Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1799
- 1819)
WEDNESDAY 30 JANUARY 2008
Sir Christopher Meyer KCMG
Q1799 Chairman: Sir
Chris, welcome, I am sorry we have kept you waiting for a few
minutes. One of the great characteristics of this morning is that
there is a vast amount of paper, not to mention two books, your
book and Alastair Campbell's—your book is shorter I have
to say, which is good. We are looking at the concentration of
ownership in the media, whether ownership in fewer hands is having
an effect on the news that the public is receiving and what remedies
are open to the public if there are harmful effects, what checks
there are—obviously the Press Complaints Commission comes
very much into that. I will come to your role as Chairman of the
Press Complaints Commission in a moment, but before that you were
John Major's press secretary at Number 10 between 1993 and 1995.
Sir Christopher Meyer: January 1994 and January
1996.
Q1800 Chairman:
Afterwards you were an ambassador in both Bonn and Washington.
Sir Christopher Meyer: Yes.
Chairman: One of the points of today
is looking at media ownership from the point of view of the influence
that that has had on editors, but we would also like to explore
the influence that the owner or the editor can have on senior
politicians like, for example, the prime minister. You and I in
our political past worked together for a few months at the beginning
of 1994 it must have been, so I am going to hand over the questioning
on this to Lady McIntosh on my left. Having done that, we will
get on to the Press Complaints Commission.
Q1801 Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall:
Sir Christopher, good morning. What we are trying to do amongst
other things, as My Lord Chairman has just said, is try and get
some feeling for the impact of media ownership on, as it were,
the political process, and the prime minister is obviously a very
important player, shall we say, in that. I wanted to start by
asking you in your time at Number 10 with the then prime minister
you were working with somebody who was at that time subject to
a great deal of criticism from the press—I suppose all prime
ministers are at various times in their careers—but he was
also—and I think this is common knowledge—notoriously
rather sensitive about it. Did you have particular strategies
for trying to improve his image with the press, and when you came
to trying to shape that image whom did you regard as the most
important people to influence, for instance as between editors
of newspapers and their proprietors?
Sir Christopher Meyer: There were two strands
to the strategy—if strategy is not too grand a word for
it—and the first strand of the strategy was to ensure that
the prime minister personally was able to convey his key messages,
his principles and policies, not only to editors of newspapers
but also in certain cases to the proprietors as well. When I say
"editors" primarily national editors, but not only national
editors, because regional editors are a very important part of
the picture. This would be done in various ways: inviting people
to come into Downing Street for a chat, inviting them to come
round for a meal, inviting groups of regional editors to come
round for tea or for supper, and in that way, through an intimate
setting, you hoped that the prime minister would be able to play
to his strengths, because it was widely acknowledged at the time
that in a smaller environment he was very often much more effective
than he was through a set speech, shall we say. The other strand
of the strategy was in giving advice to the prime minister himself,
and this did lead to occasional ructions between civil servant
and prime minister because I thought then—I suppose I think
even more strongly now—that although it was important for
the prime minister to have this kind of relationship with some
proprietors and editors he should not pay too much mind to them,
too much attention to them. I think that very often today—and
I say this now on the basis of the experience of those two years—politicians
of all parties get far too steamed up and worked up about what
is written about them in newspapers because they fear that the
headline and the story is going to influence the voters' view
of them as individuals, as politicians, and then affect the way
they vote. I thought that at the time but I have been reinforced
in this thought today because as chairman of the PCC I spend an
awful lot of time going around the country, I get out of the metropolitan
bubble, and the thing that strikes you very, very forcefully is
actually how little impact national newspaper stories and headlines
have on the way that people regard politicians and how they are
going to make their decisions on how they vote. It is a rather
long answer to your question, but to go back to this second strand
what I did try to get over to the prime minister was that he should
not worry too much about all this stuff. It might hurt, it might
stick a needle in here and there, but unless there was something
horrible going on, which was objectively horrible, which everybody
could understand in the country, the day to day give and take,
the stories written, just forget it, because the more you showed
yourself to be sensitive to these stories the more they tended
to be written.
