Fortnight Publications Ltd.

Drunk with Power and ArroganceAuthor(s): Kevin McNamaraSource: Fortnight, No. 263 (Jun., 1988), pp. 6-7Published by: Fortnight Publications Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25551577 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 10:12

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Fortnight Publications Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Fortnight.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:12:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

I COVER STORY | Carmen Proetta, a key eyewitness?to the Sun, 'THE TART'

Mi l, * v "'WT"W.'<.l"'"""" '.> '""" "".l"""" Ux_jJMii|?_^-"' ".Il!!:?^

P"' '

;;"* ̂ !iJJ^HH_hhH^s_' ll^^^_ __B_^^i^iiiH

i, .. :vliSlil__________

p; ^^^^ ':: '

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^|9H|^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H<__ ____________________________________________________________________________________

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^BSSBBSB^ml^^lB^B^mSBS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^m*

THATCHER TURNS HER FIRE ON THE MEDIA

'Drunk with power

and arrogance*

The row over the Gibraltar killings

refused to die down last

month, as the BBC followed the

Independent Broadcasting Authority

in resisting the blandishments of the

foreign secretary, Sir

Geoffrey Howe, against broadcasting

programmes which

challenged the authorised version. KEVIN McNAMARA

sees Mrs Thatcher's war on the media as part of

the growing trend towards state

authoritarianism, while

(opposite) JAMES NAUGHTIE reports that

at Westminster the furore threw off course the steady-as-she-goes

progress by the

secretary of state, Tom

King.

RECENTLY, we have been treated to an extraordinary saga of

bullying and intimidation by the prime minister, her amanuensis

i_| Bernard Ingham and a government drunk on power and arro

gance. When the speaker of the House of Commons demonstrated his

independence in the heated debate on the government's social security

changes, he found himself the victim of a concerted whispering campaign and unattributed suggestions that it was time that he retired. When the

NUS attempted to protect its members against the attacks of rampant

management the government declined to promote arbitration, encourag

ing instead the use of its anti-union legislation to bludgeon the union into

submission. When doctors and nurses united to defend the health service,

they were denounced as grasping self-seekers. Finally, when broadcasters

used their investigative skills to produce probing films about the Gibraltar

killings, they were accused of bias, of distorting the course of justice and

of giving succour to the Provisional IRA. The fact that the prime minister

has not been forced to rein in this bullying in the face of outraged public opinion shows just how conditioned we have become to such attacks.

The current tensions between broadcasters and government reflect the

fact that, after nine years of unbroken rule, Margaret Thatcher has begun to see herself as more infallible than John Paul II?without the constraints

limiting it to the faith and morals of Tory zealots. With that has come the

arrogant belief that her values embody the common will and that she has

the right to impose her blinkered perceptions on all sectors of society,

including the media.

In theory, it is to Parliament?not the government?that broadcasters

are responsible. Parliament has laid on the BBC and IB A the responsibili ties of independent and balanced reporting. Having taken the servility of

the bulk of the printed media for granted for years, this government, and

particularly its leader, has become incensed by the attempts of broadcast

ers to maintain their independence. A second source of tension has derived from Margaret Thatcher

herself. By nature high-handed and intolerant, her years in power have

eroded any regard for the checks and balances of our constitution which

she may once have had. She will brook no opposition within her cabinet

and is incensed when she meets it outside. She is driven by the conviction

that she has a duty to transform the morality of the country, as she has

restructured the economy, and to recast it according to the values of late

Victorian high-street Grantham.

Margaret Thatcher's instinct, when faced with opposition, is to intimi

date her opponents into submission, using whatever means are available

and pursuing her ends relentlessly. While this has been particularly evident in relation to Northern Ireland, it has been true too in Britain.

When the BBC broadcast its Real Lives programme, against the will of the

prime minister, it found itself the target of a concerted campaign of attacks

by government ministers. Its Secret Society series on the hidden recesses

of the state led to unprecedented police raids, the impounding of material

and the harassment of contributors. Finally, Alasdair Milne, the director

general of the BBC under whom the programme was produced, found

himself summarily sacked by the new Thatcher-appointed chair of

governors, Marmaduke Hussey. When programme makers of both UTV

and the BBC sent camera crews to record events at funerals in Northern

Ireland, they were castigated for giving publicity to the paramilitaries. When the government suddenly wanted its film of just such a funeral,

however, and they refused to hand over unbroadcast material, the police were sent in to take it under threat of the arrest of editorial staff.

