Watching brief - Amanda Platell defends Richard Littlejohn
Published 26 January 2004
If Andrew Neil comes in with the Barclay brothers and does for the Daily Telegraph what he did for the Sunday Times, it would shake up the broadsheet market for a decade
I must declare an interest. I like Richard Littlejohn, and not just because I occasionally appear on his Sky TV show and have once presented it. I do not always agree with him, but I believe he argues his case with intelligence and with due respect for the facts. Whether you like him or loathe him, he is as professional as you get.
The broadsheets get very sniffy about the likes of Littlejohn, a journalist who commits the terrible sin of articulating and arguing the sincerely held views of many of the British people. But then, they're just low-life, red-top, toe-rag readers who wouldn't know any better, aren't they?
A good example of such sniffiness came in the 18 January issue of the Independent on Sunday. The paper broke the story that the Met's "hate crimes unit" was investigating an item in Littlejohn's Sun column where he launched into the Gay Police Association. The association, the Sindy reported, had made a formal complaint.
Littlejohn says that he knows nothing about such a complaint or about an investigation. Be that as it may, the Sindy's piece - placed in a prominent position on its home news pages and written by its home affairs correspondent, Sophie Goodchild - seemed to me to cross the line between reporting and comment, and to commit the very journalistic sins of which Littlejohn and the Sun are so often accused. It reports as fact that his comments were "homophobic" (though Littlejohn has backed gay marriage contracts and defended gays' rights to do what they like in private) and describes him as "ranting" and "lashing out".
I'm tempted to say it's the pot calling the kettle black, but would probably be accused of racism if I did.
The Sindy also reported the chairman of the Gay Police Association, Inspector Paul Cahill, as saying: "I would be willing to respond to his views, but he has not invited activists on to his show." He went on to lump Littlejohn in what appeared to be the same category as the Soho nail-bomber. In fact, when it was given the opportunity to appear on Littlejohn's Sky show the day after the story appeared, the association refused to front.
Perhaps the Met's "hate crimes unit" should extend its investigations to the quite shocking hatred in some quarters against white, middle-aged, male tabloid columnists who happen to hold socially conservative views.
There are still obstacles in their way, but if the Barclay brothers' bid for the Telegraph group succeeds, what can we expect? The return of the formidable Andrew Neil, which is a good thing. He is one of the foremost editors of his generation, with an innate ability to combine popular and posh. If he were to do for the Daily Telegraph what he did for the Sunday Times, it would shake up the broadsheet market for a decade.
One of the biggest dangers Neil represents to the other broadsheets is the close relationships he has maintained with many key journalists on the other broadsheets. With a Barclay brothers' chequebook behind him, he could cause a serious talent drain overnight.
Few tears would be shed for the new man Martin Newland, not because he is without merit (his editorship during this most troubled of times has been rather gutsy), but because time and tradition are against him. Incoming owners do not usually retain the incumbent editor.
And one wonders at the fate of the Sunday Telegraph, a paper consistently offering an intelligent and often surprising analysis of the week's events. Its editor, Dominic Lawson, has provided me with a must-read Tory analysis in recent years, light-years ahead of his former Daily colleague, Charles Moore.
And what a job Kim Fletcher, the editorial director, has done defending his titles against all comers. He has performed most elegantly and eloquently.
And Andreas Whittam Smith, no, it is not boastful to claim that some improvements to the Telegraph nearly two decades ago were a direct result of the launch of the Independent. Your only sin is in stating the obvious. The birth of the Indy transformed the broadsheet market in this country in much the way a beautiful young admirer can improve the performance of his older rival. You made them get their act together, you made them better. We all know that.
The former BBC royal correspondent, Jennie Bond, was explaining her reasons for joining I'm a Celebrity, Get Me Out of Here to a rather perplexed Five Live audience. She wants a bit of fun and who can deny her that, after years of dutifully reporting on the most fun-free family in the country?
"I'm only allowed to take three sets of underwear and a bathing-suit," she trilled (yes, she did). Given that Ms Bond is famous for her wearing of hats and not wearing of knickers, that should make for a very small overnight bag.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
