Stephen Glover – still can’t think

Poor Stephen Glover. Writing about the right of proprietors to intervene in the newspapers they own, he manages to be both agitated and confused. (Indy Media, 21 April. Compare his smooth nastiness about Prescott’s bulimia in the Mail on the same day – comfortable and at home there, of course).

Evidently bothered by a solicitor’s letter from Withers, representing the Barclay Brothers – owners of the Telegraph – he makes a public apology. He didn’t mean to suggest that the Brothers had caused either the Telegraph or the Spectator to spike / alter pieces on Lord Deedes, Bill Deedes having said, apparently, that the Barclays regime was “a stinking mob”. (First question: how can two people be a mob? If it wasn’t the Brothers specifically, how can Withers make a case?)

Stephen plunges on, finding an instance of “legitimate editorial intervention” which “Oddly…concerns me”.

Me again!

Sir David Barclay wrote to then-Spectator editor Boris Johnson in 2004, complaining about something that Glover had written about the Telegraph. Boris – sorry, that should be Mr Boris Johnson – wrote back to say a) ignore the guy, and b) “I will ensure that nothing of the kind is repeated”. Stephen thinks that this is an example of “a gentle guiding hand”, exercised by “the guardians of venerable publications”.

For us out here it looks rather different. It looks like an owner protecting himself against criticism by bringing pressure to bear. Boris Johnson is entirely compliant, and another opportunity for reasonable comment is lost.

Glover doesn’t seem to realise how much these two stories show him as a weakling and a loser.

Come on Stephen – there’s a difference between a guiding hand and a hand at your throat!