ANOTHER VOICE
Trials and tribulations of a Top Writer
AUBERON WAUGH
Is any party fit to govern whose deputy leader refuses to have lunch with Mr Peter Jenkins? Why did other newspapers neg- lect to report this frightening development in the Wapping dispute? One can scarcely believe they were ignorant of its constitu- tional importance, or its implications for the freedom of the press. Among all the thousands of journalists who did not com- ment on Roy Hattersley's historic decision, I single out four: Hugo Young, Peregrine Worsthorne, Alan Watkins and Ferdinand Mount. Are these treasonous hacks fit people to comment on public affairs at all? Are they fit to remain members of the human race? It is very much to be hoped that the Government will set up a court of inquiry, under some suitably independent and widely respected figure to investigate the behaviour of the press generally and these four journalists in particular in totally refusing to comment on Roy Hattersley's unconstitutional, illegal and contemptuous attitude with regard to a genuine lunch invitation from a bona fide journalist.
I groaned when I heard that Peter Jenkins was joining the Independent. It has been such an intelligent, unpompous, un- self-important newspaper up to now. Jenk- ins is exactly what it does not want. Why on earth did he wish to leave the Sunday Times? 'My contract with Rupert Murdoch gave me a total editorial freedom within the confines of my weekly column,' he announced in last week's Spectator. No doubt that is true, but there is editorial freedom and editorial freedom. Give editorial freedom to a nightingale and you will get a song of summer in full-throated ease. Give it to a pig and you will get a grunt. Somewhere between the two, Jenk- ins has never yet managed to surprise me with his use of this important privilege. One always knows exactly what he will say on any subject; one always knows his opinions will be boring and wrong. It is interesting to learn that his contract was with Rupert Murdoch personally, rather than with the Queen, or the editor, or the contracts department of the Sunday Times. But why, oh why has he chosen to end it, since he always writes the same high- principled self-important tosh wherever he is? One never thought the Sunday Times could get worse than it was under Evans and Giles, but somehow it has achieved it (with the possible exception of the books page, which shows some slight improve- ment). Any diaspora of Sunday Times `talent' must be seen as the opening of a Pandora's box of poisonous fungi. Please, please stay in Wapping, Peter.
Reading my February issue of the Jour- nalist, the National Union of Journalists organ — its March issue does not appear to have arrived yet — I learn that despite the printing unions' having settled their dis- pute with News International, the NUJ is still in dispute. The national executive has imposed fines of £1,000 on 93 News Inter- national members found to have 'broken instructions' by working at Wapping. Peter Jenkins was not among them; in fact he was acquitted of this charge on 10 January. Should we praise him for his bravery or not? Underneath the account of these fines, there comes another item:
In a separate case, two members accused of being involved in an operation to syndicate material by Wapping journalists, against an NEC instruction, were fined £1,000 and £500 by the NEC on 31 January.
Polly Toynbee of the Guardian, who runs Top Writers, a syndication service, was found to have sent material by Peter Jenkins, of the Sunday Times to the Western Morning News in Plymouth. She was fined £1,000, Jenkins £500.
Once again, I was interested to learn that Polly Toynbee, who writes fearless articles about rape in the Guardian, saying how dreadful it is, also runs a syndication service called Top Writers for her husband, Peter Jenkins. Neither Hugo Young, nor Peregrine Worsthorne, Alan Watkins nor Ferdinand Mount commented on this dis- graceful interference in the freedom of the Press by the NUJ. 'My complaint', writes Jenkins, 'is against the treason of the hacks . . . I am talking about my fellow col- umnists, and commentators, who apparently, saw no issue of general import- ance involved in the unlawful intimidation of the NUJ or in the behaviour of the Labour Party or who, if they did, found no space or time to comment on it.'
Brooding about the Labour Party's be- haviour, I feel it was quite right to refuse to talk to News International journalists, and should extend the ban to all journalists, on all newspapers. Similarly, newspapers should refuse to talk to politicians. They are nothing but liars and gourmandisers. Political reporting should be confined to accounts of parliamentary speeches and election manifestoes, Green and White Papers and Bills, commentary on them and satirical parliamentary sketches. There is nothing to be gained by talking to the brutes. It encourages them to a lot of unnecessary activity, and infects the jour- nalists concerned with their own self- importance. If they wish to influence events, they should join their local Labour Party, enrol in the ascendant faction and start kissing lesbian babies, or doing what- ever may be required to impress the constituency association.
It is absurd to pretend that Labour's refusal to talk to various newspapers con- stituted an 'ominous precedent for the freedom of the press as a whole'. Nobody has to talk to anybody — not even to Top Writers like Peter Jenkins — and it would be insufferable if they did. Genuine press freedom is more threatened by the journal- ists themselves, who organise themselves into exclusive lobbies and promise to abide by rules of confidentiality.
I agree that slightly different issues are raised by the refusal of Labour councils to stock certain newspapers of which they disapprove in their public libraries, but that is a problem which is inherent in our system of local democracy. Either councils should have the right to control what they buy for their libraries or they should not. So long as they do, it will serve voters right if they vote Labour in their local elections and then cannot find their favourite news- paper, the Sun, in their local library. There is no earthly reason why Alan Watkins, Peregrine Worsthome or anyone else should be concerned to rescue them from the consequences of their own stupidity.
Finally, everybody agrees that the National Union of Journalists is a hopeless body, its activists drawn from the dregs of a a profession which has always had its quota of embittered radicals and incompetents. Unfortunately, better journalists simply do not have time to do anything about it. For my own part, I refused to send in the bankers' order raising its subscription to £140 a year and thought I had thereby cancelled my subscription, in protest against its support of the printers and its failure to stop Murdoch declaring Fortress Wapping dry. This last strikes me as a much worse threat to press freedom than the Labour Party's behaviour, but we have not heard a squeak about it from Jenkins. That is what I call treason, but perhaps the absurd Mr Jenkins saw no issue of general importance involved.
Previous page
