PROPRIETORIAL PROPRIETIES
The press: Paul Johnson on Murdoch and Maxwell's other interests
THE correct relationship between a news- paper owner and those responsible for the editorial policy of his paper is difficult to define, and I don't propose to do it on this occasion. But one thing is certain: it is improper for the owner to use the editorial columns of his paper to advance his other business interests. The charge, I recollect, was made against Rupert Murdoch in America in 1980, when he was accused of giving Jimmy Carter editorial support in return for White House favours on behalf of Ansett, the Australian airline in which Murdoch has an interest. The charge was a pretty wild one and was soon seen to be baseless. Murdoch, despite what some people say, actually behaves well towards his papers, because he loves journalism and even, God help him, journalists. He lets his editors do what they think fit. If he thinks they are completely wrongheaded or a commercial disaster, he sacks them. If he disagrees with the whole ethos of a publica- tion, he sells it, as he has just done with the Village Voice of New York, characteristi- cally making a handsome profit in the process.
On 29 January this year, in a speech to the TV and Radio Industries Club, Alas- dair Milne, Director-General of the BBC, raised the Murdocli bogey again, claiming in effect that the Times was attacking the BBC for its owner's commercial benefit. 'Who is the more likely,' he asked, 'to serve the public interest, the BBC or the Times, whose recommendations, if acted upon, would have the practical effect of enabling its owner, Rupert Murdoch, to acquire some of the most valuable broad- casting acton in the UK?' Milne then went on about 'unrestrained self-interest' and 'fortune seekers' — the usual BBC anti- business claptrap. I always laugh when the BBC goes on about serving the public interest. So far as I can see, it serves no one's interest nowadays except the people who work for it and the political causes the more cunning and influential among them support. And it charges us £58 per family for not serving our interests. However that may be, the Times was not taking Milne's nasty innuendo lying down, for if the smear were true, its editor, Charles Douglas- Home, would have violated the paper's Articles of Association and assurances given to Parliament.
So Douglas-Home asked the six inde- pendent national directors of Times News- papers Holdings Limited to carry out an investigation. They did so, and wrote to Milne demanding his evidence. He had none. Following a meeting with Douglas- Home, Milne replied: 'I do not of course have the concrete evidence for which you ask because I do not work for the Times. The inference I drew from the paper's behaviour over the BBC seemed a reason- able one, and . . . I was not alone in drawing it. But the editor's explanation was sufficient to lay my fears to rest.' A rather pathetic pseudo-apology you might think; as Milne had no evidence for his damaging accusation, he was lucky Douglas-Home did not set Messrs Sue, Grabbit & Runne on him. In the circum- stances Milne was ungracious not to pro- vide a decent apology; in a sense his letter reiterates the smear, because it implies that if Milne had worked for the Times he would have possessed 'concrete evidence' to prove Douglas-Home's guilt. But let it pass: the episode reflects not on the way the Times functions but on the way the BBC is run these days. Milne and other members of the BBC establishment must 'An occasion when one wishes that the Sheites had hit the fan.' get it into their heads that people do not need sordid commercial motives to de- mand a fundamental reform of the Cor- poration, or indeed its outright abolition. The articles carried by the Times express the views not only of its editor but of a very large number of British people.
Now let us turn to what, prima facie, looks more like a genuine case of improper proprietorial interference. Robert Max- well, like Rupert Murdoch, is a newspaper owner with wide business interests outside Fleet Street, chiefly through his big print- ing works and his own Pergamon Press, which does a lot of trade behind the Iron Curtain. When he bought the Mirror Group I welcomed the deal, hoping he would run that bedraggled empire on sounder business lines, and in particular would sort out its over-greedy employees and their Old Spanish Customs. He has done something in this direction, but not much. The tale at Holborn Circus is that, while the papers are meeting their edition- times now — as Maxwell loudly boasts — the print workers are still on top in everything that really matters. Perhaps Maxwell is waiting for the arrival of Eddie Shah's devastating new daily to transfer all the Mirror Group's printing from the Fleet Street area. It will surely come to that in the end.
In the meantime, Maxwell's constant interference in editorial matters is demora- lising Mirror group staffs, damaging the papers and, not least, turning Maxwell himself into a figure of comedy. But his latest antic has a sinister side. A month ago, on a visit to Poland to arrange for a Pergamon biography of General Jaruzelski, the Polish dictator, Maxwell is reported to have said a lot of unwise things in praise of the regime and in disparage- ment of the banned union, Solidarity. That was bad enough, but within his rights. He then went on to say — so it is alleged — that readers of the Mirror would be hear- ing less about Solidarity in future.
Mike Molloy, the editor of the Mirror, claimed last week that Maxwell had not discussed with him the issue of the Mirror's coverage of Solidarity. Well: we shall see what happens. I like Maxwell. He is what I call an honest rogue. I have no doubt that he genuinely believes what he says about Solidarity and that he is not just trying to curry favour with the Polish authorities in order to promote his business interests.
But a newspaper owner who also does a lot of ultra-curtain trade ought to go out of his way to make it clear beyond peradventure, as Lord Goodman would say, that he has nothing to do with the editorial coverage by his papers of that area. Maxwell appears to have done the opposite, and that could be disastrous for the Mirror. I look to Bob Edwards, the group's editorial director, to clear up this mess in a way which allays public anxiety. The Mirror is not in good shape at present; and if it is seen to be the mere vehicle of its proprietor's views and interests, it sales could go the way of the Belgrano.
Previous page