Q1802 Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall:
Can I pick you up on two things? First of all, you said that you
were interested in engaging the prime minister with "some
proprietors". I would be quite intrigued to know on what
basis you picked the proprietors as opposed to the editors, and
then going to the last point that you made there are two possibly
different kinds of influence that one might be worried about in
relation to how prime ministers or their colleagues view the press.
One is about how they feel personally and how that makes them
behave, but more seriously perhaps it is whether or not their
perception that voters are influenced by what newspapers write
causes them to alter their policies. I would be interested in
anything you have to say about.
Sir Christopher Meyer: If I take the latter
point first, what is written does affect policy because Cabinet
ministers pay too much mind to what is written about their policies
and themselves personally in newspapers. You get this symbiotic
or mutually reinforcing relationship that emerges in which people
go out there and say the editors have far too much influence,
this is extremely unhealthy, but a good measure of that influence
is invested in them by the politicians themselves who show them
too much deference. I am not saying that editors do not have any
influence because there are circumstances when they genuinely
reflect the strongly held views of most of their readers, and
you would be a fool to ignore that, but you can step over a line
where you begin to give the impression that it is not the democratically
elected government of the day that is running the country but
a small group of editors, and that is an exaggeration. To go to
your first point, on what basis did one choose these editors and
proprietors; when I look back at it now it was all pretty random
actually. There was not a lot of science in it, there was a fair
amount of art in it. One of the things I believed in strongly
as a press secretary was that you must not have favourites; the
press secretary himself should not have favourites among journalists
and therefore you should spread your bounty relatively equally
among editors and proprietors. Of course, among them there were
some you preferred to others; in the time My Lord Chairman has
just mentioned, the somewhat turbulent times of 1994 and 1995,
the number of newspapers and their proprietors and their newspapers
at national level who actually supported John Major was a very
small if perfectly formed group, so you liked them but you knew
the challenge was not there. You wanted to keep them on side,
but the challenge was a wider spectrum of people who were much
more sceptical about the prime minister. The way we actually went
about it, we did not have anything agreed, it was not terribly
scientific, you just hoped to cover the waterfront.
Q1803 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury:
We have heard from a number of people who have come in front of
this Committee that the idea of someone who invests a lot of money
in buying a newspaper, which is not something that they are likely
to get great financial returns on is, inevitably, going to expect
his views to be represented in those newspapers. Do you think
it is inevitable that someone who owns newspapers will demand
access to the prime minister and attempt to influence the prime
minister?
Sir Christopher Meyer: When you say "demand
access" you mean apart from the opinions expressed in the
newspaper which he or she owns, above and beyond that will want
to come round to Downing Street and bend the prime minister's
ear.
Q1804 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury:
yes.
Sir Christopher Meyer: It depends on the individuals.
Ten years ago there were some who liked that and probably expected
it.
Q1805 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury:
Did they get it?
Sir Christopher Meyer: Not everybody did; I
am just trying to remember, to be perfectly frank with you, but
if you are saying to me that beyond the medium of the newspapers
owned by this person, were proprietors able to exercise, if you
like, undue influence over the prime minister I would say no,
that was not the case. Can I just pick up on something else you
said that sparked a thought? One can see how a very powerful and
rich individual who decides to buy a newspaper could have, say,
undue influence through expecting a certain editorial line from
newspapers, but you have to set that against an alternative model
which one finds increasingly in the United States of America where
families and individuals who through two or three generations
have owned newspapers, and have expected a certain type of editorial
line—the New York Times is a classic example of that—have
sold on to enormous and anonymous corporations who have got interests
in all kinds of other types of business, the accountants move
in and start going in for cost-cutting, so newspapers like, it
is fair to say, the Los Angeles Times which has a great
past is not having a terribly promising future because it has
moved out of one model of ownership into the other. In the other
model, where the accountants, the bean-counters, prevail, they
do not expect a very strong editorial line and they let the editor
get on with it, but the editor is more than likely getting on
with a diminished staff, a slashing of foreign bureaux which in
the end leads to poor journalism, so there are different things
to weigh up there.
