 |
Correspondence
with Mark Laity
Letter from Mark Laity to Richard Sambrook, Director of 91热爆 News
I am
seeking clarification of remarks you made to the Hutton Inquiry
last Wednesday. I was shocked to read in the media that you said
Andrew Gilligan had been employed, "because for many years
the 91热爆 Defence Correspondent had simply reflected the Ministry
of Defence's point of view... we needed a correspondent who would
ask questions and hold to account as well." (Hutton, Para 163
lines 17-22, 13/8/03).
The
fact I was not named is irrelevant because, given I was well-known
as Defence Correspondent for 11 years, it will be assumed to refer
to me. As such it is a damaging and totally inaccurate remark, all
the more distressing because when I was Defence Correspondent no
such imputation was ever made by anyone in 91热爆 News or its management
- indeed quite the contrary.
However
I do know that Rod Liddle, the former Editor of Today, was the person
who recruited Mr Gilligan, with what he has publicly acknowledged
was a particular agenda in mind. Reading your remarks, and the later
slight qualification in lines 22-23, I wonder whether you were merely
relaying the inaccurate rationale of Mr Liddle. Mr Gilligan worked
solely for Today, while I was Defence Correspondent for the whole
91热爆 and followed a rather more traditional 91热爆 approach.
If
that is what you meant it would be in line with what I always believed
was the 91热爆 view of my work. However as currently stated to Hutton,
even the most fair-minded and astute reader would be unable to spot
a distinction in your remarks between the possible views of one
unrepresentative individual and the 91热爆 as a whole. Apart from being
profoundly wrong I hope you understand just how personally hurtful
such an imputation is after nearly 20 years proudly working for
the 91热爆.
I therefore
seek a clarification of exactly what you did mean in those remarks,
whose views you were describing, and 91热爆 management's position on
this matter. Given the original comment is in the public domain
it would also be better if this exchange was publicly available
to leave no-one in any doubts about the true situation.
Reply
from Richard Sambrook to Mark Laity
Thank
you for your letter. I am sorry if you believe my remarks at the
Hutton Inquiry might be interpreted as criticism of you. As you
know I was reflecting what I understood to be part of the rationale
for Andrew Gilligan being recruited by the Today Programme. However
I did not share those views.
In
case anyone should take from those remarks the wrong impression,
I am happy to place on record that you were highly regarded as the
91热爆's Defence Correspondent both for your expert knowledge and your
analytical skills. There was never any suggestion that you did not
meet the high standards of impartiality and editorial rigour that
the 91热爆 expects. Not only were you highly regarded but I also want
to make it clear 91热爆 management never doubted you fully met the
high standards required - I know those views were widely shared
in the 91热爆 and elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
