MEDIA STUDIES
The Guardian comes well out of the case, but its ally, Mr Al Fayed, does not
STEPHEN GLOVER
Many people may find themselves dis- inclined to take the Guardian's side in the paper's bitter dispute with the Tory MP and former minister, Neil Hamilton. We tend in life to judge a story by the pre- sumed motives of whoever lies behind it. In this case, it is clear that as a leftish newspa- per the Guardian is a natural enemy of this Government, and so it is tempting to con- clude that it has cooked up a lot of evi- dence against Mr Hamilton and other Con- servative MPs, or at any rate blown it up, because it wants to hurt the Tories.
So it may have, but its new allegations against Mr Hamilton, which it published on Tuesday under the headline, 'A liar and a cheat', cannot be easily discounted. I would say that they mark the biggest victory of any left-of-centre newspaper against a Conser- vative government for a long time. For all the protestations of Mr Hamilton and his former fellow plaintiff, the lobbyist Ian Greer, it is difficult to believe that they would have withdrawn so precipitately had not new evidence emerged which persuad- ed them that they were less likely to win their case than they had previously assumed.
As recently as Tuesday of last week, Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer had lodged a £10 million special damages claim against the Guardian over its allegations that Mohamed Al Fayed, the owner of Harrods, had paid Mr Hamilton to ask Commons questions, with Mr Greer acting as an inter- mediary. Two days later, the Guardian won an order forcing the disclosure of docu- ments which included a minute of a conver- sation between Mr Hamilton and Michael Heseltine during which the Deputy Prime Minister asked Mr Hamilton whether he had ever had any financial dealings with Mr Greer. Mr Hamilton said he had not. Other documents also found their way into the Guardian's hands. They appear to have had a devastating effect on the case which Mr Hamilton and Mr Greer had mounted against the newspaper.
Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor, will no doubt be congratulating himself, and with some justice. He seems not to have put a foot wrong. Even in making its new allegations against Mr Hamilton and other Tory MPs in Tuesday's newspaper, he was careful not to repeat information which had come his way as a result of the disclosure of documents. Perhaps we may spare a thought for his predecessor, Peter Preston, who began the Guardian's 'cash for questions' campaign. Mr Preston made the mistake of sending a fax to the Ritz Hotel in Paris in the name of the Tory MP and minister, Jonathan Aitken, requesting a copy of a bill run up by Mr Aitken. The bill seemed to show that about one half had been paid by Mr Al Fayed. Unfortunately, it had been obtained as a result of an act of deception on Mr Preston's part. This mis- judgment may well have played a part in his subsequent downfall.
I expect the Guardian's victory will give rise to several myths. The first is that cor- ruption is endemic in the Tory Party. There is, in fact, no evidence in the Guardian's outstanding reporting that this is the case. The second myth has to do with our sup- posedly closed society. Many journalists, perhaps Mr Rusbridger himself, believe that the fourth estate operates at a disad- vantage to the executive. So in some respects it may do. But in this case the newspaper was able to subpoena docu- ments from the Prime Minister's office which disclosed information which did not at all suit Mr Hamilton and, by association, the executive itself. It is true that the con- tents of those documents cannot be revealed for legal reasons, but it was the fear that they might be produced in open court that seems to have called a halt to Mr Hamilton's and Mr Greer's action.
There is a final aspect of this affair — the conduct of Mr Al Fayed. In the past I have written sympathetically of the owner of Harrods and burgeoning publisher. This was in large measure because Stewart Steven, former editor of the Evening Stan- dard, recently became chairman of Liberty Publishing, a new company set up by Mr Al Fayed. Apart from being a brilliant and fearless journalist, Mr Steven is a man of complete integrity. I also knew that his `Bloody millennium.' innate feelings for the underdog were excit- ed by Mr Al Fayed's predicament denied British citizenship and shunned by the Establishment. Though no doubt by nature less generous than Mr Steven, I too had begun to feel that Mr Al Fayed has been hard done by.
So long as Mr Steven remains close to Mr Al Fayed's side I shall find it difficult to believe ill of the Egyptian entrepreneur. But the fact remains that, to judge by the Guardian's account, Mr Al Fayed seems to have behaved rather strangely. He is of course the Guardian's ally in this affair, and was recently quoted by the German maga- zine Der Spiegel as saying that the Govern- ment had been 'shifting on me and my hon- our too long' and that it was 'going to pay the price for it'. The trouble is that in trying to do down the Government he inevitably damages his own reputation. The Guardian obtained affidavits from one former employee of Mr Al Fayed's and two exist- ing employees. All three say they can recall envelopes containing cash being handed over to Mr Hamilton on behalf of Mr Al Fayed.
Let us hope that the Inland Revenue was informed by Mr Al Fayed of these transac- tions. But one can't help wondering all the same whether Mr Al Fayed has behaved absolutely correctly. His friends will say that he was driven to rewarding MPs in this odd way because the Government had been so beastly to him. I'm afraid that the world will make the harsher judgment that this is not conduct becoming a man who already owns Punch, has made a bid for the Observ- er and is making plans to acquire other publications. If Mr Al Fayed wants to be accepted as the kind of chap who should own newspapers, my advice to him is to drop his vendetta against the Tories now before he does himself more harm than he does the Government.
Since the Independent's tenth anniver- sary falls on 6 October, I might be expect- ed, as a co-founder of the newspaper, to devote part or all of a column to mark the occasion. My excuse is that when I was a young leader-writer on the Daily Telegraph my editor, Bill Deedes, advised me to beware of anniversaries. He said they made for lazy journalism. Perhaps I shall write about the Independent next week if I have something new and interesting to say.
Previous page
