Sir, Something is rotten in the state of relations between government and press in Britain. The newspapers I edited from the Sixties to the Eighties were often in conflict with what we saw as excessive secrecy in government and courts that consistently subordinated personal rights to property rights. In the Granada Guildhall lecture in 1972, I suggested we were a “half-free press”.
Much has changed for the better since then, but the present antagonisms, too often expressed in a spirit of demeaning vindictiveness, seem to me to go beyond the healthy conflicts and tensions normal between power and its invigilators. They are altogether deeper seated than the suspicions surrounding the death of David Kelly that brought the cherished institution of the BBC to such parlous condition (letters, February 2, etc). There is distrust all round — distrust of government by the press, distrust of the press in government, and of the press among the public. It should not fester.
“The press” is, of course, too loose a term for the rich diversity of British journalism in print and broadcasting (far richer than in the United States), but I believe good might come from a public ventilation of grievances and fears (on all sides) and an informed examination of the practices, assumptions and ethical standards prevailing in journalism/broadcasting and government-press relations alike.
A royal commission is perhaps the best vehicle for getting to the roots of our discontents. We have had three royal commissions on the press since 1947 (and several broadcasting committees). The first led at snail’s pace to the Press Council; the Shawcross commission, reporting in 1962, yielded anti-monopoly press legislation of a sort. The McGregor commission, reporting in 1977, was initially cold-shouldered by the press, but proved liberating in its findings on legal restraints, and valuable for its scrutiny of the disruptive print unions who were then resisting what was laughably called “new technology”.
Yours faithfully,
HAROLD EVANS,
(Editor, The Sunday Times, 1967-81; The Times, 1981-82),
Suite 1143,
Little, Brown and Company,
1271 Avenue of the Americas,
New York 10020.
February 2.
From Mr Geoffrey Goodman
Sir, At the heart of the debate on the Hutton inquiry and report lies the relationship between politicians and journalists — or between the power and influence of legislators, and the power and influence of the media. There is nothing wrong in demonstrating that there is an inevitable conflict between the two; that is an essential condition within any democratic society.
But where this conflict degenerates into a cancer of contempt, mistrust and eventually mutual derision between the two, the democratic process is itself threatened. Politicians have become increasingly contemptuous of journalists, and perhaps even of free journalism; and journalists have grown increasingly derisive of politicians and their function. In some cases there is also now a danger of journalists arrogating to themselves a new role — a kind of House of Columns to replace a House of Commons.
One of the major manifestations of this mutual corrosion has been the now widespread public disillusion with political life and much of journalism. There is a dangerous public disbelief of both these areas, which is certainly one cause of the large abstention at election times.
It would have been beneficial to the national interest if Lord Hutton had broadened his report to address this issue.
Yours faithfully,
GEOFFREY GOODMAN,
(Founding Editor, British Journalism Review),
Savile Club,
69 Brook Street, W1K 4ER.
February 2.
From Dr Robert Baron
Sir, Greg Dyke’s comment on Today on January 30, that Alastair Campbell has been “remarkably ungracious” in his response to the Hutton report, is in my view typical of the sort of cynical arrogance that has infected all levels of the BBC.
Mr Campbell was driven out of office because of a BBC report, the flaws of which have been so devastatingly exposed by Lord Hutton’s inquiry. Mr Dyke leaves his job, clearly lamenting his misfortune that Lord Hutton found him culpable for “defective” editorial systems.
He, and the BBC, might reflect on the ethical responsibility that he, and it, have for destroying Mr Campbell’s political career. For this I believe they owe him a personal apology. I suspect, however, that they will not be gracious enough to offer one.
Yours faithfully,
ROBERT BARON,
(Senior lecturer in professional ethics),
University of Wolverhampton,
Millennium City Building, Wulfruna Street,
Wolverhampton WV1 1SB.
February 1.
From Mr Ian Lewis-Hinde
Sir, Alastair Campbell appears to have set out on a vendetta against the BBC well before the Andrew Gilligan broadcast. Only someone in that frame of mind could take a comment made by a journalist on a radio programme that went out before 7am, which was altered at the next airing, and turn it into a matter of such magnitude.
It seems to me that Mr Campbell’s actions cost the country millions of pounds on an inquiry, brought the BBC into disrespect worldwide and started the ball rolling that led to the death of a distinguished servant of this country.
Yours sincerely,
IAN LEWIS-HINDE,
15 Mallard Close,
Haslemere, Surrey GU27 1QU.
January 30.
From Dr Hugh Upton
Sir, If there is indeed a letter from the highest level of government to a body that was established to provide independent public service broadcasting, putting pressure, by intention or predictable effect, on the latter’s reporting of controversial government policies (reports, The Sunday Times, February 1), how can this document possibly be regarded as private?
Whatever our judgment as to the legitimacy of the Government’s complaints, and whatever our opinion of the current standard of reporting by the BBC, any such letters are surely the direct and proper concern of the electorate.
Yours faithfully,
HUGH UPTON,
School of Health Science,
University of Wales Swansea,
Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP.
February 2.
