MEDIA STUDIES

What's a good story like this doing in a paper like that?

STEPHEN GLOVER

0 ne of the most extraordinary aspects of the Peter Mandelson affair has scarcely been remarked upon. On Sunday, 1 November — a few days after Mr Mandel- son had been `outed' by Matthew Parris on Newsnight — the Express on Sunday pub- lished an article about 'Peter's friend'. There were few half measures. The paper carried a `mugshoe of a rather sweet-look- ing Mr Mandelson beneath its masthead on the front page and devoted almost the whole of page seven to a piece about the mysterious male personage who was `Peter's friend'. In case there was any doubt about what the paper was trying to tell us, it carried a large picture of a good-looking youth, a 26-year-old Brazilian called Reinaldo Avila da Silva.

What was astonishing is that the Express, of all papers, should have told us about Peter's friend. You might have expected to learn about him from the Mail or the Sun or even the Mirror, though if any of those papers had carried such an article they would have been condemned at the bar of enlightened opinion. But the Express is a reverential New Labour paper. Its chief executive is Lord Hollick, who counts Mr Mandelson among his friends, and its editor is Rosie Boycott, who is so 'on message' that you could set your compass by her. Partly because the Express in its new incarnation is so Blairite, its article about Peter's friend attracted relatively little censure, though Mr Mandelson himself was far from happy.

What was going on? It seems that for a brief moment Ms Boycott allowed her enthusiasm for a good story to get the bet- ter of her political correctness. The Express and the Express on Sunday are a seven-day operation overseen by Ms Boycott. So it is certain that she saw the story about Peter's friend at an early stage, probably on the Saturday morning before publication. She expressed her liking for it to several mem- bers of her staff. The decision was made to run with it.

Later, however, the telephone lines were hot. Lord Hollick had heard about the plan to carry the piece — probably from Mr Mandelson, who had been tipped off by a source. As has already been reported, Lord Hollick telephoned Simon Walters, deputy editor of the Express on Sunday, to convey his misgivings. There seems to have been a decision not to run the picture of Peter's friend on the front page, as had been previ- ously mooted. It is also notable that the story itself does not contain any unseemly details about the nature of Mr Mandelson's friendship with Reinaldo Avila da Silva. For all that, it was agreed that the paper should go ahead. This is to the credit of Lord Hol- lick, Rosie Boycott, and Mr Walters.

However, in the cool light of day there has been a certain amount of reckoning. Mr Mandelson, as I have said, was unhappy about the piece. Representations were made. After her initial enthusiasm, Ms Boy- cott herself was reported to be having sec- ond thoughts. So was Lord Hollick. Proba- bly the time for recriminations and reprisals has now passed. I certainly hope so. It would do the Express and the Express on Sunday untold damage if heads were seen to roll as a result of representations made by Mr Mandelson or his friend, Lord Hollick.

Here is a mystery. Last week I wrote about a call that the Sun received from the Treasury Solicitor's department. A certain Mr Alan Steele had telephoned the Sun on the evening of Tuesday, 27 October threat- ening the newspaper with a writ if it made any allusion to gay sex in connection with Ron Davies. The Welsh Secretary had resigned earlier that day.

My sources were twofold. In the first place there was a buried paragraph in the Sun on Thursday, 29 October: 'The Sun received a call from a government lawyer threatening action if any reference was made to gay sex. The lawyer claimed he was acting on the PM's orders and said: "Any suggestion of homosexual activity will result in an immediate writ." ' My second source was the editor of the Sun, David Yelland. He told me that the call in question was taken by the newspaper's night lawyer from a Mr Alan Steele, who said he worked for the Treasury Solicitor's department.

Imagine my surprise, then, when the edi- tor of this magazine received the following letter from Mr D. Brummell, head of the litigation division in the Treasury Solicitor's department, dated 6 November:

Dear Sir,

I refer to the article by Stephen Glover in this week's edition of your magazine. There is a factual inaccuracy in the article, which alleges that the Sun newspaper last Tuesday received a telephone call threatening legal action from a certain Alan Steele in the office of the Treasury Solicitor'. There is no one by the name of Alan Steele working in the Treasury Solicitor's Department and no member of this Department made any telephone call to the Sun of the kind suggested. I should there- fore be grateful if you would publish an appropriate correction and apology.

Yours faithfully, D. Brummell

Well! Mr Brummell (any relation of Beau?) does not say to whom one is sup- posed to apologise, but I am happy to do so if I can work that out. There seem to me four possible solutions to this mystery.

(1) Mr B. is being economical with the truth. But I have made checks. There is indeed no one in the Treasury Solicitor's department called Alan Steele. The only person by that name in the upper reaches of the Civil Service works in the Interna- tional Debt Division — hardly the sort of chap likely to be worried about Ron Davies's shenanigans. So I think Mr Brum- mell is playing with a straight bat.

(2) The Sun is fibbing. I don't believe this. I believe the paper's night lawyer took a call from someone calling himself Alan Steele, and I take Mr Yelland's word for it.

(3) The call was a hoax. Possible, but why would a general hoaxer suspect that the Sun might be about to make allegations about gay sex? The night lawyer affirms that the caller sounded authentic.

(4) The call was made by a well-wisher of Ron Davies acting on his behalf, though of course without his knowledge. This seems by far the most plausible theory. This per- son may even have been on the government pay-roll. Several names have been suggest- ed to me. But what a foolish and desperate act it would have been.

If anyone can throw any further light on this mystery, I shall be very grateful. In the meantime I do apologise, though not to Mr Brummell or Mr Davies or the government. I am sorry for having misled my readers.