ANOTHER VOICE
A million pounds
to Mr Elton John
AUBERON WAUGH
0 ne of the comforts of life for those who read only the Sun — and I dare say a fair proportion of its readers read nothing else — must be to live in a state of permanent doubt about what is going on in the world. Have there indeed been terrible earthquakes in Armenia, or are they just the product of some teenager living in a world of fantasy who has been telling lies to the reporters of his favourite newspap- er? Was there a bad rail accident in the Clapham area last week, or is this a product of exaggeration and rumour? When I was in Portugal I learned of a parish priest in the Douro Valley who solemnly assured his congregation that Russian tanks had been about to invade Poland the week before; until the Virgin Mary had appeared before the massed armour and killed all the tank crews. I am sure he enriched the lives of his listeners by opening their minds to areas of construc- five possibility, just as the Sunday Sport does, assuring its readers that a second world war American bomber has landed on the moon, possibly carrying Adolf Hitler, at a fruity 99, and Marilyn Monroe, who did not die in 1962, on their honeymoon.
I have often thought it should be capable of being taken in mitigation of damages in libel that only a fool would believe whatev- er statement was made by the words complained of, in their natural and ordin- ary meaning. In other words, if Sunday Sport ran as its main news story that the Queen is a monkey, or the Prime Minister an iguana (as some may have suspected), damages should be reduced to take into account that only a fool would allow his judgment of the person to be affected by such a preposterous claim. This defence is already built into the system by the re- quirement that the words should be judged by their effect on a reasonable and right- thinking member of society, but this re- quirement has rather gone by the board in recent years. Summing up in the case of Beloff v. Waugh and Others (1 All.E.R. 241), Mr Justice O'Connor put the kybosh on the defence of jest by assuring the jury that jest was no defence if anybody — anybody at all — was liable to take it seriously. Nevertheless, if a newspaper has a record of inventing interviews and lend- ing its space to the mischievous lies of teenagers living in a world of fantasy, it seems reasonable to suppose that its libels do less damage than those appearing, for instance, in the Sunday Times. Damages should be nominal, or, in some cases, punitive, but not compensatory to any important degree.
It does not spoil our enjoyment of Sunday Sport that we disbelieve nearly every, word of it, nor need it spoil our enjoyment of the Sun that we approach much of what it says in a spirit of sceptic- ism, or positive doubt. My reason for this long preamble is to explain how it was that I came to approach the main front page story of Monday 12 December, about how the Sun was to pay the pop star Elton John £1 million in out-of-court settlement of a libel action, in a doubting spirit. I am not saying that I am right to doubt the claim, but just as we all approach anything we read in the Sun in a mood of wondering whether to believe it or not, using our own experience or general knowledge of life as the only touchstone, I decided not to believe that the Sun had paid Elton John £1 million, as I believe it is my inalienable right to do. The day the Government passes a law making it obligatory to believe everything we read in the Sun, I shall emigrate to Thailand.
Perhaps I had better fill in the back- ground. Last year the Sun ran an exposé on the pop singer Elton John (of whom, like most of the characters who appear in the Sun, I had only vaguely heard) which ran for several days, as I remember, and involved charges of homosexual activity with a minor and drug-taking. The invisible libel lawyer who sits on every journalist's shoulder whispered in my ear at the time that the Sun must have a very high degree of proof, and I seem to remember mention of a photograph which they were reluctant to print in a family newspaper. But when I sent a researcher to check the original, they were not helpful. `You can't 'ave it,' they said to her.
Then, on Monday, this amazing state- ment appeared on the front page: Sorry Elton. The Sun pays rock star record sum. The Sun agreed to pay megastar Elton John Lim libel damages. The settlement followed allegations published in the Sun last year about his private life. A delighted Elton said last night: 'This is the best Christmas present I could wish for. Life is too short to bear grudges and I don't bear the Sun any malice.' Later a Sun spokesman apologised to Elton for running stories which they acknowledge to be completely untrue. The spokesman said: 'We are delighted the Sun and Elton have become friends again, and are sorry that we were lied to by a teenager living in a world of fantasy.
The newspaper went on to vindicate the pop singer most particularly of any sugges- tion that he did not love his pet animals. When the High Court was eventually asked to endorse the settlement, Mr Justice Michael Davies commented: 'One would think that Elton John and the newspaper had formed a mutual admiration society.' He resented their use of his court as 'a supine adjunct of a publicity machine for pop stars and newspapers', and observed that in manipulating the court, the parties 'were determined to obtain the maximum publicity for both sides'.
The claimed settlement is twice the previous record in damages, awarded to Jeffrey Archer after a bitterly contested libel action. If the Sun had chosen to defend the action, it might indeed have gone down heavily, but Mr Elton John is not short of money, and he would have had to put up with a painful examination of his private life.
As I say, I disbelieve the Sun's claim that it intends to pay Elton John £1 million. It has lied often in the past, and I happen to think it is lying on this occasion. But of course, it is quite possible that I am wrong — that for once in its life it has examined the role of a vehicle for -the bitterness of discarded lovers, for the mercenary bet- rayal of their clients by prostitutes and rent-boys, for the exploitation of one-night stands by moronic teenagers — and felt ashamed.
Previous page
