SHARED OPINION
Help! the Guardian's Head of Press and Corporate Affairs has got physical with me
FRANK JOHNSON
Ihave received a threatening letter from a well-known firm, seeking to influence what this magazine prints about it. It is the sort of communication from which editors in, say, Chile seek the protection of our lib- eral Guardian. The trouble is, it comes from the Guardian.
Readers of The Spectator will have noticed that Paul Johnson, Taki and Stephen Glover have for varying reasons been adversely critical of the Guardian over the past year or so. Mr Johnson and Taki think that the paper is being vengeful towards Mr Jonathan Aitken. Mr Glover disapproved of Libyan money turning up in the bank account of the paper's deputy for- eign editor, in order to finance a Ghanaian politician's libel action against another lib- eral newspaper (the Independent), and wondered whether the Guardian would have been uncensorious Ir.:i a right-wing regime's cash been found in the bank account of the deputy foreign editor of a British right-wing newspaper to finance a right-wing politician's libel action against a liberal newspaper. He also suspects that, for the purposes of pursuing Mr Aitken and Neil Hamilton, the paper became too involved with Mohamed Al Fayed, Mr Al Fayed being the sort of figure whom one might have thought liberal journalists would investigate rather than investigate with.
I confess to not being very high-minded about any of this. As an editor, it all seems to be grist to my mill. Some readers enjoy it as much as I do. Others deplore such squab- bling among journalists, and people mixed up with journalists — or at least affect to deplore it. But both categories seem to be reading it. And the first duty of an article, it has always seemed to me, is to be read; at least by a reasonable number of people.
I have also taken the view that so far all the contestants — Mr Johnson, Taki, Mr Glover, Mr Aitken, Mr Hamilton and all concerned at the Guardian — should be expected, in their contests with one anoth- er, to take care of themselves. None has lived a life free from any tendency to be adversely critical of others. I should there- fore strive to let them say what they like about one another. I would not extend this principle to anyone and everyone. I would not allow anyone to say what they like about anyone else. I apply the principle only to those who live in what is called the public domain. Neither the Guardian's edi- for nor Mr Al Fayed lack the means of replying to hostile criticism.
Nonetheless, the Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, asked me last year why I allowed Mr Johnson to write 'lies' about him. He also complained to my proprietor. Then he wrote another letter, the gist of which was to ask me on what principles I edited The Spectator. I seem to remember his phrasing it in such a way as to teeter on the brink of pomposity. Somehow I did not think he was seeking to enlighten himself as to my philosophy of journalism. I think it was another attempt to persuade me to stop my contributors telling 'lies' about him, or, as I would put it, being irreverent about him.
Then, last week, after Mr Johnson announced in these pages that he was going to write a volume called The Black Book of the Guardian, I received a letter on Guar- dian notepaper signed 'Camilla Nicholls, Head of Press and Corporate Affairs'.
Let us assume that this letter is genuine, and not a practical joke being played on me by one of my several mischievous friends. The document could well be genuine. The Head of Press and Corporate Affairs marked her letter 'not for publication'. I shall respect her modesty and confine myself to paraphrasing it. The essence of the letter was that The Spectator had pub- lished 'tens of thousands of words written by several of your contributors' which had contained scores of inaccuracies, 'many of them serious'. That at least held out the prospect that some of the inaccuracies might have been frivolous. There followed various words associated down the ages with Lord Goodman and our learned friends: . . undoubtedly defamatory . . . malicious falsehoods. . . . ' The Head of Press and Corporate Affairs unaccountably left out 'not a scintilla, nor a jot or a tittle of truth'. Then came the chilling final sen- tence: 'I think this is probably also an appropriate time to note that you, as Edi- tor, have given currency to those untruths.'
I froze suitably. The Head of Press and Corporate Affairs was giving me a final warning. One more rage from Paul, or impertinence from Taki, or Olympian dis- section by Mr Glover of some complex dealing between Mr Al Fayed and the Guardian's investigative team, and I was history. I would be found somewhere off the Ml, a writ through my heart.
Mr Rusbridger, whenever I meet him, always seems amiable. 'Hello, Frank,' he says. 'Hello, Alan,' I reply. Admittedly, our exchanges do not go much further than that, and when they last did, there was that complaint about 'lies'. But perhaps it is the old principle of the hard and the soft adver- sary. Should we meet soon, he would explain to me that he is a peaceable sort who can't stand violence, 'but m' mate Camilla, she can get a bit physical. She didn't claw 'er way to Head of Press and Corporate Affairs by being Mary Poppins. Do y'self a favour, Frankie old son, call y' boys off the Guardian. It's not you we're after. It's that other Johnson geezer. I wouldn't want you to end up on the busi- ness end of one of Camilla's writs.'
There might, however, be something else at work here. That is, a genuine conviction, on Mr Rusbridger's part, that a liberal newspaper cannot really do anything underhand. Liberal newspaper executives are used to giving one another awards and assuring one another that they are champi- ons of freedom of information. True, the Guardian cut a couple of corners in the matter of Mr Aitken. But it was in order to expose a bad man. True, Mr Al Fayed is also regarded by many good liberal journal- ists as a bad man, but Mr Aitken was being bad while a Tory minister, and the alliance with the possibly bad Al Fayed was for the higher purpose of getting an undoubtedly bad Tory.
Mr Rusbridger probably also takes the view that the freedom of the press should not be extended to those who tell 'lies' about him or his paper. Therein lies his lack of plausibility in this matter. Mr Aitken and Mr Hamilton doubtless think Mr Rusbridger printed lies about them. We editors should let all public figures say what they like about one another. After a while, readers will know full well what is the truth. They will never know it if some participants try to stifle views of which they disapprove. I shall continue to allow my contributors to write what they like about the Guardian.
Previous page
