The Observer's honour
Sir: For more than four years now — ever since we first published evidence to show that the Egyptian Fayed brothers could not have bought the House of Fraser with their own resources, and must therefore, in our view, have deceived the Government, the regulatory authorities and people doing business with them — the Observer has had to suffer the kind of incoherent abuse articulated by Paul Johnson (The press, 13 May).
The argument seems to be that because the newspaper's owners, Lonrho, have a vested interest in the outcome of the 'It's terrible, I keep picking up Sky TV on my ears.' Harrods affair, and also provided informa- tion for some of our stories, they were acting improperly and in breach of under- takings given at the time of the takeover in 1981.
I do not accept this. Nor do my journal- ists, who endorsed the decision to publish a special edition containing extracts from the Department of Trade inspectors' report into the House of Fraser transfer after it had been concealed by the Government for nine months. Nor, significantly, do the Observer's independent directors, who also supported my decision to publish the re- port (though one expressed doubt on the timing).
Lonrho, like many other companies, have been a source of information to several newspapers, including the Obser- ver, since long before 1981. It would be absurd to suggest that they should be free to provide information to every newspaper except the one they happen to own. Does Mr Johnson propose that such a self- denying ordinance should be imposed, as a condition of ownership, on such as Mr Rupert Murdoch, Mr Robert Maxwell and Mr Conrad Black, to whom he addressed a passionate appeal for proprietorial in- terference just a few weeks ago? All that matters is that the owners' interest should be openly declared in any story affecting them, which the Observer has always been scrupulous to do. The other test is that the information should be subject to professional editorial scrutiny and published, if at all, only when journal- ists are satisfied that the information is true. Again, the Observer has always done this with stories about the Fayeds. I am sure that the DTI inspectors' report, when it is eventually published, will demonstrate that — despite Paul Johnson's fears — the Observer's honour is intact.
Donald Trelford
Editor, the Observer, Chelsea Bridge House, Queenstown Road, London SW8
Previous page
