ST,—You aslc me and others to admit the authenticity of

the newspaper interviews that Mrs. Maclean is supposed to have given on the eve of her departure from England. May we examine the evidence? The evidence that no reporter visited Mrs. Maclean's house and interviewed her at first hand that day does not depend on Mrs. Maclean's word. Everyone then present in the house has testified to the fact. The authenticity of the impression given by the Daily Express, which published as its page-one splash story a colourful 'interview' that included descrip- tive passages of how Mrs. Maclean smiled, can easily be disproved.

The next question is whether she gave by telephone an interview to the Daily Express, which they merely misrepresented as having been given face-to-face. There is no doubt that the Daily Express (and other newspapers) tele- phoned the .Maclean house that day after re- ceiving the family's official statement via the Press Association .announcing Mrs. Melinda Maclean's departure from England for Switzer- land next morning. But the evidence that she did not give an interview by telephone, again, does not depend on her word. There was present with her during the telephone call made by the Daily Express a sister of her mother-in-law, Lady Maclean. This lady, Miss Devitt, is prepared to make a sworn statement that no such interview was given.

Similarly, when the Daily Telegraph tele- phoned the Maclean home, they (like all other inquirers) were told that the official statement was all that Mrs. Maclean wished to say. What the Daily Telegraph published was substanti- ally not different from the written statement that they had received via the PA; but it was presented as an 'interview.'

No complaint was made by the Maclean family to the Daily Telegraph. That paper only entered the controversy because reference to its 'interview' was made in a report on the whole episode that the Observer published the following week. That report was largely de- voted to exposing two things: the falsity of the Daily Express banner-headlined story purport- ing to be a face-to-face interview with Mrs. Maclean, and the harrying of the whole Maclean family over a long period. However, in the interests of accuracy, a passing (and not at all condescending) reference was made to the Daily Telegraph's much smaller 'inter- view.

This produced a strong attack on the Observer in the news columns of the Daily Telegraph. I sent that paper a letter for pub- lication defending our statement. This was published. But there ought to be a note in the telephone records of the Daily Telegraph of a half-hour conversation between myself and the Assistant Editor of the paper at that time, Mr. Malcolm Muggeridge, during which he tried, unsuccessfully, to induce me to agree to their publishing a new version of my letter which he had written himself !

The Daily Express made no attempt to re- fute the accuracy of our main charge, which was that there had been no face-to-face inter- view. Shortly after then, the reporter concerned ceased to be employed by the Daily Express. He later applied to me for a job. I understood from him that he had left his job at the Daily Express as a result of the troubles caused by the alleged interview—evidently either he or his editor was less happy about the episode than you seem to think they ought to have been.

the point that these episodes illustrate is

re

m

N,

;It r-

ly

11 y,

pt

3s that if newspapers consider that the me making of a phone call in itself entitles the to claim that they have had an interviel whether they have asked permission to publii what is alleged to have been said or not, thr nobody is safe from being involuntarily bite viewed—particularly those in weak position Turning from the authenticity of these pa ticular 'interviews' to your treatment of Lac Violet Bonham Carter, 1 notice you have no added to the injustice done her by publishit letters that attack her and her father wanton' Their tone seems to justify one in saying th you have allowed your columns to be used a pillory. Her courage in defending relatives of ti vanished diplomats from all those who ha' joined in misusing and abusing them compare to my mind, very favourably with the spirit the abusers. They are all purveyors of varioi kinds of hate. One kind is the ideologic hatred which McCarthy has shown produe cruelty, foolishness and inefficiency; anothi is personal hatred derived from class consciou ness, which is morally no better than raci. prejudice; a third is the happy hatred of a habitual trouble-seeker. I am glad to be c her side, and sorry to' see the Spectator c theirs.—Yours faithfully,

le :5,

of

IS al

:r al

on n

DAVID ASIC OR

The Observer Eat