Fleet Street Rebellion

It could never happen in England, British politicians confided at the height of the Watergate revelations in the U.S. Even if such a scandal did occur, editors added wryly, the British press would never uncover it. Both law and tradition conspire against serious, sustained investigative reporting in Britain. Coverage of any subject before a civil or criminal judge, for instance, is restricted to reporting what occurs in open court. If the targets of an expose bring libel actions against a newspaper--Fleet Street calls them "gagging writs"--all discussion of the case is normally suspended, at least until the suits are adjudicated. Editors who have complained at being muzzled have found little sympathy from officials. "You cannot muzzle a sheep," the late Labor Party firebrand Aneurin Bevan once cracked.

Fleet Street's timidity seemed well intact recently when the pro-Tory Daily Mail held off publishing the results of its probe into a land-profiteering deal involving two associates of Labor Party leader Harold Wilson (TIME, April 15 and April 22) until after the February election. But editors, who had been increasingly restless while watching American journalists pursue Watergate vigorously, decided to be sheep no longer. On April 3, a month after Wilson returned to power as Prime Minister, the Mail and Daily Express both broke front-page stories on the transaction. Enraged, Wilson issued libel writs against the two papers and apparently assumed that the matter would end. Instead, the Mail and Express boldly countered with follow-up stories, while the rest of Fleet Street raced to catch up with them.

Newspapers ran background features on the Wilson aides who had profited from the deal and prominently displayed photos of the disputed property, which was once a slag heap. Cartoons depicted 10 Downing Street buried in black slag, with Wilson digging out. Libel writs were issued against three other papers; but they had little effect as the news torrent continued. The Labor-leaning Guardian explored the potential conflict-of-interest issue of a Prune Minister's aides speculating in real estate ventures. Television also gave the story big play; one editor whose paper was being sued appeared on a TV panel to discuss the case--an unheard-of practice in the past.

The press onslaught has now peaked. Wilson, who was never accused of wrongdoing, has been exonerated of any impropriety. He and his aides may have the last word in the courts at the expense of those few papers that pursued the case beyond the bounds of fair play. It is also possible that the incident will revive interest in a proposal first made in 1972 to make investigative reporting more difficult.

Still, the strong feeling among newsmen, politicians and lawyers in London is that gagging writs will never again be a reliable device for silencing the press. Said Bernard Levin, a top columnist for the Times of London: "The dam is down beyond any possibility of re-erection." Mail Editor David English echoes the common sentiment among British journalists: "I don't think that after Watergate we could have gone on as before."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.