirror journalist so shines with integrity and decency that I feel justified in passing on some of its contents.
The writer, who sounds like a man, claims to be writing on behalf of 20 Mirror journalists who are deeply worried by the handling of the allegations against Piers Morgan, the paper's editor, concerning insider dealing. He says that although the publisher's spin doctors 'are currently hyp- ing the notion that the entire Mirror jour- nalistic staff adores Piers Morgan', the pro- portion of those who hope he will survive is probably no more than 50 per cent. He asserts that many Mirror journalists have been appalled by Mr Morgan's champi- oning of Mohamed Fayed. Others do not think that he has been a faithful guardian of the paper's socialist principles.
The letter raises several points about the alleged insider dealing which I have not seen in the press. Readers may recall that on 17 January Mr Morgan bought shares worth £20,000 in Viglen Technology which nearly doubled in value after the Mirror City Slickers column tipped them the fol-
lowing day. Mr Morgan says he did not know about the tip until he read it in the paper, but my correspondent suggests that the City Slickers item may have been on the news list on 17 January and, even if it wasn't, may well have been discussed dur- ing an editorial conference. He adds that `Piers also always took a close interest in the Slickers column during the day'.
Of course, the writer may well be an embittered hack who has been passed over for promotion by Mr Morgan. But the points he makes are surely worthy of fur- ther examination by the Press Complaints Commission.
0 n Tuesday morning the papers were full of the death of the rock star Ian Dury, the broadsheets being no exception. The Daily Telegraph carried a very moving front- page picture of Mr Dury and his two young sons along with an accompanying story above the fold. The Independent carried a different, though in its way equally touch- ing, picture of Mr Dury on its front page. This was accompanied by a memoir by John Walsh who, it turned out, had known Mr Dury only for a few hours.
On Wednesday morning, the broadsheets carried news of the death of the novelist Anthony Powell. Admittedly it came late, and they had little time to prepare. The Telegraph covered page three with the news, and ran a massive obituary, but could find room on its front page only for a 'puff box' announcing Mr Powell's death. The Independent covered page six, and pub- lished a long and brilliant obituary by Hilary Spurling, but could also find no room on its front for a story. Only the Times, in its later editions, ran a front-page piece about Mr Powell.
Does this neglect on the front page matter, given that there was so much stuff inside? I think it does. It says something about a news- paper's values and its understanding of its readers' priorities. Anthony Powell was a great novelist whose books will probably be read in 100 years. Mr Dury was a notable rock star whose reputation may or may not endure. I am pretty certain that Telegraph readers are more interested in Mr Powell (who wrote for the paper for many years) than they are in Mr Duty, and I would guess that even Independent readers think that the novelist was as important as the singer.
Previous page
