Tat-free Tatter
Sir: I do not usually feel obliged to write letters in defence of the magazine I edit but I would like to make two points concerning Paul Johnson's extreme views about Tatter (The press, 27 January).
The profile of the Duchess of York to which Mr Johnson takes such exception was an even-handed appraisal of the Duchess's character. Where the piece was critical Mr Johnson calls it filth, where it praised Mr Johnson calls it humbug. Of course the writer referred to cuttings to demonstrate the kind of treatment the Duchess has received at the hands of the
media Mr Johnson would apparently be happy to see muzzled.
Neither that piece nor the article on Sir James Goldsmith was an intrusion, gross or otherwise, into privacy. His marriages and liaisons are on the public record. And certainly in the case of Sir James, if he is not a figure of public interest, then who is?
Personally I would not like to live in a society where 'one universal law' governs `anyone responsible for publication of in- trusive material'. It sounds hideously like Albania.
Emma Soames
Editor,
Tatter,
Vogue House, Hanover Square, London W1
Previous page
