LETTERS Some row
Sir: It is good of you so freely to indulge Paul Johnson's obsession with the Guardian, and its editor Peter Preston. He has now written innumerable times on the subject both in your magazine and else- where, recently going so far as to suggest in your columns that Mr Preston might like to consider committing suicide as a way of purging his dishonour. Normally Mr John- son's style is to combine a certain vague- ness over the facts with an excitability of tone (`unspeakable foulness . . . wallowing in the sewer' etc. etc). His most recent offering (Another thing, 31 December) is delivered with customary violence of expression. Unfortunately his grasp of the facts is even more slender than usual. - I hope you will therefore allow me to correct some of the more damaging assertions.
1) Mr Johnson speaks of the paper's `witch-hunt against certain ministers for improperly accepting hospitality'.
Mr Johnson evidently did not read the articles very carefully. The complaint was not that the ministers had accepted hospi- tality. The complaint was that they had accepted thousands of pounds — unde- clared — in order to ask questions in the House of Commons. One of the two minis- ters seems to have acknowledged that what he did was wrong, since he immediately resigned. The other resigned shortly after- wards. He had been advised to do so by not only the Guardian, but also by editorial writers working for the Times, the Mirror, the Daily Telegraph, the Star, the Daily Mail, the Mail on Sunday and the Sunday Times. Some Guardian witch-hunt.
2) Mr Johnson tells us that the story about Jonathan Aitken's odd arrangements for paying for his trip to the Ritz in Paris had been previously turned down by the Times, which was apparently more `squeamish' about the tale. Yet, when the Guardian ran the story, a Times editorial promptly agreed that the story raised many serious questions which had not been satis- factorily answered, and commented, 'It is regrettable that [Mr Aitken] did not go into greater detail in denying the allegation that at least part of his 'bill was paid for by a Saudi businessman. His reticence has mere- ly prolonged the atmosphere of doubt.' The Daily Mail agreed: 'What is at stake here is the reputation not just of the Government, but of our whole parliamentary process.' The Mirror, Today and the Daily Telegraph also wrote editorials critical of Mr Aitken's behaviour. Some Guardian witch-hunt.
3) Next Mr Johnson refers to the 'cod fax' sent by the Guardian, insisting, 'The forgery was and remains a crime.' This is not the first time that Mr Johnson has made this claim. The last time he did so he was contradicted by Sir Frederick Lawton, a former Lord Justice of Appeal and one of the country's most experienced criminal lawyers. Spectator readers must judge who — Mr Johnson or Sir Frederick — has the more expert grasp of the law.
4) Mr Johnson proceeds to accuse the Guardian of smearing those who brought Richard Gott's connection with the KGB to light with 'any filth which comes to hand'. The 'filth' chiefly consisted of a reasoned article which showed that Oleg Gordievsky, the origin of not only the Gott story but also an unpleasant smear against another Guardian colleague, is a man with a fre- quently shaky grasp of the truth — perhaps not surprising in one who for years was required to lie both for and against his country. This was illustrated simply by quoting his own words — which are rarely consistent from one day to the next — and by quoting a variety of internationally respected scholars, including Sir Michael Howard and Arthur Schlesinger Jr, who have expressed deeply sceptical views about the value of Gordievsky's testimony. Some `filth'.
5) Next, Mr Johnson accuses Nicola Jen- nings, a distinguished illustrator, of drawing a 'viciously anti-Semitic' caricature of Mr Gordievsky in the Guardian. If Mr Johnson says Mr Gordievsky is a Jew, then I suppose he must be. It would certainly surprise any readers of Mr Gordievsky's own history of the KGB, which makes it clear that throughout the period of his successful ser- vice it was a deeply anti-Semitic organisa- tion. Indeed, he states flatly at one point, `No Jews were allowed in the KGB.' More importantly, since Ms Jennings had no idea that Mr Gordievsky was Jewish there is something fundamentally flawed — not to say grotesquely offensive — about this charge.
6) Finally, we are told by Mr Johnson, `On the paper itself there is something approaching a civil war.' If anything, this is the most deranged allegation of all. At the height of the 'cod fax' affair 204 journalists on the paper signed a motion expressing `our whole-hearted support for the editor of the Guardian, Peter Preston, in all aspects of his handling of the paper's 15- month investigation into parliamentary ethics'. So there was no 'civil war' then. Nor has there been anything that could remote- ly be described as 'approaching a civil war' over the Gott business, and I challenge him to produce a shred of evidence to the con- trary. No matter how bitter Mr Johnson's obsession with the Guardian, it is simply not good enough to make unsupported and unsupportable statements, presented as if they were facts.
Alan Rusbridger Deputy Editor, The Guardian,
119 Farringdon Road, London EC1
Paul Johnson writes: 1) 'Improperly accepting', the phrase I used advisedly, means accepting hospitality with- out following House of Commons' rules. The number of column-inches and the prominence the Guardian gave to this busi- ness leaves no doubt about the accuracy of the term witch-hunt. 2) The Times no doubt turned down the story because it did not want to get mixed up with Mr Al-Fayed and because it was unwilling to commit forgery. The Guardian fell into both these traps. 3) Forging a document, as the Guardian did, is a serious crime. Calling it a 'cod fax' makes no difference. Sir Frederick Lawton won- dered whether a conviction could be secured in the circumstances, but he misun- derstood the circumstances, as I pointed out in a letter, which the Times failed to publish. 4) I judge cartoons by their appear- ance, and I invite readers to compare the drawings of Oleg Gordievsky which appeared in the Guardian and the Sunday Times and draw their own conclusions. 5) As for the civil war on the Guardian, we shall learn the truth about that after it is over and the victors have emerged. Mean- while, I congratulate Mr Rusbridger on playing his cards skilfully so far, and in par- titular on appearing to defend Mr Pre- ston, his editor, from my criticisms while pointedly avoiding sonic of the most important.
Previous page