Q1806 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury:
Going back slightly to what Lady McIntosh was saying were you
aware from the Murdoch stable of pressure being put on the prime
minister to become a little more Eurosceptic, for instance?
Sir Christopher Meyer: Not from Murdoch personally
because I think at the time I was in Downing Street the number
of times the prime minister met Rupert Murdoch were very few and
far between, this was not a regular occurrence. Looking at the
stable—News of the World, The Sun, The Times—they
each had quite distinctive editorial policies, it was not as if
it was News International Wapping and a uniform barrage of views
on what they wanted. The Sun at the time, as it
is now, was very Eurosceptic and The Sun itself
put pressure on Downing Street, on the Government, to be more
Eurosceptic, there is no doubt about that, but then that is perfectly
legitimate.
Q1807 Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury:
Through their editor.
Sir Christopher Meyer: Through the newspaper;
above all through the newspaper.
Q1808 Lord Maxton:
Then came out and supported the party and a leader who was considerably
less Eurosceptic than the existing prime minister.
Sir Christopher Meyer: That is the glory of
the British press, if I may put it like that.
Q1809 Lord Maxton:
Can I say that I have some sympathy with your view, having been
through—going back a long way as I do with my background
in Scottish politics—the devolution campaign in 1978 where
every aspect of the Scottish media came out in favour of devolution
and we still lost, and even at the last Scottish elections the
same sort of thing where almost every newspaper came out in favour
of the SNP and they won by 48 votes in one constituency. What
worries me about political coverage in this country is not support
for or against specific policies, it is the overwhelming negative
cynicism towards politics generally, and that creates in the mood
of the public that cynicism and creates enormous problems in terms
of democracy to be honest.
Sir Christopher Meyer: I do not see it, if I
may say so, in such draconian terms, and of course one person's
cynicism is another person's realism and you do get into very
subjective territory here. I actually believe that it is healthy
for democracy for newspapers of whatever stripe to be extremely
sceptical about what—
Q1810 Lord Maxton:
There is a difference between scepticism and cynicism.
Sir Christopher Meyer: I agree, and this almost
takes us to the other subject that we are going to talk about
later on, the difference between what is private and what is public;
everybody has a very different view and it is our problem and
challenge at the PCC to come out with something which is reasonably
commonsensical; ditto on scepticism and cynicism. I think it is
right for the public to be sceptical about what they read in their
newspapers, in print or on-line, and it is right for newspapers
to be extremely sceptical about what they are told by politicians.
This seems to me to be one of the arteries of democracy and there
is a question—I say this in full awareness of where I am
today—there is a question out there to what extent, if there
is cynicism, this is brought upon their own heads by politicians,
dare I say.
Chairman: I want to get on to your job
in a moment, but I would like Lord King just to come in here.
Q1811 Lord King of Bridgwater:
It is an interesting point that you held a post held previously
by Bernard Ingham and then subsequently held by Alastair Campbell,
although it was described separately. You used the phrase "important
to have no favourites". You talk about the power of the press
and that has been overstated; the power of Number 10 has probably
been exploited more effectively by your successor, Alastair Campbell,
very much on the basis, perhaps, of having favourites, of indicating
that actually good reporting of the Government's point of view
gave the opportunity for more interviews, more access to the prime
minister, more preference of one sort or another. Do you want
to comment on that background? It seems to me that Alastair Campbell
demonstrated very clearly a very effective use of the power that
Number 10 actually has.
Sir Christopher Meyer: There are a lot of interesting
strands in this. I would not dispute what you have just said,
all I would say is that I left Number 10 of my own volition, I
do not think Alastair Campbell did when he was press secretary.
