AND ANOTHER THING
Is John Major afraid of his false friends?
PAUL JOHNSON
It has been a summer of unparalleled depravity on the part of the down-market tabloids and their sleazy imitators among the quality press. Bribery of `friends' and servants, telescopic lens-snooping, phone- tapping and unlawful recording of conver- sations, the reckless publication of unsub- stantiated gossip, falsehoods and even downright lies — the British media have turned themselves into a huge sewer to suck the filth out of private lives and pour it indiscriminately on the public, which is rolling in it. In the United States, Rupert Murdoch gives a $30 million pay-off to an executive he sacked for staging a strip-tease and shocking his posh American friends. But his underlings in Britain are guilty of sins which cry out even louder to heaven for vengeance. Nor is News International the only or even the biggest offender. Some of the worst atrocities have been commit- ted by those who once happily licked Robert Maxwell's boots and who still run the Mirror Group. A typical instance was the deliberate attempt to wreck the family life and career of an insignificant television Personality who had been followed for seven years by 'investigative reporters' hop- ing to catch him with a prostitute. They finally succeeded and treated their readers to a lip-smacking soft-porn feast of gross vulgarity. One of the compounding factors in the media's guilt is that up-market organisa- tions which would not stoop to these meth- ods themselves feel free to repeat or draw attention to their results. The wretched television man found his name bandied about at length in the broadsheet papers. When the Daily Mirror published pho- tographs obtained by telescopic intrusion, BBC Radio 4, from 7 a.m. onwards, led its news bulletins with the story, gave the Mir- ror hundreds of thousands of pounds of free advertising and ensured the issue was a sell-out.
. There has been abundant evidence that a kind of Gresham's Law of infamy has been at work in the media recently, with editors lowering standards, in some cases reluc- tantly, and doing things that privately fill them with shame, simply because they see competitors getting away with it. Whose fault is this? Proprietors and shareholders ifl. the first place. But such moral sensitivi- ties as they possess have been dulled by the fear bred of recession. We may appeal to them to restrain their editors and market-
ing managers — and I urge anyone with influence or a powerful voice to do so — but I doubt if it will have much effect. 'Can't afford morals just at present, old boy.' What about the new press watchdog body then? This summer has demonstrated conclusively that the code of practice is a dead letter, that self-regulation is in ruins, and that the Press Complaints Commission carries no more weight than the defunct Press Council. Indeed the last time I saw a television bulletin of its doings, it appeared to be the woman who edits the News of the World, a prime culprit, who was announcing its results and giving press interviews on the pavement. 'Round up the usual suspects' is certainly not a principle this Commission can apply — they are already sitting on it.
So we return to a privacy bill. The case for it gathers strength every day. Lord McGregor, chairman of the PCC, and a man whom I respect, says that to legislate on such matters would be impractical and cites conclusions to this effect by various worthy bodies and 'experts' who have enquired into it. Let me remind him that the Royal Commission on the Press, on which we both served, was told exactly the same about legal reforms of trade union abuses, which were then bankrupting and censoring national newspapers. During the long campaign to bring the unions within the law, in which I am proud to have taken part, we were told by everyone in authority, ministers, lawyers, academics, and of course the trade union bosses themselves, that such legislation would be unworkable and would wreck any government which tried to impose it. Well: we persevered. Those laws are now in place. They have proved astonishingly effective. They have worked for everyone's benefit (and, inci- dentally, have restored the profitability of the newspaper industry) and they are clear- ly on the statute book for good. In fact, a growing number of the more go-ahead trade union officials admit they are benefi- cial. I have no doubt at all that an effective privacy law can similarly be enacted, would end the abuses, would soon be accepted by the media and, in due course, welcomed as a necessary corrective and a means to give back newspapers what they are now rapidly losing — their self-respect.
So what is holding it up? John Major. Thanks to an unrestrained and lawless media, the country is fouling its own nest, risking the destruction of one of its most valuable and effective institutions, the Crown, and giving our numerous enemies abroad a free show as we cavort across the world stage, like a tipsy dowager doing a fan dance. If ever the country needed a bit of forceful prime ministerial leadership, it is now, and on this issue. Yet Major does nothing and, it seems, plans to do nothing. It is all to be left to backbenchers, and, secretly, the whips are discouraging them.
Why? Is Major, to use Mrs Thatcher's word, frit? It is not just that. By keeping the shop-soiled David Mellor in his present job, a decision which looks more and more unwise, he has created a quite needless dif- ficulty for himself, since it would look awk- ward — would in fact be awkward — for a man discredited by intrusion to be in charge of a bill to stop it. But I am afraid fear plays a part too. Major rightly acknowledges that the press helped him to his election victory. Faced with a sea of troubles in Europe and at home, he is scared of alienating his natural media allies by legislating against privacy intrusion or even appearing to condone a backbench effort.
Major could not be more mistaken. He is losing media support anyway for quite dif- ferent reasons, and whether he gets it back will depend entirely on how he handles the big questions facing his government. If he appears to be knuckling down to the tabloid jackals he will merely convince them he is easy meat, and they are begin- ning to think that already. Proprietors, edi- tors and ordinary journalists will always respect a prime minister who is friendly but firm, and who shows them he stands for the public interest, the whole public interest, and nothing but the public interest. John Major should square his shoulders, as he well knows how, and do the right thing. He has nothing to lose but false friends.
Previous page
