MEDIA STUDIES
The future of Paxo. Or, Newsnight becomes Newslite
STEPHEN GLOVER
Jeremy Paxman, the Newsnight presenter who has become something of a national institution, despised and admired in equal measure, has begun a four-month sabbatical to write a book about Englishness. There are those who say he won't be coming back. Mr Paxman is not one of them. He is quot- ed in a trade magazine as saying that as far as he is aware he hasn't got the sack.
But has he? The evidence is circumstan- tial. In the first place he let slip some slight- ly disobliging things about John Birt, direc- tor-general of the BBC, in a New Statesman interview on 4 April. He said he had a 'non- relationship' with Mr Birt. During the elec- tion campaign he wrote an article in the Sunday Telegraph magazine in which he expressed robust opinions about politicians in a way not normally expected of promi- nent BBC figures. This went down worse with some senior BBC executives than had his comments about the DG.
Then there were the remarks of Peter Horrocks, editor of Newsnight, to a media magazine at the end of March. Mr Hor- rocks said that the programme would soon have more cultural items and 'more verve and humour'. It would be 'lighter, with not so much of a night-time feel'. The plan was to dispose of 'a big confrontational desk'. Mr Paxman would be retained within the programme's new format, but he would be doing more than 'just rottweiler interviews'. This did not sound altogether supportive.
And so the idea has grown that Mr Pax- man's book on Englishness may be the first of a long series, with luck suitably lucrative for one who used to derive his income from television. (Incidentally, can you think of anybody less likely to celebrate the finer points of Englishness than Paxo?) He is seen by some supporters as Mr Birt's latest scalp — a man too iconoclastic for these quiet, consensual times. Perhaps he would be better suited to newspapers. Indeed, it is said that Mr Paxman sometimes dreams of becoming an editor, if only an editorial chair at one of our great liberal newspapers could be found for him.
My enquiries suggest, however, that he is probably not for the chop, and will return to Newsnight in October — unless a better offer should interpose itself. This is good news for Mr Paxman's fans, amongst whom I generally number myself. The real story does not so much concern him as Newsnight, and the whole of the BBC's news output. In common with other pro- grammes, Newsnight has been subject to budget cuts of up to 30 per cent so that money can be found for a digital 24-hour news channel, a pet project of Mr Birt and a BBC apparatchik called Tony Hall, direc- tor of news and current affairs.
When Mr Horrocks spoke enthusiastical- ly of getting rid of the confrontational desk, he may have been making a virtue out of necessity. One consequence of the new financial stringencies is that Newsnight has been forced — the change took place some three weeks ago — to share a studio, and presumably a non-confrontational desk, with other programmes such as Breakfast News and Newsround. Changes in lighting and sets are restricted between these pro- grammes, so that, according to some experts, Newsnight has acquired a slightly amateurish air.
Much more important, however, are the effects of budgetary cutbacks on the pro- gramme's content. It is going to become more chatty and conversational largely because there will be less money to spend on outside filming and reportage. When Mr Horrocks said Newsnight would be 'lighter with not so much of a night-time feel', he was reflecting financial realities. The pro- gramme will inevitably be less 'newsy'. Mr Paxman's studio skills are therefore likely to be in greater demand than ever. A new `star face' will probably keep him company, and one or two of the older presenters may be less in evidence. Paxo is safe, though Newsnight may not be.
The Tory leadership campaign poses a considerable challenge to my most deeply cherished political theory. Loyal readers may recall its gist. In the television age no %Eddie' is likely to become leader in Britain or America. (Alec Douglas-Home was our last bald PM.) In modern France, by con- trast, baldness is virtually a prerequisite for `It'll soon be a minortiy audience and Melyvn Bragg can present it.' high political office: Chirac, Juppe, Fabius, Giscard d'Estaing, Pompidou, Mitterrand, de Gaulle — the list is almost endless. I am happy to say that the new Socialist prime minister, Lionel Jospin, is definitely thin- ning on top, though not perhaps as much as I would like him to be for the sake of my theory.
Alas, Michael Howard is balding, while Peter Lilley does not carry a forest on his head. In truth Mr Howard is not very bald, though no one can claim that he has flowing locks, and Mr Lilley retains a respectable covering. William Hague, however, has a spectacularly hairless pate, and the advanc- ing years will quickly scythe down his few remaining wisps. Some will say that bald- ness is an advantage, giving the impression that he is older than he is. I doubt it: Tony Blair looks about 19, and he hasn't done too badly. All other considerations aside and there are admittedly many — my firm advice is that the Tories would be taking a grave risk if they elected a man who is an egghead in more senses than one.
The all-singing, all-dancing Observer styles itself 'the paper for the new era'. It is becoming the on dit that, along with its daily sister, the Guardian, it is riding high in the slipstream of Blairism. Its front page on Sunday boasted that the paper's sales had increased by 5.93 per cent in May to 480,426, the highest figure for nearly two years. Will Hutton, the editor, has spoken grandiloquently of seizing the mood.
I don't want to ruin the party, but nearly all the broadsheets had a circulation boost after the election. The sales of most of them have returned to pre-election levels. Estimates put the Observer's circulation last Sunday at 445,000. This is not to say that the paper may not in time benefit from its championing of 'the new era'. We will see. It just hasn't happened yet. Interestingly, the readership of its main rival, the gener- ally ignored Independent on Sunday, has risen by some 15 per cent over the past three months.
Last week the omission of a word in my item about Punch made a nonsense of what I had intended to say. The passage should have read, 'Punch is now about as far as it is possible to be from the original vision of its proprietor, Mohamed Al Fayed.'
Previous page