I learnt such craft as I had as a press secretary sitting on Bernard
Ingham's knee, as it were. I thought he was a very great press
secretary. He was accused of being too parti-pris, too biased,
because he had the full status of a civil servant as the Number
10 spokesman and watching him operate close-up I thought that
there was some substance to that, but above all it was loyalty
to the person he served. There are a number of things I learned
from him and one was not to have favourites and to ensure that
everybody in the Downing Street lobby, in the Parliamentary lobby,
got equal access to stories. There may be journalists around who
will say that that was not always true; in my experience it was
and he had, I thought, scrupulous regard for telling the truth
and, if he got things wrong, for getting out there at top speed
and saying "We made a mess". Bernard and I once at an
international conference, a Commonwealth conference, got ourselves
inadvertently in the most appalling mess and misled the journalist
present. He said, "Come on, lad, we have to get out there
and make a clean breast of it." It was horribly painful,
but it was the right thing to do. One of the conclusions I drew
from being in Downing Street—which is one of the reasons
why I wanted to be chairman of the Press Complaints Commission—is
that even the weakest government, even a Downing Street with a
prime minister who is really under siege, as John Major was when
I was working with him, still has incredible, intrinsic advantages
in the way that further information emerges from Number 10 into
the public domain. The Government has very, very strong inbuilt
advantages in controlling the nature of information, the timing
of information, the velocity of the information, the emphasis
of the information and so on and so forth. That is one of the
strongest reasons that we have for a strong press.
Q1812 Lord King of Bridgwater:
My point is that we talk about the power of the media, editors
and proprietors, and also in respect of your role as chairman
of the Press Complaints Commission, about the way in which power
may be abused—that power which you recognise does exist
can be exploited to an extreme.
Sir Christopher Meyer: By the press, or by Downing
Street?
Q1813 Lord King of Bridgwater:
No, by Number 10.
Sir Christopher Meyer: It can be, yes, of course
it can be.
Q1814 Lord King of Bridgwater:
There would be some suggestion more recently that it was.
Sir Christopher Meyer: I thought you might say
that; how do I comment on it? I had a number of rules—and
this may sound very egocentric—about how a press secretary
should behave and conduct his business, and I called these the
ten commandments and I tried to stick to them as best I could,
but I was a civil servant. Alastair Campbell, who came into office
with a different status—and he was given authority I believe
to give instructions to civil servants, but he was not a pure
civil servant in that sense—therefore came to the job with
a different approach, and some of the ten commandments I suspect
he thought were probably not worth the paper they were written
on, and he was able to deploy his skills with very great effectiveness
for a very long time.
Q1815 Chairman:
Okay, thank you; as we have got the man himself coming next it
might be more appropriate to ask him about what he was doing,
having heard from you. Can we go on to your day job as chairman
of the Press Complaints Commission? What we are particularly interested
in is about what you cover, how the public is protected. Can I
give you a case today—you have probably seen it—the
Derek Conway case. The Daily Mail has a headline "Nice
work if you can get it" about Derek Conway, and they put
in most of the family but they airbrush out the daughter who,
as far as we know, has absolutely nothing to do with the case
whatsoever. The Guardian and a range of other newspapers
keep the daughter's photograph in, even though, as I say, as far
as we know she received absolutely nothing in these payments.
Is that the kind of case, the kind of complaint, that the Press
Complaints Commission could look at?
Sir Christopher Meyer: It could, if there is
a complaint. In a country in which freedom of speech is paramount,
there is no intrinsic objection to the kind of Daily Mail
headline that you have just drawn to my attention. As to the photograph—
Q1816 Chairman:
It is not the Daily Mail headline I am drawing your attention
to, it is the Guardian. The Daily Mail is not using
a photograph of the daughter; the other newspapers are using it.
Sir Christopher Meyer: I assume the daughter
is an adult and is not a child under the age of 16. Unless there
is some special circumstance of which I am unaware there is no
objection to publishing a photograph of the family taken in a
public place.
Q1817 Chairman:
Even though the daughter has nothing whatsoever to do with the
allegations which are in the headline.
Sir Christopher Meyer: No, unless there is some
special circumstance it would not cause me—
Q1818 Chairman:
You would not even look at that as a case.
Sir Christopher Meyer: It would depend, My Lord
Chairman, on the basis on which the complaint were made, but if
you are trying to say to me—
Q1819 Chairman:
I am not trying to say to you, I am trying to ask you what the
position is.
Sir Christopher Meyer: I hate these questions
about cases on the morning because you have to know all the facts.
|
