Notebook
It so happened that today there landed on my desk the July issue of a magazine call- ed Journalism Studies Review, which is Published from time to time by the Centre for Journalism Studies at University Col- lege, Cardiff. On the cover is advertised an article by Mr John Pilger of the Daily Mir- ror called 'The Need to Go Too Far'. The article is a plea on behalf of crusading jour- nalism. According to Mr Pilger, too many Journalists nowadays are cynical about their trade. 'Those journalists who cultivate an independent attitude of mine, who depart from the script, often find themselves stuck with a label. This label might describe them as "radical", "emotional", "committed" or "controversial" — in short, a journalist Who goes too far'. (The italics are Mr Pilger's.) There is a need, he says, for jour- nalists 'prepared to go beyond instant news and description to well-researched in- vestigation and unabashed crusades'. Such Journalists, he says earlier in the article, must always be outsiders, always loners, and sometimes even outlaws.' The article sums up Mr Pilger's romantic and, I believe, honestly held idea of what jour- nalism is about. It is therefore not without some regret that we publish this week two articles — by the editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review and by one of his Bangkok correspondents — which, I believe, prove that on one occasion at least, Mr Pilger responded to his own exhortation and did, indeed, `go too far'. Readers may recall an article by Auberon Waugh in our issue of 12 June entitled 'Thai "slave-girl" Mystery'. It referred to a front-page story in the Daily Mirror of 22 March, an account by Mr Pilger of how he went to Thailand and purchased an eight-year-old 'slave-girl' called `Sunee' for £85. Mr Pilger's aim was to draw attention, in the most arresting Manner possible, to the scandal of child slavery in Thailand. It is a scandal which is recognised to exist, even by the Thai Government. In this particular case, however, the Thai Government maintained that Mr Pilger had been taken for a ride. It organised a press conference which was at- tended both by the 'slave-girl' in question and her mother, who explained how the hoax had been perpetrated. The details are In this week's Spectator. Although Mr Pilger's story was widely disseminated in this country and abroad, the Thai Govern- ment's rebuttal was completely overlooked. NO British newspaper took the trouble to Investigate the matter. That was one of the reasons why Mr Waugh's article was in- teresting. We felt that the detailed evidence Produced by the Thais deserved fair and un- biased examination. We rather expected that Mr Pilger, or the Daily Mirror, would offer a reasoned reply to the Thai allega tions. But instead we were served by Mr Pilger with a writ for libel, claiming that we had given credence to the Thai version of events and demanding an apology. We had no choice at this point but to investigate the matter ourselves. In this I sought the assistance of Mr Derek Davies, editor of the Far Eastern Economic Review, who im- mediately put one of his Bangkok reporters — Paisal Sricharatchanya — on to the job. The investigation was carried out in- dependently of the Thai Government. It led us inexorably to the conclusion that the Government's version of events was much nearer the truth than Mr Pilger's. We are now convinced, in other words, that Mr Pilger was the victim of a hoax. The reasons are spelt out in the articles by Paisal and Mr Davies, which are being published simul- taneously in the Far Eastern Economic Review. I should emphasise that we do not for one moment suspect Mr Pilger of fabrication. The evidence indicates most strongly that he believed he had bought a real 'slave-girl' and that he is genuinely con- cerned about the problem of child slavery in Thailand. Our only complaint against Mr Pilger is that he was not prepared to con- sider the evidence which the Thai Govern- ment produced against him. He assumed, automatically, that it must have been lying. Accordingly, he served us and Mr Waugh with writs for libel. There is nothing wrong with being 'radical', 'emotional', 'commit- ted', or 'controversial'. There is nothing wrong with conducting 'unabashed crusades'. But even the most radical, emo- tional, committed, controversial, and unabashed reporter has a duty not only to carry out 'well-researched investigation' but to remain open to the possibility that he might actually be wrong.
The only good that may possibly come out of the intrusion into the Queen's bedroom is that it may temporarily direct Mrs Thatcher's attention away from her triumph in the Falkland Islands. I am told that she can think of little else. But if she has stopped to consider which loss would be
most deeply resented by the people of Britain — the loss of the Falklands or the loss of the Queen — she may by now have got things into better perspective. 'Let every nation know,' said Mrs Thatcher after her Falklands victory, 'that where there is British sovereign territory it will be well and truly defended.' One might suspect Buck- ingham Palace of being British sovereign territory, but it is so badly defended that the police do not even heed the alarm when it goes off or take any notice when the Queen telephones them to say there is an in- truder in her room. The picture of the Palace which emerges from the press reports is of a sleepy, old-fashioned place, so obsessed with its own rituals that it has lost touch with the real world. The most humble householder is more aware of the potential dangers to his person and proper- ty than the Queen's entourage. By all ac- counts, the intruder himself seems to fit well into this dream world. He does not ap- pear to have wanted to harm anybody merely to talk to the Queen about her fami- ly.
The sentencing in Dublin of Gerard Tuite, the suspected IRA bomber, for offences committed in London will help to create better humour between Britain and Ireland. It may even help us to forget Mr Haughey's disloyalty over the Falklands. At any rate, it is a relief to know that IRA ter- rorists in Britain can no longer rely on im- punity in their native country. It was fascinating to read in the Daily Telegraph an account of Mr Tuite's family background. Violence and republicanism are in his blood. At his parents' wedding, there was a gun battle between guests and police in which a policeman was killed. Gerard, we are told, was the one child out of seven who local police and teachers thought least likely to become involved in violence. A former school friend said: 'He was a very inoffensive person, a nice quiet fellow'. There is clearly nothing to be done about people with Gerard Tuite's background. Such Irishmen are obviously mad, which at least makes one hate them a bit less.
More and more people are to be seen walking about the streets of London with earphones on their heads, living in their own private stereophonic world. I am constantly frightened that I may run one of them over in my car. The town of Wood- bridge in New Jersey is, as far as I know, the first community in the world to recognise the danger and take steps to pre- vent it. It has passed legislation forbidding the wearing of earphones by strollers, jog- gers, bicyclists and motorists. Offenders are threatened with heavy fines. In my view, the measure is a little too repressive. I would propose instead that in any accident involving a person with earphones on his head, the earphone-wearer should be deem- ed responsible under the law.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
