MEDIA STUDIES
The editor of the Mirror should go.
He wasn't licensed to swill
STEPHEN GLOVE
Indeed, until he encountered his own spot of bother, Mr Morgan waged a cru- sade against fat cats who stuffed their wal- lets with cash, the very activity in which he seems to have been indulging with some success. The directors of Camelot, the com- pany that runs the National Lottery, caused him particular anguish. I recall how on one occasion the Mirror carried on its front page the representation of a man's face half transmogrified into a pig's. In the man-pig's mouth was a wad of cash. This was sup- posed to be Tim Holley, the chief executive of Camelot. The headline was 'Licensed to Swill'. Mr Morgan was so upset because Mr Holley and his fellow directors were paying themselves whopping bonuses.
Perhaps the Sun, which has so enjoyed Mr Morgan's discomfiture, should now carry a picture of him as a pig with his mouth stuffed full of money. The Mirror's editor is evidently rather fond of the stuff. Of course, there is no crime in that. It is just that until this moment Mr Morgan has not shown much understanding for those who share his fascination. I suppose he must be paid £250,000 a year, perhaps more, plus all the perks that go with the job. This may seem a lot but he wanted more, and he has been eking out his salary by playing the stock market, sometimes in shares that happened to be tipped by his own newspaper. We already know about his investment of £20,000 in Viglen Techno- logy the day before the Mirror's City Slick- ers column recommended the stock, which promptly doubled in value. Now it emerges that he stands to make between £100,000 and £500,000 from an investment of £10,000 made on 13 December in a corn- pany called Corporate Executive Search, which was later tipped by City Slickers.
He has been a grade one hypocrite, that's for sure. Yet he is not like one of those preachers who sincerely inveigh against adultery while having a floozie on the side. Mr Morgan was never deeply offended by greed. He probably didn't even think that the directors of Camelot had done anything particularly wicked. For him, the whole thing was just a lark, as you might say his entire editorship has been. He wanted to stoke up the envy of his readers. He knew that they could be made to care about fat cats. But it was a simulated anger, mere puff and wind, that did not come from the heart. In his heart Mr Morgan was a fat cat himself.
Should he resign? It was certainly inadvis- able for him to deal in shares tipped by his own newspaper, even if he was not himself benefiting from those tips. In America there would be no argument; the mere fact that he had traded in shares at one time or another recommended by his paper would have been enough to secure his instant dismissal. Here the debate has been about whether he knew that the Mirror was about to tip Viglen, which is going to be difficult to prove. Both the Press Complaints Commission and the Department of Trade are conducting inquiries, and they must ask to hear the tape-recording of Mr Morgan's conversation with a broker acting for him at Kyte Securi- ties who has just left his post. Anil Bhoyrul and James Hipwell, the two City Slicker journalists dismissed by the Trinity Mirror board last week after a review of their share dealing, will know where the bodies are buried, if there are any, and may well be pre- pared to co-operate.
I believe Mr Morgan should go, even if he is not judged to have been guilty of any impropriety. He has lost too much credibili- ty. His hypocrisy and his share dealing in these stocks are discreditable. He has watched while the two journalists whom he hired to write a new column — much cele- brated by him — have been sacked by the board. That does not seem very honourable. All in all, Mr Morgan has not behaved as an editor should. Even corporate executives know that the time comes when it makes no sense to cling to office. What's the point? He will naturally want to establish his inno- cence of the most serious charges against him, but as long as he stays at the Mirror he can't make himself look like an editor again. After Nelson Mandela assumed power in 1994 there were well-founded hopes that South Africa would enjoy a free press. He really did seem to hold liberal views that were rare, if not unique, in post-colonial Africa. From time to time pressure was exerted on editors or even proprietors — but that is not unknown in this country. There was a campaign to appoint more black journalists, which seemed only natu- ral given the previous employment policies of many newspapers. There was reason to believe that South Africa was going to be different.
Alas, the climate seems to be changing under Mandela's successor, Thabo Mbeki. South Africa's human rights commission has ordered some 30 print journalists and broadcasters to attend an inquiry into racism in the media, four prominent South African newspaper editors among them. One of the papers concerned is the Mail and Guardian, owned by Britain's Guardian Media Group. The complaint against the paper is that it has 'unfairly targeted black professionals, civil servants and other role models in exposing alleged corruption. This representation of black role models is usu- ally accompanied by a tone that is negative and hostile.'
Now, almost unbelievably, the South African human rights commission is trying to subpoena Richard Lambert, editor of the Financial Times, to answer accusations of racism at hearings in Johannesburg next month. The summons is thought to relate to a story that appeared in the FT in 1996 which, it is claimed, denigrated Muslim mil- itants. Other British newspaper editors may be subpoenaed, including John Witherow of the Sunday Times and Alan Rusbridger of the Guardian.
In a sense, the idea of such people being required to troop down to South Africa is quite amusing. So is the thought of our high-minded liberal editors being repre- sented as reactionary. But the development is, in fact, very sinister. Once it is estab- lished that there are certain subjects that the domestic and international press should not write about, it will not be long before it is off-limits to criticise the government. Alarmingly, the ruling ANC is supporting the activities of the human rights commis- sion. I hope that our editors will agree to go to South Africa to declaim the virtues of a free press.
Previous page
