Media Manipulation - Creating a Racist

Media Manipulation - Creating a Racist
A personal account by Howard Youngerwood

Judaism has no problems in agreeing with the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword". Words hurt, reputations can be ruined, and the distress caused can be far more damaging than any physical injury.

I have particular cause to reflect on the issue because, as is now fairly well-known, I was the subject of a recent libel action following allegations in The Observer in 1996 to the effect that, as Assistant Chief Crown Prosecutor, in charge of the Stephen Lawrence murder, I was a racist who, amongst other things, had tried to destroy the credibility of the key identification witness to the murder, and had been previously been unconcerned about racism within my own Branch of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

It took two years for me to obtain substantial damages and a full apology in open court from The Observer. My character and judgment were further vindicated in the Macpherson Inquiry Report in 1999.

In looking back and examining the techniques used by the media to try to destroy my reputation, I believe that there are some valuable lessons to be learnt about our behaviour to others.

The allegations against me were first made in a telephone conversation by the Observer journalist to the CPS Press Office on Friday 26 April 1996 at about 4.45 p.m., just before the closure of normal work hours. The journalist was threatening to publish an article the following Sunday and sought answers to a mass of detailed allegations which the Press Officer could only be expected to deal with after detailed investigation. I was first made aware of the allegations via a call to me from Press Office at home after 6 p.m., not long before the Sabbath was due to start at 7.30. There was only time for me to briefly respond to the effect that the allegations were totally wrong and to correct certain key misunderstandings of factual detail. Of course the timing of the telephone conversation, late on a Friday, was deliberately planned by the journalist to ensure that as little time as possible was given for a proper response to a proposed article which, based on so many allegations, had obviously been planned for some time.

The article was duly published two days later and a splendid hatchet job it was. Anyone who did not know me would have been fully entitled to believe me to be a racist who would not think twice about destroying the key witness to a wicked racial murder. The following week, The Observer, in an effort to show how fairly they treated their victims, published a letter defending me but edited out all references to my established record on racism, and then, in order to remove any doubt, not only repeated the original allegations against me, but expanded them in another article in that same issue, so that I was the subject of these allegations two weeks running.

What was particularly harmful was the fact that, while some allegations were simply mistaken, other key allegations were, in a literal sense true but so as to totally distort the truth. Thus it was said that I had asked police to obtain information as to the untoward mental condition of the main witness to the Lawrence murder so as to potentially affect his reliability as a witness. True, but what was omitted was the fact that I had taken that action not only because the witness's own solicitors had insisted on that information in relation to separate criminal charges against the witness, but because the trial judge had ordered the CPS to provide that information to the witness. So, what appeared to be my own initiative was nothing of the sort. Another example - in the context of allegations about my handling of racism within the CPS, it was asserted that nationally Afro-Caribbean staff made up 2.8% of CPS staff. What was omitted was the fact that in the relevant Branch I headed at the time, nearly 40% of staff were from. ethnic minorities. Other relevant facts were simply omitted where they did not fit in with the "racism" agenda.

As The Observer were unwilling to publish an immediate retraction, apology and some measure of damages for what experienced Counsel confirmed to me was a most serious libel, I decided to issue legal proceedings in Autumn 1996. I was on my own as I had taken early retirement from the CPS (not as a result of the libel) and my small Union, while providing early financial support, did not have the means to finance the enormous cost of a full libel case. It took The Observer 7 months before they decided, under pressure to lodge their defence, to publish some form of retraction. Just before Christmas 1996, at the bottom of a page they published what they maintained was a suitable apology. It did contain the word "apologise" but was headed "Clarification" and did not admit that they had made me out to be a racist. They continued to refuse to pay reasonable damages and to publish a full apology and it was only 2 years later, in 1998, after their defence was severely affected in preliminary court hearings, that they finally gave in. It is of interest that although a full apology was read out in open court, no other newspaper published a word about the result - it was as if the Press were afraid of publicising the fact that an ordinary individual could take on a powerful newspaper and win.

In taking the decision to sue the Observer, thus putting at risk my home and family, I was not consciously aware of being affected by Jewish values, although I may well have been influenced unconsciously. But, over the years, I have become aware that my deep distress at the attempt to ruin my character, and consequent determination to obtain justice, does resonate with Jewish values. Traditionally, the Rabbis have associated many disasters and illnesses as due to "evil speech". The Talmud treats the slanderer as worse than a murderer as "he destroys a man's reputation which is more precious than his life". That most difficult of books, Ecclesiastes, whilst dismissing everything in life as apparently futile, excepts a good reputation -"A good name is better than precious oil". The injunction in Leviticus not to act as a talebearer has been interpreted to extend beyond mere gossip and to include a prohibition against revealing secrets and indeed any information, even if it appears harmless, unless explicit consent is given. The tale- bearer destroys the world, according to Maimonides, even if he is speaking the truth. It is no wonder that Judaism, when compelled to accept that in some situations involving potential harm to others , including an employer, a Jew not only can, but must, reveal information, has adopted strict safeguards, not the least of which is the necessity for the disclosure to be unaffected in any way by personal animosity. And small wonder, given the strictness of the law, that Jews pray three times daily -"Oh my G-d, guard my tongue form evil and my lips from speaking guile".

How can we relate these values in our daily lives. Most of us are not saints - we need a diet of banter and gossip. And yet, putting my experience aside Judaism's dictates, we surely can reflect, before we pass on information/gossip about another, that there is the potential to harm that person by our actions. What are our true motives behind our actions? Are we passing on infrmation which, although true, had been edited so as to distort the truth? And if we do pass on information, or make accusations about another, even if we believe that we are justified in doing so, have we at least given that person a fair chance to respond before the harm is done? And if, after all, we find that the accusation is false, have we the courage to apologise and make proper amends? Be assured, in any event, that we are talking about a priceless commodity, a man's reputation.