A Critical Profile: Paul Mackintosh Foot, 1937- 2004.
Recognised for his ‘Fearless honesty’, [1]a ‘Tireless champion of the underdog’,[2] and acknowledged as ‘The most influential investigative journalist of his age.’[3] Paul Foot’s death on July 18th 2004 saw remarkable amounts of praise surface for the often controversial, but undoubtedly committed campaigning journalist. A renowned character whose left- wing beliefs and natural drive for justice remained the most prominent in his illustrious career.
Foot was born in Haifa, Palestine in 1937, he was educated at Ludgrove and then Shrewsbury boarding school before completing national service in Jamaica with the army from 1955- 1957.[4] Foot then enrolled at University College Oxford where he studied Law, it was to be here where he met other scholars with his range of interests, and a select few who he would be in close contact with throughout his life. None more so than Richard Ingrams, Christopher Booker and Willie Rushton, who went onto be co- founders of Private Eye Magazine, a title to which Paul was a loyal contributor throughout his career.
As his education would suggest Paul himself was afforded a privileged upbringing. His father, Hugh Foot, was the last governor of Cyprus, and then after being made Lord Caradon was the UK ambassador at the United Nations from 1964- 1970.[5] Paul inherited many of his father’s traits, and was seen as a great diplomat and was an inspiring orator. Foot’s political interests were also representative of those of his fathers, who where both left wing sympathisers, ‘Foot did not arrive at socialism through his journalism: the fire and passion that drove his writing forward came from within and from his commitment to the working class…Comrade Foot was one of those treasures assets of the revolutionary left…’[6] Foot was in- fact a founder member of the SWP (Socialist Workers Party), and socialism remained a ‘key element in his journalistic work’[7] throughout his career.
As well as relentless praise for the work he produced and his unyielding campaign efforts, Foot’s labours also saw him awarded a profusion of prestigious media awards during his career. These included ‘Journalist of the Year (1972 and 1989), Campaigning Journalist of the Year (1980), The George Orwell Prize for Journalism (1984) and Journalist of the Decade (1990’s.)[8]
Yet, despite his array of accolades and achievements Paul’s hard- hitting style was not only unconventional but extremely controversial. According to Geoffrey Goodman (2000) Paul’s greatest motivation came from his natural ‘… pursuit of social justice and the fight for decency in our society.’[9] Bryan Rostron speaks similarly in his British Journalism review 2004 stating that ‘he (Paul) would go on and on until that crook was exposed, a wrong righted, or an innocent man released from prison.’(8)
As cited in the Guardian Obituary to Paul Foot 2004, his most memorable and emphatic works include ‘Hanratty, the Poulson Scandal, the Carl Bridgewater murder, the Birmingham bombings convictions, Jeffrey Archer – he kept on coming back to that one – Jeremy Thorpe, John Stalker and the Northern Ireland shoot- to-kill inquiry, Lockerbie and the Libyan connection…and the strange death of “God’s Banker” Roberto Calvi.’[10]
One of Paul’s most prominent campaigns, and one for which he is largely remembered was during his first permanent stint at Private eye magazine, the ongoing story became known as ‘The Poulson Affair.’ The campaign was a perfect example of a story which no other news source would touch, but one in which Paul, under the Private Eye banner, revelled. It was because of this, according to Pauls former friend and colleague Richard Ingrams, that Paul went against much advice to join the Private Eye full- time in 1967 and leave his more lucrative Sunday Telegraph post, as ‘…he could not resist the prospect of two whole pages with complete freedom to write whatever he liked.’ In his memoirs Ingrams recalls Paul as saying “Off my back were the cloying hierarchies, the silly office intrigues and petty censorships which stifles so much writing in the official press.”[11]
‘The Poulson Affair’ concerned a plot unearthed by Foot that a largely unknown Pontefract architect, John Poulson, had built up a huge worldwide business by enlisting the support of corrupt councillors and politicians. One in particular was deputy leader of the Conservative Party Reginald Maudling was seen as a ‘clever, amiable bust intensely greedy man…’ was one of the key figures involved in the scandal. (11, pg.57) This had increasing weight to Paul’s campaign when the Tories were re- elected in 1970 and Maudling was appointed Home Secretary. This meant he inevitably would be involved in decisions relating to the prosecutions of people who he worked alongside in the scam. In 1971 the campaign started to face challenges, lobby correspondent of the Observer at the time was Nora Beloff, she regarded Maudling with sympathy and affection and was dissatisfied at the credibility of much of Private Eye’s claims. Paul was by far an admirer of the lobby system, irritated by the fact that only an accredited number of correspondents would be given ‘privileged off- the- record briefings’ and develop ‘an over- cosy relationship.’(11, pg.58)
Unfortunately for Beloff the Business section of the paper did not know Maudling so personally and decided to follow- up stories of the scandal. Appalled, Beloff with the approval from owner of the Observer, David Astor, she constructed her own profile of Reginald Maudling’s actions, which rejected many of the claims made by Paul and the rest of the Private Eye writers involved in the campaign. Beloff’s findings were deemed vastly inaccurate when it was leaked to Paul and the rest of the Private Eye staff through Observer business editor Anthony Bambridge.
