The press

The quotation game

Paul Johnson Let us all rally round to protect the principle of privatisation, by which I don't mean transferring British Rail to sensi- ble commercial management — welcome as that would be — but the necessity of keep- ing private conversations out of the public

realm. I have never believed that the public has the right to know everything, still less that the press has the duty to tell it to them.

In a democracy the state is justified in preserving its secrets; in particular, the suc- cess of cabinet government, the best way we have yet found of running a democracy, depends upon confidentiality of discussion.

Those who leak cabinet secrets are public menaces, and while I would not necessarily blame a reporter for using such material, or even an editor for publishing it (depending on its nature), an editor who systematically seeks, procures and prints such leaks is not fit to run a responsible newspaper. But whereas printing a leak is a matter of judg- ment, making public a private remark is always unjustified.

So Robin Day was wrong to betray Michael Foot's confidence, and he knew it.

The provocation was inordinate. To be nag- ged at by the usual raggle-taggle of Belgrano Bores is one thing; but to be challenged by the Ions et origo of Belgrano Boredom, the pointy-headed Tam Dalyell himself, is more than flesh and blood can

stand. So Day broke the rule; but, being Day — that is, a staunch upholder of the civilised conventions — he promptly apologised and confirmed it in writing. This left Foot looking shifty. For if he thought Mrs Thatcher right to sink the Belgrano, why did he keep silent throughout the elec- tion while his followers were harassing her on this point? A case, I'd say, of party discretion being the better part of public valour. But there's no purpose in flogging that politically dead horse.

There is a purpose, however, in stressing the moral of the incident: Private remarks must be kept private, even long after the event. This applies not only to Lobby rules (where there are sanctions) but to Chatham House Rules and similar systems. With all the conventions of society under barbarous assault, these professional restraints are under growing pressure too. My wife, who runs the British-Irish annual conference under strict Chatham House Rules, finds it hard these days to enforce them, not least on the speakers themselves. But such meetings are, in a sense, quasi-public events. Far more reprehensible is divulging what is said at a strictly private occasion, where speakers are deliberately encouraged to open their minds before a discreet circle of the elite. That is the purpose of the Con- servative Philosophy Group, for instance; it cannot function effectively, or enjoyably, if those who attend it sneak to or in the papers.

We had trouble in this group at the beginning of the year, when Roger Scruton introduced a journalist from the Times, who wrote about the meeting. He was duly censured, by the chairman ex officio, and not least by Peregrine Worsthorne, in a freelance capacity. More recently we had a talk by Harold Macmillan and vastly enter- taining it was — very provocative and out- rageous. Afterwards, I noticed Worsthorne showing signs of a struggle with his soul, so I said: 'Perry, I can see you are itching to reveal some of Mr M's sentiments, but you are not to yield to temptation'. Well: he said he would be good, and for a fortnight he was. Then, unable to restrain himself

'I see you're doing well, Bruce.'

The Spectator 10 September 1983 longer, he reported one or two of Mac- millan's obiter dicta (by no means the best) in this journal. It is a bad case, particularlY since Worsthorne is not averse to lecturing the lower orders on their behaviour — eating hamburgers on the Tube, and s° forth. Does not noblesse oblige? And ought not the upper echelon of Fleet Street to set good example to the ORs? I feel a creeping sense of insecurity about such breaches of private trust because I like to think aloud and I often indulge in a rash use of paradox and irony in private conver- sation. Life would be dull, indeed to me 11 would be impossible, without such latitude. Yet these days I don't feel safe fro rn belag publicly quoted — or, more usually, nits quoted — when lunching with fel"- journalists or even at a private dinner PartY.

don't even feel safe in my own house,

since 1 was foolish enough to invite a certain journalistic person to a meal there. He has now printed a garbled version of rri3 remarks not once but three times. I Warne at lot of this on the weakness of editors 0' serious newspapers, who have yielded to the belief that snide and malicious gossiP good for sales and have therefore instituted columns whose content, accuracy and Prc" fessional morality are no better than the Hickeys of the populars. I notice that a high proportion of these columns in the qualities consists of media gossip, a sure sign of fontnalistic idleness. Editors should crack down on this form of self-indulgence. But fer editors seem to be really in charge of their, papers today: they are much too scared 01 being publicly accused of censorship 1/31 disloyal members of their own staffs. .

Let me articulate what I think ought to be

the guiding principle for all journalists who wish to quote opinions. It is simple, harsh and salutary. It should not be necessary for anyone to insist,'This is off the record' or to he plainly within the protection of agreed ground-rules, such as the Lobby's, to be safe from quotation. Unless the willingness to be quoted is explicitly conceded, all con- versations are private and should never be always ask: kI:f 'May lquote uthtee o

journalist shontue

and abids by the answer. I know that many, PerhaP, most, journalists will not agree with 1° Very well: but I put it to them that in taking this line they are out of step with the ell., and inviting the legislative nemesis which i; surely coming unless they change th,c11, views. The Sun was recently and 1101 condemned, not just by the Press Council an but nbtyerFvIteeewt .SBt Street opinion,olaprigne mionnu, for fabricating

.

of quota' s tions are secured, not just in gossip cairi and not just in popular newsPaPers by the use of telephone techniues Stin

q

are not unlike, in principle, r malfeasance. The growing resentment towards newspapers centres around then in- vasion of privacy, and one of the most 1.111.s portant ways in which privacy to quote, or misquote, without permission. Let editors engrave this on their hearts before their hands are shackled bY the

chains of a Privacy Act. is invaded