Examination of Witnesses (Questions 254
- 259)
WEDNESDAY 18 JULY 2007
Mr Robert Thomson
Q254 Chairman:
Good morning. We are sorry to have kept you waiting but we are
seeing a great number of people and almost invariably the evidence
is far too interesting to keep exactly to the timetable, so apologies
for that. I think you know what we are doing, that is to inquire
into basically media ownership and the news and the kernel of
that is in a sense what the impact and concentration of media
ownership is on the balance of diverse opinion as seen in the
news. Before getting absolutely immersed in all that, we also
want to know what is actually happening and how news has changed,
how news gathering has changed and how the whole range of other
issues are connected with that. May I begin in the same way as
I began with your predecessor, the editor of the Guardian.
Would you tell us how you were appointed as editor of the Times.
Mr Thomson: In 2002, my distinguished predecessor,
Sir Peter Stothard, had been in the job for a decade and I think
it was widely known that he was looking for something different
and therefore I was proposed by Rupert Murdoch to the Times
directors including the independent directors as Sir Peter's replacement.
I was interviewed by them and approved by them and I took over
in the spring of 2002.
Q255 Chairman:
So, the form is that Rupert Murdoch made the proposal but would
the independent directors have been able to veto it?
Mr Thomson: I am sure they would have because
I was somewhat of an unknown quantity having been the managing
editor of the Financial Times. Most of my journalistic
career has been spent as a foreign correspondent and as a business
journalist and so, for mainstream British journalism, the so-called
white papers, I was not really traditionally of that stock and
I was quite rightly drilled about my background and about my intentions
and the directors had to be satisfied that my intentions were
both serious and honourable.
Q256 Chairman:
Were you grilled about your views?
Mr Thomson: I was, yes.
Q257 Chairman:
In what way?
Mr Thomson: I was asked what they were.
Q258 Chairman:
That is very interesting! Just go a little deeper, however.
Mr Thomson: For example, my views on Europe;
my views on transatlantic relations; my views on British politics;
my views on global trends generally; my views on the conduct in
journalism; and my views on journalistic independence.
Q259 Chairman:
You mentioned Europe first which is a question I was going to
ask you about. I would personally regard the Times as a
fairly euro-sceptic paper; would that be fair?
Mr Thomson: Euro-sceptic is probably too harsh
a judgment; I would say euro-wary! We have never suggested, at
least in my tenure, that Britain should withdraw from the EU and
we have not yet called for a referendum into the proposed reforms
of Europe which may or may not be called constitutional reforms.
I think a euro-sceptic would be viscerally opposed to any change
whereas we contest change but not viscerally so.
| 
