MEDIA STUDIES
I fear my old friend Mr Stothard has met a tougher cookie than himself
STEPHEN GLOVER
Iam a little anxious for my old friend Peter Stothard, editor of the Times. I was away on holiday during his assault on Michael Ashcroft, treasurer of the Tory party, and followed Mr Stothard's war at a distance. Naturally, I wondered what he was up to. Unquestionably it was a cracking story, and there was little doubt that the Tories had been daft to take so much money from one man. It would have been unwise if that person had been the Archangel Gabriel, so it was positively fool- ish given Mr Ashcroft's undeniably rather dashing past. But as time when on, and Mr Stothard's fusillade showed no sign of abat- ing, I began to wonder whether there was not more to his agenda than met the eye. There seemed something slightly over the top about the whole exercise, and it was noticeable that other Murdoch papers were barely touching the story. I couldn't help wondering whether my old friend was not somewhat desperately trying to enliven the autumn of his editorship, and make it high summer again.
As everyone knows, Mr Ashcroft finally cracked and served a writ against Mr Stothard, Tom Baldwin (the Times's deputy political editor), and a freelance journalist called Toby Follett. He decided to act because one article, written by Baldwin and Follett and actually tucked away on an inside page, went further than any previous piece in linking the tycoon with drug crime. Then everything went quiet and the world forgot about the whole affair. But the cara- van, of course, rolls on. Lawyers on both sides beaver expensively away. Mr Ashcroft reportedly has the bit between his teeth. I am told that he is inclined to personalise the matter (which is why Messrs Stothard and Baldwin are named in the claim for damages) and hopes to bring Mr Stothard crashing down. Not only that. He says that the stock-market value of his companies went down by £300 million as a result of the allegations in the Times, and he is looking for recovery of this sum in addition to any- thing else the courts may be minded to throw his way.
It is not every day that one is sued by a billionaire, and a claim of this size must be unprecedented in this country. Perhaps it is all lawyers' talk; we shall see. But it would be very surprising if Mr Stothard, who only a moment ago was dispatching his troops to the Caribbean with gay abandon, was not himself a little anxious. Not only his good name but also the Murdoch millions may possibly be at stake. The Times's lawyers have naturally been requiring the newspa- per's journalists to provide cast-iron sub- stantiation and produce witnesses in sup- port of their story. This is always a gruelling process for any journalist, and it is said to be particularly so in this instance. Mr Ashcroft is a tough cookie if ever there was one — tougher, I fear, than Mr Stothard and may not shrink from seizing on some relevant deficiencies among his adversaries. It is pointed out that the tycoon owns a security company with investigative resources that would be the envy of any editor.
The case will probably come to court in 12 to 14 months. Someone in the Ashcroft camp tells me that 'there is no apology big enough in the world to satisfy Michael Ashcroft'. In other words, he will go the whole way, and not accept an out-of-court settlement. This may also be merely lawyers' talk, but somehow I rather doubt it. As my source says, Mr Ashcroft is 'out to get Peter Stothard'. I just hope my old friend is sure of his facts.
Several friends at the Guardian have told me that I was unfair to their newspaper last week in my piece about the departure of the journalist Martin Walker. A notice has gone up at the newspaper asserting that my piece was inaccurate. Though it may surprise some people, and even disappoint others, I have no wish to be hard on the Guardian.
Readers may remember that I suggested in my column that an anodyne press release put out by the Guardian concealed a con- siderable bust-up between the paper and Mr Walker, a long-serving and highly respected foreign correspondent. In this respect, at any rate, I appear to have been wholly correct. For although the notice put up at the Guardian imputes inaccuracy to my article, it also accuses Mr Walker of a `breach of trust'. In other words, the press release, which merely said that Mr Walker had resigned to take early retirement, was itself deeply inaccurate.
In which other ways was I allegedly incor- rect? I was very happy earlier this week to receive an unsolicited telephone call from a very senior representative of the Guardian. What surprised me, apart from this charac- ter's geniality, was that his side of the story conformed in most important respects with the version put about by Mr Walker's friends. He agreed that Mr Walker had been accused of an expenses irregularity. Even as he told it, the offence did not seem very grave. Mr Walker had reportedly gone on claiming school fees for his daughter at a Brussels school after she had been sent to a private school in England. But there was no suggestion that the fees at the English school were less than those at the Belgian one.
My elevated Guardian source parted company with Mr Walker's version of events only in two important respects. First, he denied that Mr Walker had received a clean bill of health after investigations car- ried out by the newspaper — hence the phrase 'breach of trust'. (However, he also said, contrary to what another Guardian source told me last week, that Mr Walker had been offered another, unspecified job in London, and so had not been fired.) Sec- ond, my source said — and I believe him that Mr Walker had received only four months' pay-off, not the year claimed by Mr Walker's friends. But as he added that Mr Walker was legally entitled only to a pay-off of three months, the relatively short period of four months does not imply any impro- priety. If the man had been guilty of an offence he would have received nothing at all.
So, having looked again at the evidence, I still believe that Mr Walker has been treat- ed shabbily by his employer of 28 years. There seems to be a lot of prejudice against him at the Guardian for past behaviour. Indeed, my source expressed some resentment that Mr Walker bad taken off a lot of time to do lecture tours when he was the newspaper's correspon- dent in America. But I am not concerned with former misdemeanours, real or imag- ined, or even with the character of the man. The question is whether he was treat- ed harshly on this occasion. I think he was. When I said this to my Guardian source, he astounded me by saying that my point of view was perfectly reasonable. He had sim- ply felt he could no longer work with Mr Walker. I think I detected in him a regret at the course of events; a feeling, even, that things had not worked out as they should have done.
Previous page
