RAINING PAPERS ON SUNDAY
a critical look at an overcrowded market
THE big lie being spread about Britain that the freedom of its media has been eroded over the past decade, gets a further knock this weekend when another national quality, the Sunday Correspondent, tries its luck. Such a gamble, risky even after the Thatcher–Wapping revolution, would have been impossible back in the 1970s, when the print unions ruled, the industry was contracting, papers often failed to appear at all or operated self-censorship to comply With the wishes of Imperial Fathers. In those days editors and managers could not even increase pagination or change the front-page design without long, costly negotiations with the chapels. Today, by contrast, the industry is more innovative than at any time since the early Northcliffe era. The only limitations on expansion are basic market forces: reader-appeal, buoyancy of advertising and the readiness of investors to put their money in.
The appearance of the Correspondent shows that investor confidence remains strong. Earlier this year most pundits would have given odds against its birth. Those who have created the paper have shown great fortitude and endurance. I congratulate them with all my heart and wish their paper long life. The times, however, are not propitious. There are signs that the post–Wapping euphoria, when national newspapers were suddenly among the best businesses in the country, is over. Profits are still substantial, even rising in some cases, but high interest rates and the collapse of the retail boom has hit advertising. Many believe that the dire effects of the Government's deflationary policies are only beginning. The downturn has already produced two significant casualties: the disappearance of the Daily Mail and Daily Express colour mags.
Circulations are less sensitive to econo- mic changes but the present one may do damage especially, as it happens, to the quality Sunday market. Last year's trend to Sabbatise Saturday and gorge the educated public with mags, reviews, travel and similar stuff at the beginning of the weekend left many readers with little stomach for more of the same twenty-four hours later. With heavy Sundays costing 60p or 50p a go, the old middle-class habit of taking two or more began to seem foolish, especially as countless pages, in- cluding whole sections, remained unread. And where, in today's tiny houses, does one put the discarded inch-thick bundles which pile up relentlessly? So the quality Sunday market has gone soft, with not only the weaker Observer and Sunday Tele- graph affected, but even the Sunday Times. The mid-market Mail on Sunday is still doing reasonably well but its competi- tor, the Sunday Express, is in dire straits. The strategy of its new editor, from the Sunday Times, is to edge it up the market, thus making the quality field look still more crowded.
Into this gloomy scene the Cbrrespon- dent now intrudes. Its best hope lies in the weaknesses of the existing titles. The Sun- day Times, which ought to be carrying all before it, has only a part-time editor, since Andrew Neil is still devoting much of his time and nervous energy to the Sky license- to-lose-money. It still has some good re- porting, achieving a notable scoop last weekend with its story of Mrs Thatcher's ban on the sex-inquiry, but it bears one unmistakable hallmark of an under-edited paper: a superfluity of lacklustre col- umnists, each feebly shouting at each other.
The Sunday Telegraph is even more incoherent. It, too, lacks a proper editor. Or rather, in a sense, it has two, since its one-time leader, Peregrine Worsthorne, still presides Lear-like over a few pages in He was trying to bring me the Sunday papers' the middle, while Max Hastings is theoreti- cally in charge of the rest. Naturally, this absurd arrangement is not working, and the paper's once-powerful editorial perso- nality — the most precious asset of any journal — is disappearing fast.
It is difficult to think of anything more out of character than the Sunday Tele- graph's current serialisation of the pro- Modernist views of the RIBA president — pure Observer or Guardian stuff — rightly deplored by the paper's own excellent art critic, Peter Fuller. In compensation for the damage to the paper's persona, the Sunday was supposed to get the backup of the daily's superb news coverage. But this does not seem to be happening. As many of us warned at the time, the seven-day paper is not a viable concept in the highly competitive London market. The Tele- graph management should obey the old military principle, 'Never reinforce fai- lure', scrap the idea, and give the Sunday back its independence.
The troubles of the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph have been gratefully noted on the Observer, serving as they do to divert attention from its own, which are really more serious. The Observer, too, has a brace of editors, Donald Trelford and the formidable Tiny Rowland. The latter nor- mally takes a hand only when his own interests are sur le tapis but when this happens Mr Trelford usually allows himself to be persuaded by what Marxists call the ineluctable logic of the situation. As a result morale is not much better than on the Sunday Telegraph — worse in some ways — and it has been losing good people. To meet the new competition it has in- dulged in a design and typographical face- lift which has had the curious effect of lightening the page, as if a coat of whitewash has been applied. It also fea- tures mugshots of contributors, which serves to draw attention to the fact that they are not as distinguished as in the past.
The Observer will have to meet the brunt of the Correspondent's competition, just as the Guardian had to bear the Indepen- dent's. The latter now says it will launch its own quality Sunday in January. Needless to say it is not making the mistake of planning a seven-day paper. No doubt the calculation is that, by the New Year, the Correspondent will have run out of money. My judgment is that the race is very much open. Readers are highly critical of the Sunday qualities in their present state. The glittering prizes, such as they are, will go to the paper which puts first things first. These are a strong, secure editor who gives the paper a distinct personality by running a team of good writers with sharp noses for news.
Previous page
