WASHINGTON — “Hit ‘em when they’re down,” is our motto. “Pile
on,” is our hearty exhortation. Who are we? We are the noble souls
of the press. We are the self-described heroes, who write
“history’s first draft” as daily journalism is called. Yes, perhaps
old Henry Ford had something when he described history as
“bunk.”
I may write in newspapers every week — when I am not writing in
magazines or writing books — but I am quite confident that I am
not a member of the press corps. I only “hit ‘em” when they are
standing and capable of hitting back. I would never “pile on.” I
avoid group things, and besides there is something cowardly about
the journalists’ feeding frenzy.
Today the press is piling on in its coverage of the British and
North American press tycoon Conrad Black. The journalists have
found that Black’s disagreements with members of his boards at his
Hollinger corporations have put him under scrutiny by government
agencies, and so they “hit ‘em while he’s down.” No rumor or report
of irregularity is too measly for them to inflate into a page-one
scream. If everything that has been said against him is wrong, it
will take him years to recover his reputation, a legitimately
earned reputation as a builder of some of the finest publications
in the world. If Black is exonerated, you can be sure the hacks
will not be writing about his exoneration on page one.
I have had my own run-ins with Conrad. A few years back we
discussed entering into business arrangements, from which I walked
away, to his indignation. But I will tell you that in all my
dealings with him he was always a gentleman, and after suffering
affront from me he showed the mettle of a gentleman and continued
our friendship. He can deliver a punch and he can take a punch.
Now the punches delivered at him are often below the belt. Just
the other day in the Wall Street Journal — on the front
page no less! — a series of low blows was struck. “Hollinger
Investments Are Linked to Board’s Perle and Kissinger,” ran the
headline of a story written for the credulous by the credulous.
Certainly there was not much intellectual discipline present.
“This board [one of Black’s Hollinger boards] has ties that were
never disclosed,” harrumphs a representative from one of Black’s
minority shareholders. “If we had known this, we would have said a
preponderance of the board was not independent.” The “ties” alluded
to so melodramatically are ties Black, Kissinger and Perle have had
for years, which anyone familiar with Hollinger should have known.
Even as reported in the Journal story they are perfectly
unexceptional.
Yet the piling on continues. “Hollinger also made contributions
to political causes linked to directors. Hollinger contributed
$200,000 annually for an undisclosed number of years to
National Interest.” That journal is a scholarly
publication dealing with international relations at a very high
level. It is hardly a “political cause.” A few lines later the
Journal continues in its portentous groan: “Hollinger has never
disclosed its role in publishing the National
Interest….” Actually it has. The masthead of the
National Interest describes itself as a “nonprofit
partnership between Hollinger International Inc. and the Nixon
Center.” Moreover Black and Kissinger have for years been very
publicly associated with both the National Interest and
the Nixon Library. The Journal’s story says so itself!
There are more inflated alarums in the Wall Street
Journal story: Hollinger has been donating $375,000 annually
to a distinguished London-based think tank, the International
Institute for Strategic Studies. Another secret arrangement?
Perhaps to the enemies of Conrad Black, but the think tank’s
library is publicly known as Hollinger-Telegraph Library.
“Telegraph” refers to the superb newspaper Black publishes in
London.
There is nothing secretive or unethical about any of these
arrangements at Hollinger. There may be other things amiss but not
in these arrangements. It makes eminently good sense for a media
chain to have attachments with scholarly journals and think tanks.
If more of our media chains did, they might publish material of a
higher intellectual standard. Black is merely being hit while he is
down. The noble press is simply “piling on.” Black is a worldly
man, the author of a new biography, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt, that is being touted as the “definitive” one-volume
book on the president. Black is surely well-acquainted with the
press’s feeding frenzies.
“Conrad Black has been a risk taker,” one of New York’s most
respected investors tells me. “He’s more than a CEO. He built a
world-wide network of newspapers in an industry that is going
sideways.” Those newspapers are among the best in the world and
they are the most interesting and independent. That is why I hope
he can hold them all together. The press acts as a herd. The public
is better served by the publisher who remains free of the herd and
stands up to bullies.
