LETTERS Referee
Sir: I do not hesitate to intervene in a row which has broken out in your columns concerning the conduct of the Daily Tele- graph. I have a certain standing in this matter since until September last year I was for many years the Editor-in-Chief of the paper.
Mr Paul Johnson, an ex-columnist of the Telegraph, who writes in the style of the doyen of journalist peers, Lord Cudlipp, contends that a recent hiccup in its circula- tion is due to the 'vapid' direction of the Editor, Mr Max Hastings (who, may I say, I admire).
Mr Andrew Knight, the current Editor- In-Chief, who writes in the style of your valued contributor, Mr Alastair Forbes, Springs to Mr Hastings's defence and attri- butes the circulation loss (shared by its competitors) to a 20 per cent cover price rise in February.
So far, so fairly fair. But Mr Knight extends the time scale far beyond Mr Johnson's. He says that in a previous five years the circulation had fallen by the 'best part of 400,000'.
In fact the 'best part', some 200,000, was gained and then lost when the Times resumed publication after a year-long lock- out. The other lesser part was lost after a series of cover price hikes in a period of escalating costs which were not matched by the Times, whose increasing losses were funded by its stable companions, the Sun and the News of the World.
Gentlemen, please!
Hartwell
36 Broadway, London SW1
Previous page
