MEDIA STUDIES
Some people are about to fear Mr Al Fayed no longer
STEPHEN GLOVER
ing a book about Mohamed Al Fayed. After the deaths of his son, Dodi, and Diana, Princess of Wales this notion hard- ened into something like resolve. My agent, Gdlon Aitken, and I toured several leading Publishers, where we were met with cour- tesy and interest. Everybody agreed that such a book would be a marvellous idea. But it soon emerged that no one in this great country of ours — or almost no one --- was willing to publish a biography for fear of attracting a writ from Mr Al Fayed. Fear is what many people in publishing and journalism feel when the very name of this Egyptian gentleman is mentioned. We should not be too scornful of them. Mr Al Fayed is undeniably generous and charm- ing, but he can be a formidable adversary who does not scruple to blacken the names of those whom he believes have crossed Min. Journalists are not exempt from this treatment. The famous Department of Trade report into Mr Al Fayed's takeover of Harrods had some harsh things to say about the way Mr Al Fayed and his brother sought to undermine the reputation of a Journalist called Peter Wickman. Mr Wick- man had uncovered some truths about the Al Fayeds' origins.
The attack on Mr Wickman's journalistic integrity [a paragraph on page 734 of the DTI report runs] was deplorable and ought not to have been made. What Mr Wickman had written about the Fayeds was in substance true, but they did not hesitate to attack his integrity on the pretence that he had invent- ed the stories he wrote about them, or to pro- duce false evidence and a set of false docu- ments in support of this attack on him. That they should continue their attack on him at the very end of our Inquiry, albeit in more muted form, after having the opportunity of reading a paper on which this appendix was based was, in our opinion, disgraceful.
There are others who know what it is like to displease Mr Al Fayed. That is why, though a man of superficially comic aspect, he strikes fear into so many hearts. There has been no biography of him. Press cover- age, though often critical, has drawn very heavily on the searing Department of Trade rade report, and has rarely ventured into _new pastures. But now, after the death of Dodi, I sense a turning-point. And perhaps, when we look back on the extraordinary Part Mr Al Fayed has played in British pub- lic life, we will regard the apparent ending of his action against the American maga- zine Vanity Fair as the decisive moment. A settlement is reportedly about to be announced in New York.
In September 1995 Vanity Fair published a very long article by Maureen Orth about Mr Al Fayed. In some respects it was not unsympathetic. Indeed, that is the impor- tant point about Mr Al Fayed: he has some admirable qualities. In other respects, Ms Orth was more critical, though in these pas- sages she largely drew on the familiar Department of Trade report. What appears really to have offended Mr Al Fayed was contained in not very many rather oblique paragraphs. The article accused him of sex- ual harassment, racism, being obsessed with personal hygiene and ill-treating staff. Mr Al Fayed demanded an apology and, when that did not come, he sued.
In my view he was unwise to do so. As I say, the allegations were somewhat buried. I read Ms Orth's piece at the time and could barely remember them until I read it again this week. Mr Al Fayed evidently took another view. He was not persuaded by the argument that Vanity Fair, which sells over a million copies a month in America, is not always very closely read in this country, where it has a much smaller circulation of around 80,000. He felt, like others before him, that he had been tra- duced, and was determined that a libel which few had noticed should be set straight.
But Vanity Fair would not capitulate. It is, after all, owned by S.I. Newhouse, Jnr, a man even richer than Mr Al Fayed. The magazine's representatives scoured the earth looking for evidence that could sus- tain Ms Orth's allegations. Everything they discovered was of course submitted to Mr Al Fayed's lawyers as well as to the maga- zine's own defence team. Given that the usual response to Mr Al Fayed is condi- And cut down on the carphone,Mr Modo . . tioned by fear, one cannot but admire Vani- ty Fair's persistence. They did not give up, though their costs have exceeded a million pounds. Unlike their weaker brethren, they may have also reflected that Mr Al Fayed has never actually taken a libel case all the way to court.
Why he was disinclined to do so on this occasion one can only speculate. He is said by friends to be in low spirits, as is hardly surprising following the death of his son. Perhaps he did not look forward to hearing Vanity Fair's lawyers examine their own witnesses in court. In any event, the action is by all accounts about to be stopped, and the magazine will not pay Mr Al Fayed's costs or issue any kind of apology. The world is likely to regard this as some kind of victory for Vanity Fair. A publication has at last stood up to Mr Al Fayed.
This is bound to affect the way the press writes about Mr Al Fayed. Even before the settlement, several newspapers have been conducting their own investigations. They will now be emboldened to go further. They will wonder what sort of evidence Vanity Fair has amassed, and ask whether they themselves cannot follow down the same paths. There is much in Mr Al Fayed's life that has not been written about, in particular the origins of his wealth and his relationship with the Guardian newspaper. Journalists are circling, and they will not be dealt with as poor Mr Wickman was. Who knows, someone may even write a book.
Readers may be interested to know what happened to the second reading of the Competition Bill in the Lords, which I wrote about last week. The Times certainly made no mention of it. The government has refused to accept amendments put for- ward by various peers which would render `predatory pricing' illegal and bring an end to Rupert Murdoch's newspaper price war. But Lord McNally, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on trade and industry, has indi- cated that he may force a vote at the report stage, when Lib Dems, Tories and cross- benchers could unite to defeat the govern- ment, which is defending Mr Murdoch. Meanwhile Mr Murdoch is implacable, say- ing last week of the price war: 'No way will I call a truce. No one else wants to call a truce. They insult me every day, so they can go to hell.' He sounds cross.
Previous page
