Notebook
The Managing Director of Reuters, Mr Glen Renfrew, has reproached those journalists in the company who have sought to interest Members of Parliament in the future of the news agency. in a circular to the staff on 16 December, he said: 'Those who — no doubt meaning well — have sought the involvement of the British Government and the House of Commons in Reuters affairs have shown an imperfect understanding of Reuters, Any association with the government or legislature of any one country is simply not consistent with Reuters principles of independence, integri- ty and complete freedom from bias.' I believe that this statement itself shows an imperfect understanding of Reuters. For many years now Reuters has strongly resisted attempts by people to identify it as a 'British' news agency. The understan- dable and justifiable fear is that such a description could portray Reuters as a news agency representing parochial British in- terests or possibly even linked in some way to the British government. In the sense that Reuters is in reality neither of these things, it is correct to describe it as an 'interna- tional' agency rather than a 'British' one. But in another sense, Reuters is undeniably British. Its headquarters are in London, the vast majority of its shares are held by British newspapers, and its journalistic standards and traditions are British. It is in large part its Britishness which has been responsible for it becoming a great interna- tional news agency, and this is nothing for anybody to be ashamed of. Its importance as a British institution independent of Government was recognised by Parliament in 1941 when its future was debated. The Government itself fully recognised that Reuters' integrity should not be threatened by government subsidy or any other form of state interference. Parliament's concern was that this integrity should not be threatened from any other source, and Fleet Street's answer to this concern was the Reuter Trust which was intended to sustain it indefinitely as a newspaper-owned cooperative from which the shareholders could not profit. This Trust, if the shareholders have their way, is now to be broken so that Reuters may be floated as a public company. With the company's owners and its Trustees all standing to gain spectacularly from a flotation, it is quite natural that journalists should turn to members of Parliament for help in preserv- ing the independence and integrity of their news agency. To whom else, indeed, could they turn? On 12 December the London News Agencies Branch of the National Union of Journalists passed a resolution calling on Parliament `to ensure that the owners of Reuters keep faith in the pledges which have been essential to the company's success.' This appeal is now presented by Mr Renfrew as an attempt to 'involve' or 'associate' Reuters with the British Govern- ment. And by saying that Reuters should not be associated with 'the government or legislature of any one country', he is also implying that a change in the ownership of the agency is not a matter in which the British public have any more right to be in- terested than the publics of Chad or Outer Mongolia. In another error of interpreta- tion Mr Renfrew says that flotation of Reuters 'would be entirely consistent with the other basic, but less frequently quoted objective of the Trust Agreement "... to expand, develop and adapt the business of Reuters" '. It is quite clear that this clause refers merely to the adaptation of Reuters' business activities, not to its ownership structure. Mr Renfrew clearly does not like the way in which the proposed flotation is being discussed in the press. 'Some of the self-appointed guardians of Reuters stan- dards, writing in the press recently, have displayed considerable disregard for these standards in their own writing, using in- nuendo and selective reporting, presenting facts which support their arguments and leaving out those which do not,' he said. I wonder if he can possibly have in mind anything in the Spectator?
Whenever the IRA commits one of its vile crimes, like the bombing at Har- rods before Christmas, we are always im- mediately urged by the Government to behave as if nothing had happened. On this occasion the Home Secretary, Mr Leon Brittan, appeared promptly on television to tell us to carry on with our Christmas shop- ping. It would give the IRA the victory it wanted if people 'stopped shopping and hid at home', he said. Mr Denis Thatcher duly turned up at Harrods two days after the bomb saying: 'No damned Irish murderer is going to stop me going there.' I have to say that Mr Brittan's appeal did not much im- press me. I found it hard to identify the dismal activity of West End shopping with any kind of patriotic duty or to believe that the IRA would be particularly gratified if I decided to lurk pusillanimously at home. Nevertheless, on the Monday before Christmas, I did set out in my battered car for Bond Street only to be suspected of be- ing myself an IRA terrorist. I was flagged down in Hanover Square by a policeman who proceeded to search the car. I didn't blame him. He was perfectly polite and my car does look like the sort of car terrorists use for bombs. But it did occur to me that to appeal for 'business as usual' after an in- cident like the Harrods bombing is neither realistic nor helpful. The West End was spooky and swarming with policemen. One could not pretend that nothing had happen- ed. Another remark of Mr Brittan which ir- ritated me was made after he had visited some of the bomb victims in hospital. He quoted one of them as having said 'volun- tarily' that the Government should stick to its policies. A more logical response to the bomb attack would have been to question the policies which had not prevented it hap- pening. As the Daily Telegraph said in an excellent leading article, 'It is simply not true that a change in policy in response to an IRA atrocity is a victory for the IRA; that depends on whether the change is one which favours the republican cause or one which retards it.' It is no longer good enough to ignore the murderous acts of the IRA in the hope that, by getting on with our Christmas shopping and sticking to our 'policies', whatever they may be, we will eventually convince the brutes that crime does not pay. Public anger at the IRA should be given concrete expression. Each atrocity should be met by retaliation. The Telegraph was recommending the banning of the Provisional Sinn Fein, which would seem a sensible first step.
T don't know what has made me so 1.unpopular, but I seem to have received only eight Christmas cards this year, of which one is from Mr and Mrs Thatcher (a nice photograph of Chequers) and one from Mr Nigel Lawson (a reproduction of an Italian 18th century painting, the Bless- ings of Good Government, in which For- tune, Truth, Justice, Abundance and Wisdom are all symbolically represented). I also have two Christmas cards from the Korean cultural attache and one from the Egyptian press attache. I would like to thank them all very much, and to ask everybody else to pull their socks up next year. Admittedly I never send any Christmas cards, but this doesn't mean I don't like getting them. Happy New Year!
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