Beloff sought legal action, and was remarkably her litigation was backed financially by her own proprietor, David Astor, she was advised by solicitors not to seek libel action because her evidence in her report was flimsy, however she was able to seek damages for breach of copyright because she had not authorised the re- publication of her profile on Maudling. Astor was firmly behind Beloff, gave evidence in court, and had even assigned the rights of her work entirely over to her, as it was technically property of her employers.
The case lasted eight days; Paul was present at all alongside once again his colleague and good friend Richard Ingrams. The verdict landed heavily in favour of Private Eye magazine, Mr Justice Ungoed- Thomas addressed Mr Ingrams and Mr Foot and asserted that their findings and reporting was “sincere and truthful” and added that “There was nothing devious or muffled about them…” and that they had been “excellent witnesses.’(11, pg.61) This was a landslide victory and a credit to the investigative work that was being carried out by Paul Foot and the other journalists on Private Eye magazine. Foot had exposed a crooked edge to a leading politician whom was then subsequently forced to resign in 1972 over the allegations.[12]
A further case involving Paul came when business tycoon James Goldsmith launched a substantial libel suit against Private Eye in 1975. At this point Paul was not directly involved with Private Eye; he left in 1972 to join Socialist Worker, a publication he would later go on to edit. However, this did not stop Goldsmith highlighting Paul Foot as one of his main targets. James Goldsmith’s legal representatives brought almost sixty libel writs against Private Eye, which had serious potential to bankrupt the magazine and editor at the time Richard Ingrams also faced the threat of imprisonment.[13]
The majority of these writs were on the basis that the magazine had tried to ‘vilify him and connect him with Lord Lucan who was wanted for questioning in a murder investigation.’[14]
This forced Private Eye to take the decision, largely against their editorial policy, to ‘withdraw the allegations and publicly apologise to him.’
At least by now it was all to clear the instant effect an investigating journalist, especially one of Pauls aptitude can have on a senior individual should they plot his downfall. Foot was to be unrestrainedly committed in his campaign to suppress the corrupt, ‘Paul Foot would have gone to jail to assert his right to protect the public against the powerful.’[15] This was the most reoccurring theme in the many obituaries that followed Paul’s death the Guardian wrote ‘In a world where allegiances, principles, prejudices and beliefs change with easy cynicism. Paul Foot was a steadfast beacon of integrity…he was a spirit fierce who stood against the vested interests of the corrupt, the power hungry, the liars, cheats, hypocrites and shysters.’ His ever present threat was also recognised referring to Paul as having the ‘devastating pen’ which brought about a ‘healthy and permanent distrust of politicians of any party.’ (10)
As I have previously mentioned, Paul did not only have the intentions of seeking justice for those who have done wrong, but also had considerable success in ensuring freedom for those he felt had been wrongly or unfairly punished. In (Preston 1999:3) Foot is on record to have said he feels ‘revulsion at the notion of people being locked up for something they did not do, and the obvious injustice done to them as individuals.’ Foot then asserts what he feels as his and any other investigative journalists’ duty: ‘It is the responsibility of the individual journalist to find the truth. There are things always to be discovered never believe anything until it is officially denied; there is another story which is normally more accurate.’[16]
Foot was ardently true to his word as Roy Greenslade demonstrates “There are more people walking the streets of Britain who have been freed from prison by Paul Foot than by any other person.”[17] Included in these are the Birmingham six, Hugh Callaghan, Patrick Joseph Hill, Gerard Hunter, Richard McIlkenny, William Power and John Walker, who were all sentenced to life on the 15th August 1975 after being convicted of being responsible for the Birmingham pub bombings in November of the previous year.
