In defence of Hugo Young
Sir: We write as the three members of the Scott Trust who are independent of both the Guardian and the Scott family to cor- rect the abusive attack on its chairman, Hugo Young, by Paul Johnson (And anoth- er thing, 27 July).
The Trust appoints and removes editors as a collective entity, after vigorous and sometimes difficult discussions, and the chairman has consistently acted on behalf of all its members. Thus the notion that Hugo Young runs the Trust like some fief- dom is categorically false. Apart from our own strong and independent views, he pre- sides over a group of individuals with immense experience of newspapers, whose achievements as editors, journalists or senior managers have not come through subservience.
The Guardian bought the Observer to safeguard and restore a national asset, and to link together two great liberal newspa- pers. Whilst we underestimated the depths to which that paper had sunk, and did not foresee the newspaper price war, everyone is determined to make a success of the ini- tiative.
Jonathan Fenby recently put his views in a letter to the Times, which do not remotely square with Mr Johnson's bilious account of his departure. Andrew Jaspan's removal was by unanimous vote of the trustees, arrived at with considerable reluctance, but no less conviction that it had to be done.
Any fair critic would acknowledge that running an independent broadsheet has never been more difficult, and that propri- etors (be they owners or trustees) some- times have to be cruel to an editor to be kind to the paper.
To pretend that the difficulties at the Observer stem from the malign incompe- tence of 'imperious', 'cowardly', 'snobbish' Hugo Young does Paul Johnson — and the facts — no credit at all.
The Scott Trust has maintained the inde- pendence and commercial strength of the Guardian for many decades, and has every intention of doing the same for the Observer. Anne Lapping, Andrew Phillips, Anthony Sampson
The Scott Trust, 164 Deansgate, Manchester
Previous page
