Have I been guilty of that journalistic vice of accepting too readily the rumour-mongering of a newspaper staff in a state of high anxiety about their future? I refer specifically to my Mystery surrounds Telegraph editor's future posting on Friday evening. This was based, as I noted, on "rumours" that the Daily Telegraph editor John Bryant was about to depart. However, even by writing it the way I did, I gave those rumours credence and the Telegraph management, while not disputing that there were rumours, certainly disagrees with both the underlying assumptions and certain alleged "facts".
So, given the vehemence of the denials, let me place on record the Telegraph version of events. It is not disputed that Bryant made some kind of comment at conference which could have been interpreted as being pro-journalist and anti-management. But, as has been pointed out, it's hardly unusual for journalists to disparage the suits. He later left the Canary Wharf building to travel, by prior arrangement, across to the new offices in Victoria to meet Aidan Barclay, the group's ceo, Murdoch MacLennan, and Will Lewis, the managing director (editorial) who is overseeing the transfer to the paper's new digital headquarters. This is a lengthy journey and, on the way back, he was held up in traffic for an hour. It was during this period that the rumours started to sweep the Canary Wharf editorial floor that Bryant was a goner.
The media village is small and the gossip soon spread to other papers. I understand that several editors were among the many journalists who contacted the Telegraph group's PR agency, Brown Lloyd James, to inquire about the rumours. One of the agency's spokesman responded by saying: "John Bryant is in the building, he is the editor and there is no change in that." I mentioned that this was "carefully-worded" but Brown Lloyd James say, in fact, it was "off the cuff". Then again, the spokesman who issued it did call back to correct one word, which puts into doubt the off-the-cuffness claim. Anyway, to continue... I did signal a note of caution by pointing out that a senior Daily Telegraph journalist had said: "I'm sure nothing is happening". But I concede that I added to the speculation with my additional claims.
These centred on the widespread belief that both Bryant and his Sunday Telegraph opposite number, Patience Wheatcroft, had been involved in a power struggle with MacLennan over the supposed hire-and-fire powers granted to Lewis. According to the Telegraph, no such dispute occurred because no such powers have been given to Lewis.
Finally, there have also been rumours - first published in the Evening Standard - that Wheatcroft returned champagne sent to her by MacLennan as a kiss-and-make-up gift. In fact, the champagne was sent by an advertising executive who had crossed swords with Wheatcroft. Again, there's nothing unusual in such disputes.
Underlying all this, of course, is the fact that the Telegraph staff are in turmoil. Many have lost their jobs. More are going to lose them. Wheatcroft certainly has fought her corner to preserve jobs, evidently successfully, and that has fuelled speculation about rows with management. But morale is low at present and rumours are bound to circulate in such an atmosphere. Until the cycle of job cuts is over and the staff have moved across to Victoria, doubtless there will be still more gossip.
