8 DECEMBER 1979, Page 5

Notebook

Should the press, radio, television — anybody — give a platform to terrorists and murderers? There are certainly those who would hold absolutely that they should not.

But even if a journalist holds that view, its implementation in practice must be difficult. There is a hierarchy among murderers. At the top, you have, for example, Mr Nkomo and Mr Mugabe upon whom Mrs Thatcher and Lord Carrington have conferred respectability and who are therefore seldom off our television screens. In the same league is the Palestine Liberation Organisation, but after that the decline is rapid — the IRA, the ETA (the Basque separatist movement), the Baader-Meinhof gang, the Red Brigades, right down to the Yorkshire Ripper. I began to reflect on these matters after seeing on last Monday's Panorama (um) one of these images that have become a hallmark of thrusting television journalism the face in a shadow mouthing turgid political justifications for some atrocious crime. In this instance, it was a representative of the ETA, an organisation which, according to Panorama, has committed considerably more murders than the IRA. I rememberered the outcry over Panorama's interview With a representative of INLA, the group that murdered Airey Neave, and the subsequent furore over the filming — again by a Panorama team — of IRA gunmen in the village of Carrickmore. Mrs Thatcher told the BBC to put its house in order, the Opposition supported her, and the BBC carried out one of its panicky inquiries. Condemnation was near-universal. Yet almost immediately afterwards, here was a terrorist, sought, presumably, by the entire Spanish police, chatting away with a Panorama reporter before going off again to arrange a whole new lot of murders. Double standards, perhaps.

That double standards are operating in this field does not seem to me to be in doubt.

Take the case of the Observer. Its editor1:1-chief, Dr Conor Cruise O'Brien, a former cabinet minister in the Irish government, has become well known for his lineomprising hostility to the terrorists of the IRA. This may explain why he has dropped the Observer's Irish correspondent, Miss Mary Holland, whom he regards as a believer in a united Ireland and therefore, by his reasoning, 'soft' on terrori,s,ts. Yet now Dr O'Brien has appointed as the Observer correspondent in Salisbury, Is.hodesia, the veteran Africa hand Mr David Martin on the grounds that 'he gets uo well with the Patriotic Front'. One does not need terrific powers of perception to understand why the publicising of IRA propaganda arouses such enormous resentment. The IRA is operating against British interests (though the same, by the way, could be said of the Patriotic Front). It is killing British soldiers and British statesmen, not jumped-up Spanish generals. But Spain is also an ally, a fragile democracy, an applicant for membership of the European community. If there are moral objections to interviewing an IRA gangster, the same moral objections would seem to me to apply to interviewing an ETA gangster. The sort of justifications that would be offered by the Panorama people for interviews of this sort are fairly easy to imagine. There is the fact, disagreeable though it is, that violence can lead to political change. Should journalists close their eyes to it? Terrorists, it would be claimed, are not glamorised on television, and fax greater weight is always given to the views of the politicians. Interviews are arranged by the terrorists in such a manner as to preclude any possibility of them being identified or handed over to the police. And, as far as Ireland is concerned, the British security forces are themselves eager that the British public should be made aware of the strength of its enemy. My own feelings are as follows. Journalists have a duty not to aid or abet criminals, and a duty to respect the national interest. The BBC has a duty to be objective, and a duty to show sensitivity towards public feeling. But Provided these duties are observed, as very often they are not, nobody should attempt to interfere with the freedom of the BBc to interview whomever it wants.

The bright young (and middle-aged) things of the Foreign Office cannot have known such happiness for years. The Lancaster House conference is entirely up their street — an entirely British show, matters of war and peace at stake, all hinging on oldfashioned skills in dealing with Africans. It is a delightful change from the grubby affairs of the Common Market which have lately preoccupied our diplomats, who have never particularly enjoyed having to grapple with things like trade. Apart from their own enjoyment of the Rhodesia talks, they have had the extra bonus of a terrific accolade from Anthony Sampson in the Observer. It is seldom that they receive praise. Meanwhile, we are all wondering who will be sent out to Salisbury as Governor. Lord Soames has been much mentioned. But I understand that the Government has two potential governors in mind. One (Lord Soames perhaps?) has been chosen if the conference ends with a ceasefire. Another (a ruthless military man?) will take over if the talks break down. Whoever it is , he should be sure to have ready a flagpole on which to pull down the flag in a hurry, and an aeroplane on standby to take him home.

Readers of the Sunday Telegraph may not have fully taken in the significance of a letter from a certain Peter Spiro published in its latest issue. Mr Spiro's father, E.H. Cookridge, was the author of a book on the Special Operations Executive (SOE), from which Mr Kenneth Rose appears to have made his erroneous deduction —referred to in last week's Notebook — that Anthony Blunt had been involved in the betrayal of Dutch agents during the war. Mr Spiro had demanded — and was expecting — a statement in the previous issue of the Sunday Telegraph which would have made clear that his father had never believed or implied that Blunt had anything to do with this Dutch business. But the statement did not appear (only the measly little correction I referred to last week) and the letter was only published after vigorous protests from Mr Spiro, who understandably was concerned that his late father should not.go down in history as an idiot. Perhaps this week the Sunday Telegraph will finally publish the full apology and explanation for which we have so far waited in vain.

Senator Kennedy's presidential campaign is going just as I hoped. Having entered the race with a 60-30 opinion poll lead over Jimmy Carter, he has this week fallen behind the incumbent President for the first time. Even student audiences have been disappointed by him — or, in the Newsweek expression, 'underwhelmed'. May the trend continue. While Carter is being helped by the Iran crisis, Kennedy is being hindered by Chappaquiddick. New jokes about this episode are manufactured daily in Washington and dutifully reported back to the Spectator by our Washington correspondent, Nicholas von Hoffman. According to one, Kennedy has hired a special chauffeur for the campaign — Jacques Cousteau. Another reports a significant break in the Iranian situation, with the good news being that the Ayatollah has agreed to exchange the hostages for Jane Fonda. The bad news is that Teddy is driving her to the airport.

Alexander Chancellor