Next in this unhappy saga came the controversy over Gibraltar. After

the killing of three IRA members, official sources fed the media with 24

hours of disinformation about car-bombs and armed paramilitaries. The

foreign secretary then informed parliament?without any suggestion of

an apology for the misinformation?that no bomb had been found and that

the three had been unarmed, although they had nonetheless made threat

ening movements and were shot after a challenge. These accounts were

widely reported, and the official version of events became thoroughly entrenched in the public mind. Labour's demands for a full inquiry were

dismissed out of hand.

There was no suggestion from government sources that any of this

publicity, all widely reported in Gibraltar, could in any way affect

potential inquest jurors. As soon as the official version began to be

questioned, however, the government and prime minister suddenly made

the convenient discovery that the broadcast of such questions in Britain

and Northern Ireland would seriously prejudice the impartiality of jurors in Gibraltar, presumably by a process of osmosis. A campaign was begun to discredit those witnesses who offered the most damaging evidence.

Only a fool, or the prime minister, seriously believes that jurors should

be deaf, dumb and blind creatures who come to their work virginal,

6 June Fortnight

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:12:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

unsullied by any pre-knowledge of the issues before them. It was not the

risk of damage to justice which infuriated the government?and the

inquest will only be able to decide whether the killing was lawful, not

questions of guilt, or responsibility for policy decisions. It was the risk of

the exposure of exactly what had happened and who was responsible that

forced the government's action. For it now seems that not only had no

bomb been placed, but that members of the SAS shot down three unarmed

members of the IRA without warning, rather than arresting them. It

appears that, in the process, the security forces were prepared to risk the

placing of a car-bomb in a popular tourist spot, without being sure of

preventing the triggering device being activated.

Eyewitness reports have suggested that the three could have been

arrested and brought to trial, that at least two of them might have been

attempting to surrender, that no threatening movements were made, and

that the three were shot repeatedly after they had fallen to the ground to

ensure that they died. This raises important questions about the foreign

secretary's report to the Commons. It may have even more serious

implications for the prime minister if there is any truth in subsequent press

reports that she personally ordered the SAS to Gibraltar, knowing its

reputation to kill and suggesting she was indifferent to the ultimate fate

of the three IRA members. It would cast a highly sinister light on her post Enniskillen statement that there would be "no safe haven for IRA

terrorists anywhere in the world".

There is undoubtedly a general campaign being conducted by this

government to cow the broadcasting media into the servile reporting of its

views. It is part of its general pattern of authoritarianism which we have

learnt to expect. Margaret Thatcher has shown herself quite happy to flout

the rule of law. She has repeatedly brushed aside Parliament and its

institutions when it has suited her. She has mounted a campaign to

suppress the dissemination of unwelcome news and opinion, demonstrat

ing her contempt for the very public opinion she claims to represent and

to serve.

There has long been debate in Northern Ireland on the role of the media. There have been those on both sides who have accused journalists of bias. At a time of acute civil disturbance, reporters are notoriously vulnerable to accusations of imbalance. Whatever the truth of such

accusations, the objective of balanced reporting becomes even more

elusive when governments make crude attempts to twist arms and muzzle

reporters to avoid embarrassment or controversy. The government re

fused to invoke the legal powers which it has to achieve this aim, but

which if used would have demonstrated that the media were acting under

direct government instruction, the victims of coercive action.

The immediate effect of McCarthyism in the USA was blighted lives and a frightened population. The legacy of Thatcherism in Britain and

Northern Ireland threatens to be little different, but without the independ ent institutions which, in the USA, uncovered Watergate and Irangate. But there is hope in the very public opinion which Mrs Thatcher claims

to represent. The recent Gallup poll which demonstrated support in

Britain for the Gibraltar shootings nevertheless showed?in answer to the

question: "Do you think that terrorists should be shot on sight or do you think that all possible measures should be taken to bring them before a

court of law?"?that a majority of respondents believed they should have

been put on trial rather than shot. Unlike the prime minister, public

opinion is still?if only just?in support of the rule of law.

And just when Tom

was doing

so well...

