Notebook
Iwonder whether modern journalists, with their large salaries and fat expense accounts, fully appreciate their good for- tune. Over Christmas I was examining my father's first contract of employment with Reuters news agency. He joined Reuters in 1930 on a salary of £300 a year. His con- tract, terminable by one month's notice on either side, listed various activities for which the punishment was 'instant dismissal.' These included 'any trading or commercial operation' or any form of financial speculation other than 'bona fide investments'. There was also a catch-all clause promising 'instant dismissal' for 'any case of misconduct, breach of trust, or other offence considered by Reuters of suf- ficient gravity'. But perhaps the most strik- ing restriction on the freedom of the employee was the last clause of all. This read: 'In the event of an Officer [as a Reuters employee was then called] marrying without Reuters' consent on what Reuters may deem insufficient means, Reuters shall have the right to determine his employment and service, by giving to the Officer one month's notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice'. Fortunately my father was by then already married.
The deaths over Christmas of two out-
standing journalists, Patrick O'Donovan and Mark Arnold-Foster, cast a shadow over the festivities. It reminded me of the fact that journalists tend to die young (both were in their early sixties). Journalists are therefore bad insurance risks. They tend to drink too much, of course. This is a habit acquired from having to hang around and wait for things to hap- pen and from a tendency to do the waiting in bars, for want of anywhere else to do it in. If many smoke too much as well, this is not surprising, given the strain of writing under pressure and of the duty of the cons- cientious reporter to engage in constant, frequently disagreeable contact with strangers. Before the season of good will draws to a close and popular hatred of the `media' is once again given voice, shed a small tear for the unfortunate hack.
Ifyou feel you may have drunk too much over Christmas, do not despair. There is now an organisation seeking to put alcohol addiction to good use. It is called 'Peace through Alcohol' and, from an address in Liverpool, it has been circulating Members of Parliament with its ideas. 'Peace through Alcohol' suggests that the cheapest and most effective way of dealing with the Soviet threat is not the nuclear deterrent but
the saturation of all Russian positions with sufficient vodka to ensure that all ranks become totally inebriated'. It argues that, unlike Scotsmen, Russians are less dangerous when drunk, and proposes that supplies of vodka should be parachuted in- to trouble spots like Afghanistan. Perhaps this is not a bad idea. The fondness of the Russians for alcohol is no myth. A few years ago it was reported in this journal that there were more than seven million registered alcoholics in the Soviet Union. The demand for vodka had exceeded the possibilities of supply, and eau de cologne was being used as a substitute. This, so our correspondent claimed, was the reason for an otherwise inexplicable growth of the Soviet scent industry. But I do not think it would be wise to adopt the 'Peace through Alcohol' solution in Poland, where the vodka would be just as likely to undermine the will of the oppressed as to incapacitate the oppressors.
The Pope, like President Reagan (though one hopes he had the idea independent- ly), is burning a candle in his window as a token of his solidarity with Solidarity. But that seems to be as far as he is prepared to go in his condemnation of the repression in Poland. The Times on Tuesday carried a disturbing report from Rome. The Vatican, it said, wanted Western Europe to 'pursue an independent and constructive course with General Jaruzeiski's military regime' and to be wary of 'the reserved and suspicious reaction in Washington'. Following a visit to Poland by the Pope's special envoy, Archbishop Poggi, the Vatican's view was that Jaruzelski might be more like Marshal Tito than a Moscow puppet and that it was not 'necessarily the wisest course' to see the hand of Russia behind the military takeover. One can understand the Vatican's eagerness to keep open the lines of communication between the Church and the Jaruzelski regime. But it should be concerned not only with what is `the wisest course' but with what is actually happening. The repression is real and nasty enough and its victims deserve the support of the Church to which they are so loyal. Furthermore, the view that the Russians are
behind the coup is shared with the Americans by the governments of Britain, France and Italy (even if the West Ger- mans, for reasons of their own self-interest, are reluctant to admit that they see things the same way). In the face of mounting evidence of terror in Poland, the Vatican will be guilty of a major betrayal if it tries for too long to portray the events there in such a cosy and ambiguous light.
Rather an interesting copy of The Times on Tuesday. Page one reports anger among shareholders in Lord Grade's Asso- ciated Communications Corporation about a £750,000 golden handshake to Mr Jack Gill, ACC's dismissed managing director, pointing out in the process that ACC lost £8 million in the six months to last September. Page 11 contains an article about a new £2 million television series — Muck and Brass, about local government corruption — to be launched this month by Central Indepen- dent Television, the Midlands company in which ACC holds 51 per cent of the shares (Central being the successor of ATV in which ACC held 100 per cent of the shares until it was told last year by the IBA to sell off 49 per cent of the franchise). And page 5 comprises an incomprehensible full-page advertisement, a blank page displaying a couple of invented press cuttings about a `white globe' being seen in the sky near Nottingham. These apparently meaningless `white globe' advertisements will be familiar to all readers of the 'quality' press over Christmas. They are part of a cam- paign costing an estimated £500,000. And they are, so it turns out, advertisements for Central Independent Television, whose symbol — as careful observers of page 11 of Tuesday's Times will have noticed — is a white globe. What a lot of money television companies have to spend, even the loss- making ACC! The advertising campaign is at least cheaper than Mr Gill's redundancy. But what is it all for? Why do commercial television companies have this urge to advertise in the 'quality' press rather than in the popular press, among whose readers most of their potential viewers are to be found? Why do they have this urgent need for prestige and respectability? I don't know; but however worrying this may be for the shareholders, it is jolly good for the `quality' press.
perhaps in the New Year we will be allowed a little rest from royalty. The constant re-showing on television of the Royal Wedding, the attempt in an ITV propaganda film to make Princess Anne appear worthy and interesting, the careful packaging of the Queen's Christmas broad- cast — all these things do not make us feel any worse about the Royal Family, but they do create an atmosphere of desperation, as if we depend on royalty to create a sense of national purpose. If this were the case, this would be a ridiculous country. All of us, the Royal Family included, deserve a bit of peace.
Alexander Chancellor
Previous page