Paul instantly began campaigning for their release confindent he could expose what he called a ‘blatant injustice of the British legal system.’[18] Paul campaigned relentlessly until eventually, after having two appeals tuned down previously in 1876 and 1988, the six men had their convictions overturned by Lord Gifford QC in 1991, where it emerged, as reiterated tirelessly by Foot that forensic results ‘was wrong, and demonstrably wrong, judged even by the state of forensic science in 1974’[19]
Paul went on to have a similar success in 1997, when four men, known as ‘the Bridgewater four’ where finally cleared of the murder of teenager Carl Bridgewater, eighteen years after they were originally found guilty and imprisoned. This was a rather lengthy campaign, but against the will of others, one that Paul was never about to dispand. As Nick Cohen recognised in his article in the Observer july 2004: ‘Foot’s campaign to free the four men falsely convicted of the murder of Carl Bridgewater was the result of a relentless exposure of the flaws in the prosecution case… He banged on until four broken men finally received a belated sliver of justice.’[20]
However what is unavoidable when studying the career of Paul is that ‘Beyond his obvious triumphs, Foot sometimes got it terribly wrong.’(3) Unfortunately for Paul one of his biggest mistakes involved a case named the ‘Hanratty affair’, that he followed relentlessly for some thirty four years.
The case referred to the hangling of James Hanratty in 1962 after he was found guilty of killing scientist Michael Gresgten and raping and shooting his mistress Valerie Storie. Foot’s interest did not start untill 1966, Foot campaigned until his pressures finally resulted in the case being reopened in 2000 and Hanratty’s body was exhumed. Disastorously for Paul and his tireless efforts new DNA evidence meant that Hanratty’s ‘guilt was proved beyond doubt.’[21]
Remarkably, perhaps demonstrating his sheer determination and self belief, after the fresh DNA evidence ‘Paul Foot is reluctant to concede defeat’ despite the fact that the ‘DNA evidence…has a one-in-a-billion chance of being wrong.’[22] In 2002, two years after the fresh evidence Paul Foot still wrote in his Guardian column that ‘The hanged man’s alibi is still solid, and vital questions remain unanswered.’[23] This despite Foot facing much criticism for his campaign work regarding the case and that his work was now ‘Year in, year out… becoming a bit of a bore.’(20)
Foot often aroused controversy not only because of the content, and the extent of what he wrote, but often, as with the Hanratty case his personal belief where so solid that he was never to avoid controversy. This goes aswel for his behaviour within the work place. I have already mentioned his decision to leave a lucrative Sunday Telegraph post to write on Private Eye full- time because it offered him ‘complete freedom’ to write what he liked.(11) Until 1993 Foot had written a weekly column in the Daily Mirror for almost 14 years untill the frustration of limitation on what he can write got the better of him. Foot had carried out an investigation into the bloodletting of Mirror chief executive David Montgomery after Robert Maxwell’s death. Unsurprisingly perhaps, Foot’s editor, David Banks, refused to publish. So determined to get his finsdings known Foot himself took to the streets himself and handed out copies of his story to the passing public. Naturally this did not go down well on numerous fronts and Foot was fired.
Foot’s style was unique for a journalist, Paul was proud to assert that he worked entirely with what he felt he could demonstrate as “the facts” and because of this he was keen to reject any suggestion that all journalism should be impartial. As (De Burgh 2000:77) suggests, ‘Paul Foot who was more interested in facts – unvarnished, unassailable, unalterable – rather than arcane discussion on the objectivity/ subjectivity conundrum.’(16) Because he was so open with this view this attracted much criticism leading to some critics to disregard his work as valid journalism, as Roy Greenslade explains: ‘there are plenty of media theorists who do not have much time for the kind of journalism practised by Foot because it was unashamedly partisan and passionate. He did not try to be objective or balanced. His polemics were laced with sarcasm.’ Paul never tried to hide his blatant bias, Greenslade states further ‘He did not conceal his political agenda, usually choosing to take up cases which matched his views.’[24]
Indeed he took his campaigning to his grave involved with Private Eye until only a few months prior to his death. The end to Paul’s career it was feared was going to end much sooner, when in 1999 he had a serious health scare when he suffered a heart failure (thoracic aortic aneurysm.) Paul’s family was warned to expect the worst, and should Paul make it through he would do so only in a vegetative state. However true to such a remarkable character Foot survived and incredibly returned to work at Private Eye magazine later the same year. Bryon Rostron recalls how after his first health scare Foot was ‘confined to walking with two sticks…But his enthusiasm and brain were undimmed and, in spite of his disability, he remained entirely without self- pity…’(8)
Infact it know commonly argued that the death of Paul Foot in July 2004 brought forth also the death of real investigative journalism in the British press. This it cannot be said is merely down to the loss of Paul as a remarkable individual, but paul certainly was a representative of the era when this craft was at its strongest, ‘Foot’s working life spanned what can now be seen as a golden age for investigative and campaigning journalism, before greedy proprietors and their cost-cutting accountants killed it off.’(15)
It is undeniable that finance and budgets are a key factor in the apparent decline of this form of journalism, as Colin Meek warns ‘…newspaper editors are cutting costs and investigative units are often the first to suffer.’ [25] This is supported by a survey carried out by students at Arizona State University in which they concluded ‘. “Unfortunately, the media corporations aren’t giving the time and resources that they did 20 and 25 years ago.”[26]
Meek also asserts that the rising legal restraints and threats are hampering and attempts to redeem the profession, ‘investigative journalists in the UK are suffering from a lack of resources, hostility and sometimes danger. He said that too often there was a very thin line between success and a crippling lawsuit.’(25)
It is difficult, if not; impossible to compare Paul Foot to a current day investigative journalist because in the manner that Paul operated they no longer exist. Paul’s campaigns came from a heartfelt ‘…decent sensitivity to the oppression of the underdogs in society, they less fortunate.’(16) Relentless it was, and his persistence was a source of much of his criticism, although for many Foot’s unique style never grew tired. As Bryon Rostron asserts ‘…his words roar off the page, energising and fresh but above all as ferociously passionate and spot on as the day he wrote them…’ This probably explains how he sustained – often against the odds – such an
epic and courageous journalistic output.’[27]
[1] Geoffrey Goodman, British Journalism Review 2000 Foot? At the door. (http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2000/no4_goodman2.htm)
[2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/20/db2001.xml&page=1
[4] My Friend Footy, Richard Ingrams, Private Eye Productions, (2005)
[5] Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 141, No. 4, December 1997, (pgs. 467-470)
[6] Marcus Strom: Weekly Worker Online, Issue 538 July 2004: www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/538
[7] Obituary: Paul Foot: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3906833.stm
[8]Bryan Rostron, British Journalism review, 2004: http://www.bjr.org.uk/data/2004/no3
[9] Geoffrey Goodman, British Journalism Review 2000 Foot? At the door
[10] Richard Stott, Guardian Obituaries July 2004: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2004/jul/20/
[11] Richard Ingrams, My Friend Footy, Private Eye Productions Ltd, 2005.(Pg.49)
[12] Maudling’s Fall, Time Magazine, July 1972: www.time.com/time/magazine
[13] Richard Ingrams, Goldenballs, Harriman House Publishing, 1993.
[14] Peter Mason et al. Magazine Law: A Practical Guide, Routledge, 1998, (pg. 16)
[15] Phillip, Knightley, A Great Reporter is Dead, Independent, 25th July 2004.
[16] (Preston 1999:3) from: Investigative Journalism, ed. by Hugo de Burgh, Routledge, 2000. (pg21)
[17] Roy Greenslade in, the Daily Telegraph, Article: Paul Foot, 19th July 2004.
[18] Paul Foot Biography, Marxists Internet Archive 2000: http://www.marxists.org/archive/foot
[19] Miscarriages of Justice Organisation: http://www.portia.org/chapter10/bmpub.html
[20] Nick Cohen, The Epistles of St Paul, the Observer, July 2004: www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2004/jul
[21] Roger Lewis, The case of James Hanratty: www.agrippina.deakin.edu.au/bcs_courses/forensic
[22] Neil Clark, Hanratty deserved to die, November 2002: www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/680993
[23] Paul Foot, Hanratty’s appeal is over, but justice is yet to be done, The Guardian, 13th May 2002.
[24] Roy Greenslade, A fond farewell: The feats of Paul Foot, The Guardian, 26th July 2004.
[25] Colin Meek, May 2005: www.the-latest.com/investigative-journalism-behind-enemy-lines
[26] Chelsea Ide, Arizona State university, May 2006: www.azcentral.com/specials/special01/0528
[27] Bryon Rostron, A Star is Born, 2004: http://bjr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/15/3/
