MEDIA STUDIES
Surely Lord Hollick is not going to try to please Mr Mandelson again
STEPHEN GLOVER
Last week I wrote about the case of `Peter's friend' and the Express on Sunday. Somewhat surprisingly, that paper had car- ried a photograph of a young Brazilian gen- tleman called Reinaldo Avila da Silva who supposedly had been a close friend of Mr Peter Mandelson. The surprise was that, of all papers, the Express should have run a story of this sort. Its editor, Rosie Boycott, is about as politically correct as it is possi- ble to be, and she is besides a good friend of Mr Mandelson.
Various sources had told me that Lord Hollick, chief executive of the Express, was unhappy with the story. He is also a friend of Mr Mandelson, as this column has had occasion to point out in the past. Ms Boy- cott, despite initial enthusiasm for the piece about Peter's friend, was also said to be having second thoughts. My worry was that both of them, possibly under pressure from Mr Mandelson, were looking for a scape- goat. Well, now they seem to have found one.
On Monday of this week, Sarah Sands, deputy editor of the Daily Telegraph, met Ms Boycott and was offered the job of run- ning the Express on Sunday. She turned it down. The point is that the Express on Sun- day already has an executive editor, one Amanda Platel, who, at the time of writing, has not been dismissed or even told that her days are numbered.
It is quite common in Fleet Street to offer people's jobs around without first tak- ing the trouble to inform those people. But this case is not so straightforward. My attention has been drawn to an article by my esteemed colleague, the media com- mentator Roy Greenslade, in this Monday's Guardian. In discussing recent press cover- age of various outings, Mr Greenslade made it clear that he thought the publica- tion of the photograph of Mr Avila da Silva pretty shabby. He even suggested that an Express internal inquiry had established that the young man had somehow been `deceived' into revealing his relationship with Mr Mandelson, though he provided no details. Just how could he have been tricked? I rather think the notion of decep- tion is intended to throw a poor light on those journalists who were responsible for the story, one of whom is Ms Platel.
Even more interesting were Mr Greenslade's remarks about Mr Mandel- son. This is what he wrote: `Mandelson was very upset and cannot understand why dis- ciplinary action hasn't been taken. It will be surprising if the incident doesn't lead to at least one executive being fired.' This pas- sage, spine-chilling to me, carries the clear implication that Mr Greenslade has spoken with Mr Mandelson personally, or else that he knows Mr Mandelson's innermost thoughts from a mutual friend. This might very well be Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's press secretary, who is an old chum of Mr Greenslade, and has fought many a battle by Mr Mandelson's side.
I wrote last week that Mr Mandelson was `far from happy' with the publication of the picture of his friend. I suggested that on the afternoon of Saturday, 31 October, the day before publication, he had rung Lord Hol- lick, who, we know, telephoned Simon Wal- ters, Ms Platel's deputy, to discuss how the story might be written and the picture dis- played. Now we have it on Mr Greenslade's authority, no less, that Mr Mandelson was `very upset' and cannot understand why heads have not rolled. Mr Greenslade's comment that 'it will be surprising if the incident doesn't lead to at least one execu- tive being fired' may reasonably be taken to mean that this is an outcome both expected and desired by Mr Mandelson.
Now I have two things to say about this, one journalistic, the other political. Although Ms Platel has not yet been dis- missed, her job has been offered to some- one else and clearly hangs by a thread. I have no idea how good an executive editor she is, but since she took over at the Express on Sunday several months ago the paper has been pretty lively. It would surely be monstrously unjust to deprive her of her job given that, as I wrote last week, Ms Boycott herself approved the publication of the photograph of Peter's friend, and was indeed enthusiastic about it. If she and Lord Hollick get rid of Ms Platel I doubt they will ever live it down.
The political implications are even more worrying. I have written before about the `1 have this sense of worthlessness.' involvement of Mr Mandelson in the affairs of the Express. Derek Draper has told us that before submitting his column to the paper he would first show it to Mr Mandel- son for approval. There are grounds for believing that Mr Mandelson's friends helped overturn the appointment of Paul Routledge as political editor of the Express shortly after Ms Boycott became its editor earlier this year. But all that would pale into insignificance if it became clear that Mr Mandelson, a government minister, had had any hand in the dismissal of an execu- tive editor of a national newspaper. He is certainly within his rights to complain about the publication of the picture — rather see his point — but anything he does must be open and transparent. If it is not, he and Lord Hollick and Rosie Boycott will be in a terrible pickle.
Mr Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian wonders why I am so obsessed with his newspaper. Try this for size. A cou- ple of weeks ago the Guardian ran a long piece on its media pages purporting to be a comprehensive list of articles written in The Spectator about the newspaper by Paul Johnson, Taki and myself. The intention was to convey an impression of a magazine unremittingly hostile to the Guardian. One article I had written about the newspaper was therefore left out. On 28 June 1997 I wrote about the Aitken case: `The Guardian's revelation of Mr Aitken's dis- honesty is a journalistic triumph. People of every political belief and of none should raise a cheer.'
Not so hostile. I wrote a letter for publi- cation to the Guardian pointing out what was presumably a deliberate omission. This was duly published but with two words removed. The word 'controversial' was taken out as in 'the controversial former head of the Ghanaian security services' (1.e. our old friend Kojo Tsikata). And the word `your' was removed as in 'your attempts to smear Mr Hunt rather than answer his alle- gation'. No one consulted me about these changes. Why make them? Because NI! Rusbridger, or someone acting on his behalf, does not want his readers to be told that the paper's Victoria Brittain had. a `controversial friend' or that the Guardian itself had tried to smear Mr Hunt. How petty and silly — and how fascinating.
Previous page
