A little subversion at Irish Times

Last year The Irish Times was accused of misreporting news of secret meetings in 1969 between then chief executive, Major Thomas McDowell, and British diplomats. The paper said it had reported the available material when it was released in 2000. New evidence casts new light on the controversy. By Niall Meehan The British Public Records Office released correspondence detailing secret meetings in 1969 between then chief executive of The Irish Times, Major Thomas McDowell, and British diplomats, in January 2000. Rachel Donnelly's report in The Irish Times, headlined “McDowell prepared to act as ‘link'” laid emphasis on attempts by Major McDowell to bring the sides together in Northern Ireland. The Irish Independent reported the story with significant information The Irish Times left out.

One particular letter, dated 2 October 1969, was not reported anywhere. The British Ambassador to Dublin, Sir Andrew Gilchrist, reported that McDowell characterised his editor, the late Douglas Gageby, “a renegade or white nigger” in relation to Northern Ireland coverage. The Foreign Office also observed that “apparently [McDowell] has troubles with his editor” and that he was prepared to “offer his services” to the British in this context.

McDowell contacted Prime Minister Harold Wilson's office soon after British troops arrived in Derry and Belfast in August 1969. The correspondence reported that McDowell's ticket to “acceptability in Whitehall terms” was his position as a court marital judge.

In early January 2003, Jack Lane of the Aubane Historical Society came across the 2 October 1969 letter in the Public Record Office. He sent it to The Irish Times editor Geraldine Kennedy. The Sunday Independent published it on 26 January 2003. The following day The Irish Times responded with, “Major McDowell rejects UK envoy's claim”. McDowell denied that he had uttered the racist epithet. Sir Andrew Gilchrist was effectively accused, not of being sent abroad to lie for his country, but of lying to it.

One letter or two?

Conor Brady, the editor of The Irish Times in 2000 and Douglas Gageby's successor, wrote to the paper on 29 April 2004, after the controversy resurfaced in various media:

“Roy Greenslade has rushed to judgment.. There was no ‘cover up'... in The Irish Times's reportage of the 1969 British government papers... [Rachel Donnelly] identified one letter, written on 29 December 1969 by... Mr Kelvin White, to the British Ambassador in Dublin, Sir Andrew Gilchrist.

“Mr White wrote of Major TB McDowell's willingness to act as a link between the British and Irish governments and to have The Irish Times play a role in organising a conference of ‘prominent people'.

“Over recent days I have confirmed with the London editor of The Irish Times, Mr Frank Millar, that Ms Donnelly's examination yielded only this one letter. She did not come across another letter, dated 2 October 1969 from the ambassador to Mr White.”

Unfortunately, the information relayed to Conor Brady was not correct. Rachel Donnelly reported two letters in January 2000, a “November” 1969 letter, dated the seventh, and one actually written on 22 December. The point assumes importance if we examine what was left out of The Irish Times account of the “November” letter, but included in the Irish Independent report.

The “November” letter referred to “your [Gilchrist's] letter of 2 October” (the ‘white nigger' letter). It is would be interesting to know why Rachel Donnelly did not look for this letter, or, alternatively, if there was an impediment to discovery. I have been informed that another researcher in Kew, working for a national newspaper, did have sight of the letter, but did not think it “merited publication”.

The apparent failure to search for the 2 October 1969 letter is also surprising, given that the “November” letter itself contained comments about Douglas Gageby. These comments were not reported by The Irish Times, though innocuous passages were.
The “November” letter reported the Major as not looking for “ammunition” for use against Gageby but he “did, as you [Gilchrist] forecast, mention apologetically that Editor's excessive zeal”. The “forecast” refers to the previous “renegade or white nigger” comment. The 3 January 2000 Irish Independent report carried the “ammunition” passage. The Irish Times therefore knew on 3 January 2000 that its reporting was incomplete.

Major in denial

In its original 3 January 2000 Irish Times report, the emphasis was placed on the Major acting as a “link” between protagonists in the North. The later Irish Times report of 27 January 2003, in which McDowell denied using the “white nigger” phrase, also placed emphasis on his role in promoting moderation and as a “link”. The “November” 1969 letter was quoted again in the context of promoting “the moderates' cause in the paper”.

However, in the correspondence, the term “moderates” refers to McDowell's difference with Gageby. The implication is that McDowell is the pro-British moderate and Gageby the Irish extremist. Since The Irish Times did not report this context, readers were left with a view of McDowell promoting nationalist and unionist political moderates.

It has been suggested that there is no evidence that Major McDowell or his boardroom allies succeeded in an attempt to turn the paper in a pro-British direction. Unfortunately, the misreporting of the story, for whatever reason, has for the moment clouded that highly debatable point.

Major McDowell did take over the effective control of the paper's ownership after The Irish Times Trust was set up in 1974. Lord Arnold Goodman, Harold Wilson's ‘fixer', advised McDowell. Douglas Gageby retired with a windfall from the Trust's controversial buyout of existing shareholders. However, Gageby returned as editor in 1977, in a situation of financial and editorial crisis, partly fuelled by the buyout loan. Bank of Ireland Finance, who held the loan, may have insisted on the return of Gageby's steady hand. This also had the effect of quelling journalist discontent on the paper.

Whatever about the short, medium or long-term effects of the Major's meetings, evidence supports the contention that The Irish Times gave a one-sided view of correspondence it had in its possession.