December 21, 2024

William Rees-Mogg, Former Editor of The Times of London, Dies at 84

The cause was esophageal cancer, his family said. In a statement, Prime Minister David Cameron called him “a Fleet Street legend.”

Mr. Rees-Mogg was 38 when he was named editor of The Times in 1967, making him the youngest ever to hold the job. He was perhaps the last in that post to reasonably aspire to the formidable influence in Britain’s ruling circles that his predecessors at The Times had wielded for almost 200 years.

When Mr. Rees-Mogg took over the editorship, the paper’s circulation and profitability had slipped sharply in the face of stiff competition from The Daily Telegraph, a broadsheet, and The Daily Mail, a tabloid, both competing for the same, mostly conservative readers as the Times.

Under the Canadian press baron Roy Thomson, who bought the paper in 1967, Mr. Rees-Mogg worked to restore The Times’s fortunes and editorial authority, and to shed its fusty image. Innovations included a women’s page, a business section and bylines for the paper’s hitherto anonymous reporters and commentators, as well as expanded sports and arts coverage.

But when the innovations failed to reverse the declines, he presided over a return to some of the old ways at the paper. This was the state of affairs when  Lord Thomson’s son Kenneth R. Thomson decided to sell The Times and its sister paper, The Sunday Times, to Rupert Murdoch in 1981. At the time, Mr. Murdoch was moving News International, his British subsidiary, into a dominant position in Britain’s newspaper market.

In character and temperament, Mr. Murdoch and Mr. Rees-Mogg were poles apart. Mr. Murdoch, an Australian regarded by many in Britain’s upper classes as a colonial upstart, harbored a deep hostility toward the country’s ruling establishment, of which Mr. Rees-Mogg was a proud member. Mr. Rees-Mogg resigned shortly after the takeover and was soon replaced by Harold Evans, whose own tenure was ended after barely a year amid policy differences with Mr. Murdoch.

As a writer of editorials and columns, Mr. Rees-Mogg was as elegant in his prose as he was courteous in manner and conservative in attire, holding fast to pinstripe suits in the office as his colleagues shifted to shirt sleeves, even jeans. One younger staff member said Mr. Rees-Mogg was the only man he could imagine wearing double-breasted pajamas. Mr. Rees-Mogg shunned typewriters and computers, writing his articles and books in longhand.

He found little that was offensive in being called a fogy, or being satirized, as he was in journals like Private Eye and in the play “Pravda,” by Howard Brenton and David Hare, where his alter ego was the unforgettably named Elliot Fruit-Norton.

He expressed his passion in his columns. He defended President Nixon during the Watergate scandal (he later called it “a hysterical overreaction”) and argued for years for a return to the gold standard. In 1976 he entered a dispute between the Labour prime minister Harold Wilson against his more right-wing foreign secretary, George Brown, a man known for excessive drinking.

“Lord George Brown is a better man drunk than the prime minister is sober,” Mr. Rees-Mogg wrote.

He incensed some Times readers in 1967 with a lead editorial in which he attacked the severity of jail sentences imposed on the Rolling Stones’s Mick Jagger (three months) and Keith Richards (one year) for drug offenses.

“If we are going to make any case a symbol of the conflict between the sound traditional values of Britain and the new hedonism, then we must be sure that the sound traditional values include those of tolerance and equity,” Mr. Rees-Mogg wrote, under the headline “Who Breaks a Butterfly on a Wheel?”

The jail terms were soon quashed on appeal.

William Rees-Mogg was born in southwest England on July 14, 1928, the son of a wealthy farmer, Edmund Fletcher Rees-Mogg, and an American mother, the former Beatrice Warren. He was educated at Balliol College, Oxford, and began his journalism career in 1952 with The Financial Times before moving to The Sunday Times in 1960.

In retirement, Mr. Rees-Mogg served on the governing board of the BBC and was appointed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to lead the British Broadcasting Council, monitoring standards on the country’s radio and television channels.

Above all he remained a prolific writer, turning out volumes on economics and rare books — a passion that led to his purchase of one of London’s best-known antiquarian bookshops, Pickering and Chatto — and contributing commentaries to The Times and other newspapers until shortly before his death.

His survivors include his wife, the former Gillian Shakespeare Morris, and the couple’s two sons, Thomas and Jacob, and three daughters, Emma, Charlotte and Annunziata. Jacob was elected to Parliament as a Conservative in 2010.

Mr. Rees-Mogg, who was defeated badly in two attempts to win a seat in Parliament for the Conservatives in the 1950s,  made no secret of his ambition to emulate his Times predecessors in occupying a seat in the councils of power.

Answering critics who called him haughty, snobbish and a pillar of the Establishment, he declined to apologize, especially for the last one.

“It seems to me, provided one doesn’t allow oneself to become pompous and opinionated, a useful and helpful thing to be,” he once said in an interview. “I think it’s a good thing, the Establishment.”

