MEDIA STUDIES
Mr Morgan's adventures as an investor are enough to make you wrap a towel around your head
STEPHEN GLOVER
Piers Morgan, editor of the Mirror, is again swinging on the high wire, and this time he may fall. Although last May the Press Complaints Commission censured him for his share dealings, he survived. His employers, Trinity Mirror, stood by him. But inquiries by Department of Trade inspectors have been continuing, and some of their discoveries have surfaced in Sunday Business, whose reporting of Mr Morgan's tribulations has been outstanding.
It's all a bit complicated, and I had to wrap a towel around my head and drink a pot of black coffee to get to grips with it. But it's stunning stuff. The background I have writ- ten about before. On 18 January this year the City Slickers column in the Mirror tipped a company called Viglen Technology, which immediately doubled in value. Mr Morgan had bought shares worth £20,000 in Viglen the previous day and so made a considerable gain. But he maintained that when he made the purchase he had no idea that the Slickers column was just about to tip Viglen and send its stock soaring. He had simply noticed an advertisement which suggested that the com- pany was setting up an Internet division.
One of the two-man Slickers team, Anil Bhoyrul, told a different story, though he did not come out with it straightaway. According to Mr Bhoyrul, he and his col- league James Hipwell spoke with Mr Mor- gan about Viglen on the morning of 17 Jan- uary, the day Mr Morgan bought his shares. They recommended that he sell his shares in Pace Micro Technology (also previously recommended by the Slickers) and buy into Viglen. Mr Bhoyrul says that during the afternoon he sent an email to Mr Morgan advising him to hang on to Pace after all.
Now an email has come to light — dug up from the entrails of the Mirror's computer system by the DTI inspectors — which gives credence to his story. It was sent by Mr Morgan to Mr Bhoyrul at 4.33 p.m. on 17 January, and reads, 'I sold them [i.e. Pace shares] this morning for bloody Viglen.' This strongly suggests that, contrary to his former assertion, Mr Morgan had discussed Viglen with Mr Bhoyrul. When he sends this email he believes that he has, on Bhoyrul 's advice, sold a rising share (Pace) for Viglen, which has not yet gone up.
There are some other new emails linking Mr Morgan to dubious share deals, but let us not bother with those now. The implica- tions of this particular email are enormous. It would appear that Mr Morgan has been mistaken in asserting that no meeting took place earlier on 17 January with Bhoyrul and Hipwell during which Viglen was dis- cussed. And the DTI inspectors may find it difficult to believe that, if this encounter happened, Bhoyrul and Hipwell did not mention that their Slickers column in the next day's issue was going to tip the very share they were talking about — Viglen.
Where now? The Press Complaints Com- mission says it has already censured Mr Morgan in the strongest possible terms, and it is no part of its remit to investigate allega- tions of criminal behaviour. Its only interest was in establishing that Mr Morgan broke the commission's code in buying shares tipped in his newspaper. This seems a some- what limited view of the scope of the com- mission's powers, which may prove embar- rassing if the DTI should successfully insti- tute proceedings against Mr Morgan. Its inspectors certainly appear to have the bit between their teeth. My feeling is that the noose is tightening. Mr Morgan's employ- ers, Trinity Mirror, have shown commend- able loyalty in defending him, though they dismissed Bhoyrul and Hipwell last Febru- ary. But they will not want to be accused of having presided over a whitewash.
Ten days ago two Independent on Sun- day reporters threatened to sue their own paper unless defamatory references to them were removed from a column by the novelist Salman Rushdie. This must be a world first. Here is the story.
About three weeks ago Michael Williams, deputy editor of the Sindy, took morning conference while the paper's edi- tor, Janet Street-Porter, was away. Mr Williams was told that two Muslim life peers had suggested that British taxpayers had more than done their bit in stumping up for round-the-clock protection for Mr Rushdie, still the subject of a fatwa. He was extremely keen on the story. When remind- ed that Mr Rushdie is a regular columnist for the Sindy, Mr William opined that he wasn't much of a columnist.
A reporter, Sophie Goodchild, was put on the story, which was actually pretty old hat. She consequently produced a piece which Mr Williams regarded as anaemic. He said he 'wanted a Chittenden' — a ref- erence to Maurice Chittenden, a no-holds- barred reporter on the Sunday Times, for which paper Mr Williams once worked. The story was duly spiced up on the Satur- day before publication on 29 October; the news editor, Barry Hugill, writing in some material, and a reporter called Robert Mendick adding his tuppenceworth.
Mr Rushdie was portrayed as an inveterate party-going playboy having the time of his life in New York, where he now hangs out. Lord Ahmed of Rotherham and Baroness Uddin of Bethnal Green (our two Muslim friends) were quoted as suggesting that money spent protecting such a man should be given to the police. When Mr Rushdie read all this — in his own newspaper, remember — he blew a fuse. By this time Janet Street-Porter had returned from her travels. Mr Rushdie threatened to resign as a columnist unless the Sindy printed an apolo- gy. It was also agreed that he could devote his column to rebutting the attack. (He denied that his protection in New York is paid for by the British taxpayer.) Being, unlike Mr Williams, of the view that Mr Rushdie is an excellent columnist, Ms Street- Porter readily accepted these terms.
Apology and column appeared in the issue of 5 November. But the column in its original form contained defamatory references to the two reporters, and almost occasioned a riot. Acting on legal advice, Ms Goodchild and Mr Mendick threatened to sue their own newspaper unless their names were removed. Ms Street-Porter was reluctant to do this since she did not want to offend her friend Salman. However, the Sindy's lawyers even- tually persuaded her to take out the names, and Mr Rusdie's column was doctored.
He has not resigned and I don't imagine he will. Ms Street-Porter has been busy pampering him. Sophie Goodchild is tak- ing advice. Mr Williams, who started this bushfire, has swung round to the view that Mr Rushdie is not such a bad columnist after all. Barry Hugill, the news editor, has resigned, believing that this is no way to run a national newspaper. You certainly couldn't quarrel with that.
Previous page
