Independent Times
Sir: Since Taki (High life, 30 January) had no evidence to suggest that we backed down because Harrods withdrew its adver- tising from the Sunday Times, he smeared us by implication instead. But the reason he has no evidence is that none exists—for the truth is the opposite of what Taki implies.
Although we had done no more than report fairly on a row over the restoration of the Windsor house outside Paris, the owners of Harrods withdrew their substan- tial advertising from Times Newspapers because we refused to apologise for run- ning the story. That was where matters lay until, out of the blue, their main critic withdrew all her criticisms. We have been unable to ascertain why she made such a voile face because she will not speak to us. But since the row was our scoop, I felt it only right that we should report that she had now withdrawn all her criticisms. Because of her withdrawal, Harrods said `normal relations' with Times Newspapers had been restored.
There was no reason, of course, why they should ever have been disrupted in the first place. But no apology or correc- tion was ever published by the Sunday Times and no deal struck with anybody. At a time when the reputation of the British press is not at its highest I would have thought that a newspaper which was pre- pared to preserve its independence, even if it meant losing one of its biggest advertis- ers, would be a matter for congratulations. Instead, all you do is publish a column based on a wholly inaccurate assumption. Why?
Andrew Neil
Editor, The Sunday Times, Virginia Street, London El
Previous page