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/05/world/europe/william-rees-mogg-former-editor-of-the-times-of-london-dies-at-84.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

British Press Lauds Cameron Over Leveson Stand

What a surprise, then, to find so much happy agreement on Friday, as the papers reacted almost as one to remarks Prime Minister David Cameron made in Parliament on Thursday.

Here was The Sun, which has lately wasted no chance to torture Mr. Cameron while praising his rival, Mayor Boris Johnson of London, applauding Mr. Cameron’s “courage.”

Here was The Daily Mail, taking time out from its daily antigovernment screed to call Mr. Cameron a “freedom lover” poised to “earn a place of honor in our history.” Meanwhile, The Daily Telegraph admired the way Mr. Cameron had “taken a stand on an important matter of principle.” The Independent, which is virtually allergic to the Conservative Party, said Mr. Cameron “was quite right,” and The Times of London said it admired his courage.

To provoke this shower of affection, Mr. Cameron had not solved the European financial crisis, nor had he brought peace to the Middle East. Instead, he had declared in Parliament that he was opposed to the main recommendation in the 1,987-page Leveson report on press culture and practices, unveiled Thursday: the establishment of a new system of press regulation that would be backed by parliamentary statute.

He said that passing such a statute would be akin to “crossing the Rubicon” and would subvert the principle of freedom of the press, and that he did not want to do that.

Mr. Cameron’s stand was opposed by the opposition Labour Party and by the Liberal Democrats, the junior partners in his coalition government. But with the bulk of Britain’s newspapers — which want to keep regulating themselves, without government interference — behind him, Mr. Cameron has a great deal of leverage in the matter.

In a somewhat odd development on Friday, the government said it would work swiftly to draft legislation that, if enacted, would put into practice the recommendations from the inquiry led by Lord Justice Sir Brian Leveson. But it seemed to be doing so to prove that the proposals would not work as law — “to look at what the bill might look like, to demonstrate our concerns,” the culture secretary, Maria Miller, said in a series of remarks to reporters on Friday.

In response, the Labour Party accused the government of setting out to produce legislation so restrictive that nobody could reasonably enact it.

There were others who disagreed with the Conservative stand. The Guardian, whose reporting revealed the phone hacking scandal that led to the Leveson inquiry, said it was in favor of enacting some form of legislation. And victims of press intrusion, many of whom testified at the committee hearings, said they were disappointed in Mr. Cameron’s response.

“Full implementation of Lord Leveson’s report is the minimal acceptable compromise for me and many other victims that have suffered at the hands of the press,” said Gerry McCann, whose daughter Madeleine disappeared in 2007 and whose family was harassed by newspapers.

Before the report was released, Mr. Cameron said at one point that unless the Leveson proposals were “bonkers,” he would support them without reservation.

Speaking for the government on Friday, Ms. Miller did not reveal Mr. Cameron’s current position on the “bonkers” issue.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/01/world/europe/british-press-lauds-cameron-over-leveson-stand.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Business Briefing | Legal: Conrad Black to Return to Jail for at Least a Year

Judge Amy J. St. Eve of United States District Court in Chicago, sentenced Mr. Black to three and a half years in prison after berating, then praising him. But prosecutors said he would be given credit for more than two years already served, meaning he will go back for little more than a year.

As Judge St. Eve announced the sentence with Mr. Black standing expressionless before her, his 70-year-old wife, Barbara Amiel, fainted on a wooden courtroom bench. As she sprawled across the laps of other spectators, medics rushed in to attend to her.

In a 20-minute statement before he was sentenced, Mr. Black, 66, spoke confidently and philosophically, citing poetry and maintaining he had been falsely accused. At no point did he apologize.

His final words to Judge St. Eve were to ask for a lesser sentence.

“I never ask for mercy,” he said, standing with his hands on the podium and looking straight at her, “but I do ask for avoidance of injustice.”

Judge St. Eve had originally sentenced Mr. Black to six and a half years in prison after he was convicted in 2007 of defrauding investors in Hollinger International.

Mr. Black, whose empire once included The Chicago Sun-Times, The Daily Telegraph of London, The Jerusalem Post and small papers across the United States and Canada, served more than two years before being freed on bail to pursue what would be partly successful appeals.

Judge St. Eve said on Friday that Mr. Black had “violated the trust” of his shareholders and expressed bewilderment that someone as gifted as Mr. Black would commit such a crime.

“As you stand before me today, I still scratch my head as to why you engaged in this conduct,” she said.

Her sentence could have been far tougher. But Judge St. Eve said she rejected the option of sending Mr. Black back to prison for more than four years in part because of dozens of letters she had received from inmates saying Mr. Black had changed their lives through lectures he gave on writing, history, economics and other subjects.

Mr. Black will have to report to prison in about six weeks, though a fixed date has not been set, Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the United States attorney’s office, said.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=0990162b53f1c619b634661f27bb58dc