Astor's whistle
THE PRESS BILL GRUNDY
Editors are discourteous, arrogant, and igno- rant. That's what the man said, the man in question being, of course, Mr Gavin Astor. The occasion of this discourteous, arrogant, and ignorant outburst was the opening of the Commonwealth Press liaison conference on I July. Mr Astor is chairman of the CPU, you will be perhaps surprised to learn, and presi- dent of Times Newspapers Ltd. He went on to suggest to his hearers that they could not but agree that editors have 'a surprisingly warped sense of values.'
Now what had caused this rush of blood to the Astor brain? Simply that papers hadn't reported a boring old speech made on 27 June by Sir Robert Menzies to the English Speaking Union; or at any rate Mr Astor could only and one reference to it 'and I am sorry to say that this was not in any one of the national newspapers which claim to be newspapers of record.' Mr Astor ought to have realised that any speech by Sir Robert was certain to be reported in the Beaverbrook papers at least, and indeed it was, as the Express was quick o point out, with its own little dig at 'news- apers of record' for ignoring it. The Times, n reporting Mr Astor's attack at length- lfter all he is their president—apologised in a hilariously abject paragraph: 'The Times did of carry a report of Sir Robert's remarks but n an item on the Court and Social page on 8 June it was stated that he and Lord Avon ad spoken at the dinner the previous vening.'
Mr Astor got his come-uppance from various uarters. The best was probably the one from r W. G. Ridd, director of the Newspaper ociety, in a letter to The Times. It ended: I am second to none in my regard for Sir obert Menzies. But many prominent people ave spoken in recent times in much the same sense as Sir Robert was speaking at the dinner last week and it might help editors if Mr Astor would say what was new in Sir Robert's speech —what was the news in what he said.' We're all still waiting to hear.
It was a hot day in London as Mr Astor made his speech. That seems relevant, as the most charitable explanation of another extra- ordinary remark he made. Editors are not infallible, he said, which is something even most editors would agree with. Therefore, from time to time, they must be brought to heel. And who's the man with the dog whistle? The proprietor, or failing him, 'some superior indi- vidual' who 'should be in a position to rebuke them.'
Now this seems to me utter rubbish. Pro- prietors don't have to have a sound news judg- ment. Editors do: it's their job. The best thing proprietors, or publishers, or even chairmen can do is get on with their own job—running the business efficiently—and leave the editors to get on with theirs. And if the proprietor/ publisher/chairman is continually in disagree- ment with the editor, the best thing they can do is part company, though this, as Mr Cecil King recently learnt to his cost, doesn't neces- sarily mean that it's the editor who goes.
The ideal situation, of course, is one where the P/P/c and the editor are usually in broad agreement, and where the P/P/c has some news sense too. This happy state of affairs, so I am given to understand, obtains at the Daily Express, where Sir Max Aitken and Mr Derek Marks are almost one flesh (a sort of Sir Marks Aitken), which means that the independence Mr Marks exercises does not pain Sir Max and the causes Sir Max espouses bring no extra flush to the face of Mr Marks. Indeed. so admirably sympathetic is the atmosphere that even independent columnists like Mr Robert Pitman quickly take on the surround- ing coloration, for all the world like a mental chameleon.
But Daily Expresses are few and far be- tween, and failing such initiative understand- ing the best alternative is a proprietor along the lines of Lord Thomson (present in Mr Astor's audience, by the way) whose declared refusal to indulge in editorial interference leaves him free to go on making a fast buck or two, to the delight of all and the chagrin of none.
The essential thing, whichever way it is achieved, is that the editor be left alone. It doesn't matter what his prejudices or his hobby horses are; he must be free to air them or to ride them. At the most he will only affect one newspaper. But a proprietor, with maybe hundreds of papers in his chain, is a dangerous animal, a highly dangerous animal, if he starts to interfere with editorial freedom.
There is no doubt what sort of boss news- papermen prefer working for. At a press con- ference immediately after Mr Astor's speech. Mr Tom Hopkinson, the editor of the Birmingham Post, said: 'Speaking as a journalist-employee, the sort of proprietor most journalists want to work for is a pub- lisher. A man who has an eye not only for the commercial side, but will allow them to pro- duce a good newspaper. Who will give them enough money and newsprint. Given that sort of man all the other problems cease to exist.'
Mr Astor himself said at the CPU conference that it is because he is no longer a newspaper owner that he felt uninhibited about speaking out on editorial control. It's a curious reason, and it's a sad thought that, in the short period since he stopped owning The Times and be- came merely its president, Mr Astor appears to have forgotten that there is really only one fundamental rule for a healthy press. And that is: the editor's decision is, or should be, final.
Previous page
