WHEN EDITORS NEED CHASTISING
those who control newspapers must learn to accept criticism in good part
NEWSPAPERS love to go for people but are liable to become paranoid the instant they are subjected to the mildest chastise- ment themselves. This propensity is even more marked among some editors. One of them, Donald Trelford of the Observer, publicly suggested not long ago that news- papers should refrain from criticising each other. This sensitivity to reproach is some- thing of which I have had much experience during the decade in which 1 have been writing this column. To be fair, most editors take my censures in good part, even when they feel them to be unfair. One or two react in a childish manner, as I will explain one of these days.
Andrew Neil, who evidently suffers from a short memory, has little cause to com- plain. Of course there are aspects of his editorship I don't like — there are, for instance, too many second-rate columnists on the Sunday Times. I also thought it quite wrong for him to try and combine editing one of Britain's largest and most Important papers with the chairmanship of Sky, a criticism he has now accepted by resigning the Sky job. On the other hand, I have often been a strong supporter of his Over the years. When he took over the Sunday limes, I applauded the courage and resolution he displayed in getting that then unruly paper back under firm control. At the time he had few allies in the Industry and he was warmly appreciative of what I wrote. I also backed him wholeheartedly throughout the harrowing Wapping dispute — past history now but a bitter and even desperate struggle then, With most people sitting cravenly on the fence.
Imagine, then, my astonishment to read this exchange in Neil's recent action against Peregrine Worsthorne: 'Mr Neil said Mr Johnson had always resented his editorship of the Sunday Times and had called for him to be fired on several Occasions. Mr Milmo: "So he has an axe to grind?" Mr Neil: "He has a very sharp and deep axe."' All this is quite false. I have no axe to grind against Neil and cannot Imagine what such an axe could possibly be. It dismays me that the editor of a world-famous quality newspaper, giving evidence under oath, can be so reckless with the facts. These falsehoods were compounded by Neil's next remarks. 'He said Mr Johnson was part of the "Garrick Club Mafia", which was opposed to people who were not members of that club being in 'positions of importance.' The truth is that I am not and have never been a member of the Garrick Club, let alone of its Mafia. Moreover, I have never heard of such a body — nor has anyone else I know — and I very much doubt if such a thing exists. It is a figment of Neil's imagination. Again, it is disturbing to find a man whose duty it is to print the sober and objective truth surrendering to conspiracy theory, particularly such an implausible one.
Neil, I fear, has done himself and his paper no good by his libel action. Journal- ists, even editors, are fully entitled to seek legal redress if another publication mounts a prolonged and plainly malicious smear campaign against them, which is damaging their paper as well as themselves. But to take a fellow editor to court over a single instance of criticism on a matter of public 'This looks like the work of the Garrick Club Mafia'
interest seems to me ill-judged. I thought at the time that Worsthorne's editorial about the Pamela Bordes affair was foolish and, morever, quite superfluous — the facts spoke for themselves more loudly and painfully than any censorious comment. But I did not take it seriously; nor, I think, did anyone else except Neil. Donald Trel- ford, who was likewise criticised, had sufficient sense of humour to let it pass. Neil was imprudent enough to involve not merely himself but his paper in an action which was bound to make all concerned look silly. I am surprised that Rupert Murdoch, who almost daily comes under much fiercer criticism than has ever been directed at Neil, and sensibly takes no notice of it, gave his approval to the Sunday Times involvement. After all, Times Newspapers is currently litigating in the European Court against the severity of our libel laws. In the Neil case the jury showed what it felt about the Sunday Thnes's case by awarding contemptuous damages of 60p. The Sunday Times is a newspaper which, to its great credit, is not afraid to take on the mighty, such as Distillers, in its campaigns on behalf of members of the public. As such, it gets its share of writs. Having now employed the steamroller of the law to crush a harmless butterfly, it is not going to find it so easy in future to mount a public interest defence of fair comment.
Neil did not endear himself either by his vainglorious claim that the meagre dam- ages he secured represented a victory for the new Britain over the old. If only Evelyn Waugh were still around to pen a comment on that preposterous assertionl In so far as the case raised any general issue, it was about how editors of quality papers should occupy their leisure hours. The choice, as presented, was ;not an attractive one to my mind. If there is anything more disagreeable than spending an evening in a night-club, it is sitting at an 'Oxbridge high table', in the company of cantankerous, embittered left-wing dons whining about 'the cuts', Mrs Thatcher etc. Sensible editors do not waste time in either of these establishments but stay on late to ensure all is well with their last edition. Such was the practice of that model editor, Thomas Delane, though it is true he might take a few minutes off to poke his nose into one of Lady Palmerston's parties — Trol- lope portrays him doing so in one of his Palliser novels, simply to plant the sugges- tion, at Lady Glencora's rout, that Parlia- ment is to be dissolved, rumour rapidly becoming fact in consequence. I hope this is the last time we have to witness one editor suing another. Editors must expect to receive criticism as well as dish it out. I can assure Andrew Neil he will get fair dealing from me, in the future as well as in the past, and that I don't need the advice of any Mafia, clubland or otherwise, to kick an editor's bottom when, but only when, it is deserved.
Previous page
