The Navy's back
THE PRESS DONALD McLACHLAN
The appointment of Admiral Sir Norman Denning to be the new Secretary of the Services Press and Broadcasting Committee comes just at the right moment. Whitehall is very worried about the mood of the press as it is reflected in the handling of the Philby affair. Not so much by the names and details revealed, many of which have appeared before, as by the tone of voice in which the job has been done. Some officials feel particular concern that new D Notices issued to the newspapers, which in fact were milder than those they displaced, were ignored even though the press representatives on the D Notice Committee had judged them rea- sonable. If exalted persons like the editors of the Sunday Times and the Observer, to say nothing of John Gordon in the Sunday Express, reject the judgment of their own colleagues in that committee, where are we getting to? Will Whitehall respond by a prosecution under the Official Secrets Act?
I think the guardians of security might take heart from two facts. One is that no Fleet Street editor has yet published the names of the present heads of the two services which have been under fire. It has been recognised that to men in such jobs publicity could be harmful. The second fact is that no one in these inquiry teams has pene- trated very deeply into what matters. If there is any doubt whether this is due to ignorance or to a sense of responsibility, they should be given the benefit of it. Mr Evans has certainly been showing off and striking attitudes; but neither he nor Mr Astor is a reckless man with a grenade in each hand.
Whitehall should not, therefore, postpone any effort it may be preparing to take editors more into its confidence and explain how it proposes to distinguish between the secret that the enemy (or the ally) should not know and the secret that the Minister would prefer the public not to know. For that is the crux of the matter..As the Sunday Times leader said last weekend, the confidence between editors and government departments on these matters is in ruins, thanks to Mr Wilson's handling of the Pincher-Lohan episode—of which the last has not been heard. But it is not in the interest of the newspapers that ruin should persist and one is bound to point out that the stories about Philby were being planned at, a time when the D Notice system was working quite well.
Where I part company with Mr Evans is in his statement 'without apology' that he has 'dis- counted elements' in recent D Notices—advis- ing the press not to write about named persons doing secret intelligence work or to use infor- mation from abroad about them without guid- ance or except with great restraint. That sug- gests that he and his staff know better than the D Notice Committee what is harmless. This, frankly, is nonsense; the evidence that they do not is apparent in several passages of last week's publication. So is John Gordon's claim that we could do without D Notices because the Americans get along without them. The sad fact is that the correspondents in Washington who deal with these matters are more responsible than some of their colleagues in Fleet Street; and everyone knows that the American govern- ment would introduce a D Notice system if they dared.
Out of the present impasse—it is that rather than a ruin—there is only one way. That is for editors of national newspapers to concern them- selves personally with making the system work. To expect the defence correspondent—whose calibre and knowledge vary greatly from office to office—to enjoy the full confidence of offi- cials, who know he is after a 'story' and have learned by experience that he may use what one official has told him to get out of another what should not be revealed, is in some cases asking too much. If the matter is important, the editor should handle it personally, because only he can decide for or against publication. But if this is to be asked of editors, there must be someone available whom they will think it worth while seeing. Such a man will now be available. An editor who believes that what he is being asked to suppress is harmless will now be able to consult the outstanding intelligence officer of his generation. Admiral Denning, brother of the judge Lord Denning, has the ad- vantage of being familiar with the whole field of defenCe and intelligence. He is a man whom the Ministry can keep fully informed of what is going on, which was not done in the case of Colonel Lohan, great though his services were to the press in many ways. If Admiral Den- ning is told by officials or ministers that they wish this or that to be suppressed, he will be in a position--far stronger than Colonel Lohan's ever was—to say that they are wrong and that he will not support this request to the corn. mittee of which he is secretary. I hope that Fleet Street will see in the appointment announced this week a concession to its view that ji should be told more of the real.meaning of tit words 'national security.' Incidentally the D Notice system worked smoothly under another man from the Silent Service, the late Admiral Thomson.
Another point struck me Auring my weekend reading. Now that the serious newspapers are . stripping and probing the Establishment, as they persist in calling it, would it not be wise to
• recognise that they arc part of it? They expect, or most of them do, respect, belief (or credulity), loyalty—in short, to be accepted as the fourth estate. Implicitly, with that claim, they accept responsibility. But they cannot at the same time indulge in sensationalism, reject all secrecy, and deny respect without running
• the risk that the technique will be turned against, them. Mr George Brown was quite wrong to suggest that newspaper proprietors and editors behave like whores; but they do sometimes give the appearance of wanting to run the country themselves. God forbid!
Previous page
