MEDIA STUDIES
Of course Lord Gavron has exercised editorial influence over the Observer. Here's how
STEPHEN GLOVER
Two weeks ago I wrote about the case of Bob Gavron, chairman of the Guardian Media Group, which publishes the Guardian, the Observer, the Manchester Evening News and a string of provincial newspapers. In June Bob Gavron gave the Labour party £500,000 and, by what must have been a complete coincidence, was also raised to the peerage. My suggestion was that someone in charge of a newspaper group should not be a benefactor of a polit- ical party.
The reply, vouchsafed to me by a Guardian Media Group senior executive, was that Lord Gavron does not have an ounce of editorial power or influence. So it doesn't matter that he is in bed with New Labour. The same line was taken by the Guardian in its leader column on 9 September. There was no need to worry, the newspaper assured us, because the Guardian Media Group and the Scott Trust, to which it is ultimately responsible, did not have 'any hand in shaping our edi- torial policy . . . The rules under which we operate specifically preclude them from doing so. The judgments we make on the Labour government, or anything else, have nothing to do with Lord Gavron, his views or his money. That is how things will remain.'
Bravo! The next day the columnist Polly Toynbee joined the fray. In fact she was slightly queasy that Lord Gavron had seen fit to accept a peerage. It did not look good. 'For the paper's sake it would have been better if he had refused a peerage,' she wrote. But, in common with that senior executive and the leader writer, Ms Toyn- bee was certain that Lord Gavron has absolutely no editorial influence. The Guardian's chairman is in no sense its owner . . . He cannot lean on the editor.'
Unfortunately, Ms Toynbee is mistaken. On at least one occasion Lord Gavron has tried to 'lean on the editor'. The editor in question was Roger Alton, editor of the Observer, the Guardian's sister paper, and the leaning took place around 8.30 p.m. on the evening of Saturday, 20 February 1999. Lord Gavron telephoned Mr Alton about a front-page story which the paper was plan- ning to run on David Sainsbury, the science minister. Lord Gavron is a friend of Lord Sainsbury and was ringing Mr Alton on his behalf.
It is important to realise, by way of back- ground, that the Observer has, a very cred- itable record in running stories which are embarrassing to members of this govern- ment. The paper was the first to unearth details about the somewhat tangled finances of Geoffrey Robinson, a govern- ment minister who has since resigned. So its piece about Lord Sainsbury was par for the course. It alleged that he had lent 'a seven-figure sum' to a company called Diatech, described as 'a firm involved in genetically modified food', in which he has a large shareholding. The money had been used to help Diatech buy a London proper- ty. The paper's implication was that it was unusual for a minister to have been party to such a transaction. The fact that the com- pany was involved in GM technology, and Lord Sainsbury was science minister, made it stranger still.
I say that this was the story. But in fact it changed in several important respects between the first and the final editions. Lord Sainsbury telephoned Mr Alton twice that Saturday, aware that the paper was planning to run a story about him. He rang once in the afternoon and again after the first edition had been printed. Then came Lord Gavron's call. We can't be sure which man was more instrumental in bringing about the changes in the article, but we may surmise that if Lord Sainsbury had felt he had achieved what he wanted after his two calls, there would have been no need for Lord Gavron to ring to apply a further turn of the screw on behalf of his friend.
The most important change between the two editions concerns the timing of the loan. In the first edition the loan was said to have been 'completed two weeks after [Lord Sainsbury] became science minister'. This plainly implied something verging on impropriety. In the final edition the loan was said to have been made 'days before he became science minister'. In other words, the implication of impropriety was removed. In case there should be any doubt, the paper rammed this message home. The final edition story stated: 'There is no suggestion that Sainsbury acted improperly.' This sentence does not appear in the first-edition story.
My purpose is not to attack Mr Alton. He must have come under some pressure from his chairman, Lord Gavron. Though changes were made to the story, he suc- ceeded in retaining its substance. It was taken up by television and radio the next day, and by the newspapers on the Monday. (Interestingly, they followed the line that the loan had been completed before Lord Sainsbury took up his post. The Daily Mail wrote that he had arranged the loan 'just days before he took up office in govern- ment'. The Daily Telegraph reported that `the Department of Trade issued a detailed timetable to show that the loan was com- pleted a week before he took office'.) In Mr Alton's :further defence, we should note that he has not been deterred from running further stories about Lord Sainsbury. Only last Sunday there was another instalment about the minister and Diatech.
Lord Gavron's role is disturbing. There is, of course, a possible defence of what he did. He was doing a favour to a friend. It may be that his interference was also moti- vated by a concern for the newspaper of which he is chairman. Lord Sainsbury may have convinced him that the Observer was in danger of getting its facts in a serious muddle, even of risking legal action, and Lord Gavron may have seen himself in the role of the admiral of the fleet who wants to reassure himself that the captain has everything under control. In similar circum- stances many senior executives from other newspaper groups would have made the call that Lord Gavron did.
But this case is special. One difference is that in its holier-than-thou way the Guardian Media Group maintains the fic- tion that its chairman has never exerted any editorial influence. Of course he has, and this case proves it. The other differ- ence is that Lord Gavron is not just any chairman or senior executive. He is a political figure who has just given £500,000 to the Labour party, having donated an equal amount three years ago. He has been raised to the peerage and is a working Labour peer. With such credentials, he should have bent over backwards never to be seen to interfere. Yet he rang the editor of the Observer, apparently to some effect, on behalf of a government minister under fire. Unless the deities who oversee the Guardian and Observer do something drastic, no one 15 going to believe the protestations of Polly Toynbee and the Guardian leader column. In more ways than one, the chairman of the Guardian Media Group is a working Labour peer.
Previous page
