MEDIA STUDIES
Justice will be done, no doubt, but what is good for Piers Morgan is good for the government
STEPHEN GLOVER
Perhaps they have grown bored with the subject of alleged insider dealing and Mir- ror staff. Perhaps they feel they have done enough. But would they let up so easily if a politician were involved? They should be on their guard. I have a suspicion that there are a number of people who are hoping that the passage of time will take the gloss off this story. One of them, not unnaturally, is Mr Morgan himself. Another may be Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's press secretary. There are two separate inquiries wending their weary way. One is being conducted by the Press Complaints Commission, which has taken many written submissions from the characters involved, as well as from Trinity Mirror, publishers of the Mirror, but does not intend to interview anyone face to face. The commission will not consider its mass of evidence until 10 May. It hasn't yet decided whether this task will fall to all of its 16 members, or whether a subcommittee will be appointed. One of the problems is that the commission has never had to con- sider allegations of this nature concerning an editor and prominent journalists. The danger is that its inclination will be to soft- pedal. I was somewhat alarmed, by the way, to read that Mr Morgan has recently had lunch with one of the seven editors who sits on the commission.
The other inquiry is being conducted by the Department of Trade and Industry, Which is understood to have appointed a lawyer called Simon Williams to run an investigation along with a senior accoun- tant. The DTI will not talk about the inquiry and will not publish its report, whatever its findings. It will be passed to the minister, Stephen Byers, who will decide whether to prosecute. Mr Byers is famed among politi- cians for his honour and integrity. However, it is not inconceivable that he might find himself coming under pressure to kick the matter into the long grass.
A theory is circulating Fleet Street which, while it must be treated with caution, cer- tainly deserves our attention. It concerns our old friend Alastair Campbell. Mr Campbell is a friend of Mr Morgan and fre- quently telephones him to give him the benefit of his advice. One can see that it would suit Mr Campbell and the govern- ment if the generally loyal Mr Morgan were to remain editor of the Mirror. This is par- ticularly so since, were he forced to resign, his successor might well be Martin Clarke, editor of the Daily Record, the Mirror's sis- ter paper in Scotland. Mr Clarke is no fan of New Labour, and under his editorship the normally docile Daily Record has had the impertinence to criticise the govern- ment. Mr Campbell detests him; last March, via the persona of Roy Campbell- Greenslade, there was an entire article rub- bishing Mr Clarke in the Guardian. Only last week Mr Campbell singled out the Daily Record for printing 'complete fiction' in its robust opposition to Section 28. At a recent fund-raising lunch in Edinburgh Mr Blair appeared to snub Mr Clarke and his colleagues.
We can be absolutely certain that Mr Campbell does not want Mr Clarke to be editor of the Mirror. Of course, someone else might succeed Mr Morgan in the event of his resigning but, all in all, it would be easier if he stayed put. Whether Mr Camp- bell made his views clear at a recent lunch he had with Sir Victor Blank, chairman of Trinity Mirror, I cannot say. But an insight into his thinking is provided, as always, by a close reading of Mr Campbell-Greenslade's media column in the Guardian. In a recent piece my esteemed colleague entered a very spirited defence of Mr Morgan, con- ceding that the Mirror's editor was in an embarrassing position, but suggesting that he would and should survive.
These are deep waters. Mr Morgan may well be innocent of any wrongdoing. He may simply have been rather silly. But it is obviously important for all concerned that the inquiries into the allegations of insider dealing involving him and other Mirror staff are seen to be fair and open. It would be upsetting if we were ever to read, for exam- ple, that Lord Wakeham, chairman of the Press Complaints Commission, had come under the smallest degree of political pres- sure. The commission's inquiries must evi- dently be thorough and robust. Similarly, Mr Byers would not wish anyone to think that he had been anything less than his nor- mal rigorous self. If these conditions are met, and Mr Morgan and his colleagues are exonerated, no one will be happier than me.
Athough I have suspended my investi- gations into the Irish Republican cell at the Guardian for the time being, I cannot resist making a point about the letter Jonathan Freedland wrote to this magazine last week. Mr Freedland often writes leaders about Northern Ireland for the Guardian. He denied in his letter that he had ever `so much as discussed Northern Ireland with Ronan Bennett, let alone taken instructions from him'. Mr Bennett, readers will recall, is a man with an interesting past and Republican connections.
The casual reader may infer from Mr Freedland's denial that I had asserted that he discussed Northern Ireland with Mr Bennett. This is not so. I said that Mr Freedland was 'a very agreeable, if rather naive, young man' who had the enthusiastic support of Georgina Henry. Ms Henry is Mr Bennett's partner and herself an advo- cate of the Republican cause. But I did not allege that Mr Freedland collaborated with Mr Bennett, far less took his instructions from him. Mr Freedland is denying some- thing I did not say.
The Sunday before last a news story on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph described the Sunday Times as 'a mid-mar- ket broadsheet'. This is a matter of opinion, not fact, and such propagandising in a news story seemed to me a bit off. Then last Sun- day the Sunday Times carried a photograph of the newly cropped David Beckham on its front page. So did the Observer. The Sunday Telegraph did not. I wonder whether the readers of the Observer and Sunday Times really want to see a front-page photograph of a self-promoting footballer who had already been pictured in the previous day's newspapers, and featured repeatedly on television. I know, I know. Times have changed. But have they changed so much?
Previous page