? :.&& %^________K ̂_i^^^<__^i^S_^i___________^<^liw "

*!^_i__i____f^ "

:^_^|^^|_________________________i__H____

E3^^^ffli^^P ̂3^^^^i_^_^^^_i^^_______^^Sk tSiiaSF^ iBh^^^^^^^^MI^^^^^^^^^B

^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H^^^^P^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B^^^^^^^^H^^^^^^^^^^^*^^^^^^4 cs i______________^_________|^_________________r ?i____________________________________Pf^__raraBr^^^^^^^^^s- ^HfMife-:' lu ________H|__________________________________t____i ^___________________________________i^____llli^^^^^^9^ iBBP

^

^^^H9______________________________^____LJ____i___ IHe . i>

More McGlincheys please, say Tories

T' I HE MOST startling thing about the attitude to the Anglo-Irish Agreement

i_| at Westminster is that it has not

changed more in the past few months under the

strain of the blunders, accidents and grim coin

cidences ever since the statement in January by Sir Patrick Mayhew on the Stalker affair. The

Commons has been calmer than almost anyone could have expected.

This has been a surprise to the government, which had thought the ferocity of opposition? from almost every side?would be even more

difficult to cope with than it has been. It would be too much to say that, as a result of this

pleasant surprise, the government has behaved

wisely on every occasion or that it has under

stood its recent mistakes. But it would be fair to

say that Tom King?a politician to whom that

funny word 'stolid' is applied?has been able to

benefit from a period in which steadfastness and

steadiness have been the virtues which his boss

wanted, and probably his party wanted too. It is

ironic that, when British policy?and certainly the conduct of the security forces?has been

open to more searching criticism from national

ists than for some time, Mr King's star has not

waned but has glimmered a little more brightly. There is always some difficulty in making a

judgment like that: it makes Mr King seem more

than he is. But there have been moments since

Sir Patrick made his troublemaking statement?

which Mr King knew from the first was a gigan tic political miscalculation?when the secretary of state has been able to appear more of the

statesman than usual. This has been important in

stemming the tide of recruits to Ian Gow and his

Friends of the Union, who must have hoped for

a better hearing in the aftermath of Gibraltar and

the funerals.

Indeed, Mr King has shown a public sharp ness towards the unionists in the Commons

which surprised some MPs on his own side but

which seemed to capture a mood: Jim Moly neaux was told in unmistakably clear terms that

one of the province's problems had been a lack

of leadership?who, after all, could quarrel with

that??and he and his fellow MPs had a duty to do something about it. From the point of view of

Tory opponents of the Agreement, their most

difficult problem has been the defence of the

unionists' performance in the Commons, which

has too often been sour, unimaginative and

deeply unattractive to puzzled mortals on 'the

mainland'.

So Mr King used the miserable episodes

post-Mayhew to put pressure on the unionists?

no doubt to encourage progress in the all-party discussions which have been developing quietly and not altogether unproductively behind the

scenes. But he was also able to appeal strongly to his own backbenchers with his response to the

criticism of the Gibraltar shootings. There was

not a Conservative who did not approve of the

way in which he defended the security opera

tion, and the outcome. For once, the Tories who

had been pressing for 'tougher' policies?with out specifying what that might mean, or what the

result might be?found something to cheer.

That the funerals, and the other deaths, followed

so quickly did not seem to bother them too

much: Mr King had to be defended. All this gave the government a welcome

period of calm from Tories at a time of turmoil

with Dublin. Mr King was helped, too, by Labour's spokesman, Kevin McNamara. Mr

McNamara comes, of course, from a vigorously nationalist background and some Labour MPs

more sympathetic to a unionist point of view

were furious when Neil Kinnock appointed him.

But his balancing act in the past few months has

been masterful. He has not concealed his horror

at some episodes but his constructive approach has not given the right the opportunity further to

polarise the debate in the Commons. His has

been a voice that has been listened to, with more

attention that he could have expected when he

took on the job. From Mr King's point of view, the result is

that at a time of hellish difficulty he has found support?or at least sympathy?from parlia

mentary colleagues. That may not have helped him produce solutions: there is still despair about the time it will take to restore good rela

tions with Dublin, the prolonged difficulty over extradition being a good example of how misun

derstandings can mushroom in the old way. As

usual, it looked obvious from Whitehall that Britain's line on extradition was fair and could

be delivered by Dublin without too much trouble. From Dublin there was an understand

able feeling that sensitivities were being under

rated and, as ever, not appreciated by Sir Patrick

Fortnight June 7

This content downloaded from 193.142.30.55 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 10:12:52 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions