Taking back Cruise control

Piers Morgan has tired of the "tabloid celebrity circus". Post 11 September, he has realised that Mirror readers want serious news, comment and analysis - which means that celebrities are no longer an editor's best friend.

As if to prove it, last week Morgan declared that stars' PRs will no longer decide what goes into his paper. In an e-mail to staff, he spelled out a tough, new policy: "I have decided to end the era of offering copy-approval to celebrities for interviews. In future we offer no 'approval' for anything - words, pix or headlines. If that means we lose the 'approved' inter-view, c'est la vie."

As Des Kelly, his deputy editor, explains: "If a newspaper like The Mirror can discuss world events with political leaders or military chiefs without any hindrance, it's a bit preposterous to find some B-list soap actor demanding picture, copy and headline approval. Anyway, I shouldn't think it'll cause too many problems. Real stars tend to be confident enough to deal with the media in a professional manner without desperately demanding sickly puff pieces."

The growing power of the celebrity publicist is not a new concern among editors. In a speech last May, Phil Hall of Hello! warned that their increasing Hollywood-style demands - both financial and editorial - amounted to "an attack on press freedom".

By common consent, Freud Communications (representing Geri Halliwell and Martine McCutcheon) and the Outside Organisation (David Beckham and David Bowie) are among the most demanding gatekeepers.

"People are sick and tired of colourless, limping celebrity interviews; the bubble is about to burst," says Mark Borkowski, the London publicist whose clients include Graham Norton. Borkowski welcomes The Mirror's stance as "a call to arms" to cull the minor celebrities. "Piers got it right: it's time some of these egos were pricked," he says.

Borkowski warns his industry that blatant attempts at manipulation are counterproductive, and that anodyne press will diminish a star's news value.

"PRs tend to forget who holds the power: it's the editors. Though it's interesting that Piers admits The Mirror has given copy approval in the past. That's the first bargaining ploy gone."

Henry Porter, UK editor of Vanity Fair, believes Morgan has correctly identified a diminished appetite for celebrity "fluff " since 11 September: "There's a new seriousness. We're not going to return to the foaming-at-the-mouth attention The Mirror once paid to David Beckham." Porter says that Vanity Fair will also not grant publicists copy approval. "We would never concede such a big point," he insists. "It's amazing that Piers Morgan has done so in the past."

Some editors are happy to have a publicist check the copy. At OK! magazine, deputy editor Jim Maloney says it can prove "a big help" in weeding out errors. Phil Hall estimates that around 10 per cent of the contracts he signs at Hello! contain "stipulations - such as demands for accuracy and openness".

Interview approval does not worry him. "Frankly, I'm happy to let them read the copy," he says. "We want to get the story absolutely right, and unfortunately when you research from cuttings, it's easy to pick up something that's wrong." Hall's real problem is publicists who try to control how pictures are used. They were happy enough to co-operate when their stars were small: but once they attain a certain fame, they want to pick and choose where they appear."

Meanwhile, this week's spat concerns Gwyneth Paltrow, who has let known her concern that Harper's Bazaar printed a revealing nude shot by Patrick Demarchelier, even though "he said he wasn't going to put my whole bottom in the picture".

"If publicists want to block your piece, they'll do it by refusing pictures," says Ian Freer, features editor of Empire magazine.

Certainly the biggest PRs care more about images than words. Pat Kingsley, queen of the Hollywood PRs, famously noted: "Good reporting and good writing don't help my client. People don't read. The text doesn't matter."

Kingsley's firm, PMK (representing Tom Cruise and Matt Damon), epitomises the "control-freakery" that some fear is now being emulated by some British PRs. During promotions for Eyes Wide Shut, for instance, PMK made US television networks agree that Cruise interviews could not be edited, that he would not be presented "in a negative or derogatory manner", and that unused footage must be destroyed and "evidence of such destruction" given to PMK. Earlier this year, when PMK took over the rival Huvane Baum Halls (publicist for Gwyneth Paltrow and Russell Crowe), the New York Post complained that Kingsley would increasingly dictate who wrote what: "A question about Tom Cruise's divorce could get a reporter blacklisted from other stars," the paper warned.

Faced with such restrictions, British editors - even Morgan - may have to play Hollywood's game if they want access to the A-list. Christopher

Goodwin, a Los Angeles-based freelance, points out that access frequently depends on a journalist's cuttings.

Searingly honest profiles are thus unwise career moves. "It is a delicate dance," he admits. "You often have to skirt the edge of truth. Everybody knows what the game is apart from the readers."