GALL OF THE TABLOIDS
the latest invasion of privacy
THE ABSENCE of a privacy law in this country has many sad consequences. Among the worst is the way in which it allows the media to wreck the marriages of prominent persons by making public tittle- tattle which might otherwise die a natural death and by setting aggrieved spouses against one another and thus sending a rocky but retrievable union into the ditch — then licking its greasy chops over the result. The family unit, and the till-death- do-us-part marriage which produces it and makes it reasonably secure, are the most successful institutions humanity has ever devised, the ultimate source of our civilisa- tion and prosperity. But human marriage, as opposed to animal mating, is an artifi- cial state and never has been, never will be, easy. Dr Johnson put it well: 'Sir, it is so far from natural for a man and woman to live in a state of marriage, that we find all the motives which they have for remain- ing in that connection, and the constraints which civilised society imposes to prevent separation, are hardly sufficient to keep them together.'
All marriages go through difficult phas- es. Most, I suspect, come near to breaking point at one time or another. Spouses who are patient hang on and wait for the skies to clear. If they have the sense to do this, it is rare for them to feel later regrets; chil- dren (and grandchildren) are grateful. There is nothing more impressive and touching than a long-haul union which has weathered the storms, especially in an age when divorce is made easy. The marriages of the rich or famous are particularly at risk. They tend to be more frequently apart, temptations are greater, the eyes of all are upon them, gossip swirls and is con- veyed by kind friends. And such unions, by their nature more vulnerable than most, invite the media to slip its brutal jemmy into whatever crack may appear.
The silly season kicked off last week with a particularly mean-minded presenta- tion of the marriage problems of Sandy Gall. These are commonplace enough, and not without an element of comedy. Many readers must have been able to identify with one or other of the characters — hus- band, wife, mistress, grown-up children, mistress's lady-friend, her censorious father etc. People on the fringes of celebrity rarely know how to cope with the press. They allow themselves to be drawn into giving embarrassing quotes to reporters skilled in extracting them, or are flattered into granting full-scale inter- views. So even when the principals remain prudently silent they still find themselves playing leading roles in a tabloid farce. All these factors were present in the Gall busi- ness and it undeniably made entertaining copy. But it must have been hell for Gall and his family as well as devastating to the chances of saving a long and happy mar- riage. The more sensitive of those who read about it must surely have asked themselves the question: 'How would I feel if it happened to me?' No doubt about the answer to that, and it prompts a fur- ther question: 'Should the media be allowed to do this kind of thing?'
The response that Gall is a television star and in the past has welcomed publici- ty which promoted his career is no answer at all. Gall is not one of those gossip-col- umn naturals who is famous for being famous, nor an idiot-box personality sus- tained by hype. He is a working reporter and a very good one, with long and envi- able experience of getting himself into and out of tight corners in troubled parts of the world. He was in the Belgian Congo in 1960 when he and my old friend George Gale were seized and nearly murdered by what George insisted on calling 'the locals'. He was full of praise for Gall's resourceful- ness and humour in what must have been a horrible experience. Later Gall did some first-class reporting for television of the atrocious war in Afghanistan. This required a degree of courage, perseverance and endurance not many reporters possess and brought some outstanding footage to the viewers. Moreover, Gall did not treat Af- ghanistan and its people as simply a story to be covered and forgotten about but used such fame as he had acquired to raise funds for those who had lost all they possessed or were rotting in refugee camps. In short he has been a credit to his trade and brought it honour instead of shame, and it is mon- strous that his private troubles — common enough among journalists, God knows should be turned by colleagues into a feast of prurient tabloid entertainment.
Alas, tabloids are going through a hard time and are avid for readers, and it is unrealistic to expect them to stay their hand when a juicy tale comes along. The responsibility lies with Parliament and it is MPs who must act to make such invasions of privacy liable to civil damages, and, in the worst cases, criminal prosecution. In this instance, and there have been many like it in the past year or two, there can be no possible defence that newspapers acted in the public interest. But the only kind of sanctions which will deter them is massive financial punishment. Media complaints bodies, including the latest quango, are vir- tually useless. Standards continue to fall. Recently we had the twin spectacle of Kelvin MacKenzie's Sun publishing a nude photo — itself an unconscionable invasion of privacy — of the Duke of York, and Tina Brown's Vanity Fair displaying on its cover a naked woman in the last stages of pregnancy (Miss Brown is the smartypants who brazenly refused to apologise for an egregious twisting of Mrs Thatcher's views on the family). This kind of circulation-hus- tling seems to be spreading. The law can- not stop all media abuses but it can at least penalise the foot-in-door brigade for mak- ing the lives of Mr and Mrs Gall a misery. When are MPs going to pluck up a bit of courage and end this glaring abuse?
Previous page
