MEDIA STUDIES
How a media mogul ruined the peace of my perfect summer's evening
STEPHEN GLOVER
It was a perfect summer's evening. All was well with the world. The birds were twittering and the bees were buzzing. The sinking sun cast shadows across the lawn, the leaves rustled in the gentle breeze. And then the telephone rudely rang. It was Andrew Neil, media mogul.
Mr Neil was erupting. He had taken exception to my column in last week's Spec- tator about the Barclay brothers, for whom he works. It was 'absolute rubbish' to say that any bid had been received for their newspapers. From the moment my piece had appeared that morning, he had been `putting out forest fires' and reassuring anx- ious staff. Sir David Barclay had tele- phoned from Monte Carlo to ask what the hell was going on. His son, Aidan Barclay, was apoplectic. A statement had been put out to the Press Association. 'It was all complete drivel.' And I was totally wrong to suggest that the Barclays were not in expan- sionist mood. If a decent newspaper came on the market, they might well be interest- ed. They had nearly bought the Observer earlier in the year and had hopes of the Independent if only it could be wrested from Tony O'Reilly. So there. This was not the Andrew Neil I had spo- ken to two days earlier. I had telephoned him to ask about two alleged approaches I had been told about. The first was suppos- edly from Trinity Mirror, the second from a Scottish multimillionaire called David Mur- ray. Mr Neil had categorically denied that there had been any approach from Mr Mur- ray — a denial I duly recorded in my col- umn. But he accepted that there had been talks involving Warburg, which acts for Trinity Mirror, and Aidan Barclay. He said that a valuation of between £250 and £300 million had been put on the four titles but that Aidan Barclay had not wished to take the matter further. He also said that Aidan Barclay had not told him about this meeting and that he had learnt about it from anoth- er source. I did not mention this disclosure in my column last week since I thought it might be rather embarrassing to Mr Neil as chief executive that he had been kept in the dark by his chairman. It also occurred to me that conceivably he had not been told about the alleged approach from Mr Murray, which was why, notwithstanding Mr Neil's denial, my column did not scotch the possi- bility that there had been such an approach. Well, I have now spoken to Mr Murray, who was on holiday in the Channel Islands last week, and he says that he has never made a bid to the Barclays for their four newspapers (the Scotsman, Scotland on Sunday, the Edinburgh Evening News and Sunday Business) and never will. So Mr Neil's denial was correct. But no amount of angry telephone calls on summer evenings or statements to the Press Association can conceal the fact that Aidan Barclay did attend a meeting with Warburg in which the possible sale of the four titles to Trinity Mirror was discussed and a price put on them. I am afraid I continue to regard Aldan Barclay's attendance at this meeting as highly significant. Mr Neil now describes the meeting as 'unauthorised' but presum- ably Mr Barclay did not see it that way at the time — or why would he have bothered to go to it? Moreover, his presence there suggests that, if only in his wildest dreams, he could imagine selling the papers.
After my column last week I received a charming letter from Sir David Barclay in Monte Carlo. Since it was marked private I cannot quote from it — tempted though I am as a result of Andrew Neil's effusions but I think I am justified in saying that Sir David does not deny that Warburg made an overture, and that his view of the future may be somewhat less grandiose than Mr Neil's. Nothing that has been said over the past week alters my view that the newspapers could well be sold in the foreseeable future, and it seems certain that the Barclays are not about to go on a spending spree for the Daily Express or any other newspaper. Some- thing has changed, though Mr Neil may not like it. Of course, I hope I am wrong. We must all hope that the Barclays change their minds about the Express, and that the Observer or the Independent falls into Andrew Neil's lap. And yet I can't convince myself that any of this is likely to happen.
All civilised people have reviled Rebekah Wade, editor of the News of the World, for publishing a 'name and shame' list of paedophiles in her paper. Ms Wade has said that she will print at least 100,000 names — a promise which, if honoured, will mean that the paper will be carrying pictures for several decades to come. Ms Wade's critics suggest that she is pander- ing to the lynch mob, and forecast grisly retaliation. Are we perhaps being a little too hard on her? I accept that as a new editor she is try- ing to make a splash, as she was when she published a paparazzi photograph of Prince William several weeks ago in apparent con- tradiction of the Press Complaints Com- mission's code of conduct. But her desire to be noticed does not necessarily invalidate this new exercise. Obviously the naming and shaming can only be kept going for a few weeks; otherwise the paper will become completely unreadable. Equally obviously her scatter-gun approach — setting rela- tively minor offenders alongside absolute monsters — is misguided.
But she is at least responding to public alarm about paedophilia which the gov- ernment and much of the media seem blind to. Almost every woman I have spo- ken to is on Ms Wade's side. Perhaps we are all getting a little hysterical but it is difficult to ignore such strength of opin- ion. If some paedophile is torn apart by the mob, his blood will be on Ms Wade's hands. But, equally, if her campaign leads to serious paedophile offenders being kept longer in prison, most of us will be glad that she did something. I can think of worse causes a new editor might embrace in order to get noticed; and I don't feel inclined to jump on the bandwagon that is rolling against her.
Apromising entry has been received from Chris Buckland, now of the Sunday Mirror, formerly of the Express, in the Hague Challenge Cup. He encloses an arti- cle dated 13 July 1996 (when the Tory gov- ernment still had ten months to run) in which he identifies William Hague as a future prime minister and generally sings his praises. Some people may regard this submission as unfair since it was made before Labour's thumping majority made the re-election of the Tories seem problem- atic, but I think it should be accepted. Fur- ther entries are still eagerly sought.
After the summer holidays I would like to inaugurate the Blair Challenge Cup, which may turn out to be even more illu- minating. Which columnists praised Blair in his early days, even slavered over him, and are now pronouncing him to be the dimmest and most vacuous politician alive? This should be a lively show. Early entries are now invited.
Previous page
