MEDIA STUDIES
On the contrary, Mr Murdoch, your private life is everyone's business
STEPHEN GLOVER
Even in the unexpurgated Vanity Fair interview Murdoch comes across, at least superficially, as a pretty reasonable chap. This is not the fault of the interviewer, William Shawcross, who has been attacked by some in the past for being too indulgent towards Murdoch, most notably in his 1992 biography. Shawcross asks several search- ing questions but Mr Murdoch usually manages to sidestep them. His technique is to appear to agree with a criticism before rowing back. So when asked about Tibet he starts off by seeming open and reasonable. `I don't know the rights and wrongs of Tibet. I'd love to go there and see it. They [Murdoch's friends in the Chinese govern- ment] want me to go there and see it.' And then, after a couple of exchanges, he puts the knife in. 'I've heard cynics say' — i.e. he himself has said — 'that he's a very political old monk shuffling around in Gucci shoes.'
There are three subjects about which Mr Murdoch does not tell the whole truth: his relationship with Wendi Deng, his attitude towards writing about the private lives of famous people, and China, where he wants to do more business. So far as Wendi is concerned, Shawcross raises the suggestion that Mr Murdoch's relationship with her began before his formal separation from Anna, his wife of 32 years, in April 1998. This would not normally be our business but we know how excited Mr Murdoch's newspapers get about extramarital affairs. Murdoch knows this too, and is anxious to knock the idea of adultery on the head. He says he first properly dated Wendi in Lon- don in June of last year — two months after his separation from Anna. He does not say that it was also in June of last year that Wendi accompanied him on a trip to China where she acted as his interpreter. In fact, they had met in 1997, and possibly become close, at the Harbour Plaza Hotel in Hong Kong.
Does it matter? Yes, because it is Mur- doch. If any leading politician was as cava- lier with dates about such a matter, his newspapers would tear him to pieces. But different rules apply to Murdoch. At one point he lets slip as much in talking about his relationship with Wendi. 'It's no one's business, my private life, anyway.' (This tell-talc line was omitted in the Times excerpt.) Shawcross points out that the Sun makes a livelihood out of writing about people's private lives. So Murdoch is forced to change tack and works his way around to arguing that it is all right to write about the private lives of famous people, though for some reason he has some sym- pathy for sports stars. But film stars, politi- cians and members of the Royal Family are fair game. This is a perfectly arguable posi- tion, yet it cannot conceivably be recon- ciled with his defence of his own private life. Why don't the rest of us have equal rights? You will not find a better example of hypocrisy.
It is perhaps on China that Mr Murdoch stretches truth the furthest. As I have said, he tries to give the impression of having an open mind on Tibet and chats away about China as though it is a flawed but in many ways admirable country that should not be judged by Western standards. Here Mr Shawcross is not as rigorous as he might have been. For the truth is that Mr Mur- doch has given unequivocal support to one of the most brutal and odious regimes in the world, which is also becoming a securi- ty threat to the West. On 12 December 1998 the South China Morning Post carried the Chinese news agency's report of a meeting President Jiang Zemin had with Mr Murdoch. Mr Jiang praised Mr Mur- doch for his coverage of China, and Mr Murdoch replied in kind, expressing his `admiration for China's tremendous achievements in every respect [my italics] over the past two decades'. Apart possibly from Edward Heath, Mr Murdoch is China's greatest friend. But he didn't tell William Shawcross the truth about that, as he didn't tell him the truth about some other things. Iread somewhere that Andrew Neil, the Barclay brothers' honcho, has been trying to recruit Matthew d'Ancona, deputy editor of the Sunday Telegraph. The Barclays were reportedly about to acquire the Daily and Sunday Express, and wanted Mr D'Ancona to help revive these ailing titles.
Much as I admire Mr d'Ancona, I do not easily see him in the role of a tabloid Red Adair. In fact the offer was chiefly to write a column in Sunday Business and the Scots- man, which the Barclays own. Even if Mr d'Ancona were Arthur Christiansen's natu- ral successor, he would have to bide his time, for the Barclays seem further from buying the Express titles than they were in June, when I last wrote about this saga. Lord Hollick's United News and Media had recently met representatives of the Barclay brothers to discuss the possible sale of the Express titles. (United subsequently dis- avowed these meetings but they undoubt- edly took place.) Kdeinwort Benson were producing a prospectus for perusal by the Barclays. Lord Hollick was not necessarily an imminent seller but he did at least appear to be toying with the idea.
Since then everything has gone quiet. There have been no further meetings between United News and the Barclays. Kleinwort Benson never did produce that prospectus which was supposed to contain financial details about the Express titles. The Barclays are evidently as keen as ever to buy the papers but feel they are kicking a brick wall. No would-be buyer should ever appear too eager and, according to one of the brothers' team, 'they don't want to press their noses against the window'. What is going on? Lord Hollick would obviously prefer not to get rid of the papers, in which he personally has a tiny stake. They give him kudos in government circles that he otherwise would not have. The trouble is that some shareholders regard them as an underperforming asset, and a wasting one to boot. My guess is that there will be a sale in the end — and the Barclay brothers still seem the most likely buyers — but that Lord Hollick will try to keep the shareholders at bay for a little longer yet. The Blairites would like him to run the Labour-supporting and pro-ens) titles beyond the next election and ideally until the referendum on the single curren- cy. But will shareholders allow him to hang on that long?
Previous page
