MEDIA STUDIES
I work for Lord Hollick, but I'll still dish the dirt on Mr Blair
SIMON WALTERS
There's nothing I like more than giving Tony Blair a hard time. It's nothing person- al. I rather admire him, actually. It's just that I think it's the duty of a healthy press to keep politicians — all of them — on their toes.
It's not to say one shouldn't report the good things too. If Blair abolishes taxes, finds the secret of eternal life or builds a new hospital in my neighbourhood, I'll be the first to praise him. But splits, rows and leaks are generally where the real political stories are to be found.
It is my job to get them and when I do they usually go straight onto the front page of my newspaper. Which paper is that? The Express on Sunday, yes, the one owned by would-be media mogul Clive Hollick, Labour peer and friend of Tony Blair. But stay, isn't he the one accused of teaming up with the Prime Minister's chief press spokesman, Alastair Campbell, to control the appointment of Express political hacks to make sure they all toe Tony's line? If that is what Lord Hollick is trying to do, he has made a pretty bad job of it. In the last year we have probably printed more stories exposing what is going on behind the scenes in the Labour government than any other Sunday newspaper. Perhaps the most damaging story to aPPear about Campbell since the election is the leaked faxes which showed him treating Harriet Harman and Frank Field with con- tempt. It was our story and we devoted two Pages to it. We were joint first with the Observer to report Tony Blair's explosive row with Gordon Brown over the recent biography of the Chancellor. We have reported so many detailed accounts of rows at PLP, Cabinet and other meetings that we Were accused of smuggling in tapes. Praise indeed. We were the first to report that Labour was about to break its pledge to cut hospital waiting lists and, just two weeks ago, the looming crisis over its pledge to cut class sizes.
Not long ago, Campbell made an official complaint to the Express about our hostile stories. The then editor, Richard Addis, wrote back telling him to get lost. And what about the new editor, Rosie Boycott? Just after her arrival, the front- Page article in the Express on Sunday start- ed as follows: Tony Blair was accused of breathtaking arrogance last night.' It didn't come from a Downing Street press release. We have been just as firm but fair with the Tories. Am I saying Hollick has no influence over the paper? Of course not. Everyone knows that all newspaper propri- etors influence their papers and that is partly why they buy them. It doesn't mean they distort or censor every news story, oth- erwise much of what I have written since joining the paper two years ago would never have been printed. In fact, not a sin- gle word has been changed.
The recent fuss about the Express stems from the decision to make the former Inde- pendent political editor, Tony Bevins, and not Gordon Brown's biographer, Paul Routledge, political editor of the Daily Express. To claim that Bevins is some kind of government poodle just because Camp- bell once, rashly, called him great is ridicu- lous. Everyone at Westminster on all sides knows Bevins is one of the most brilliant and anarchic journalists in the business. He recently wrote a paean of praise to William Hague — not an idea that would have been planted by Campbell. And he has frequent- ly been first to print stories adversely criti- cal of Blair and New Labour.
It is revealing to see where the attacks are coming from. Stephen Glover savaged the Express in The Spectator two weeks ago (Media studies, 16 May). He did not point out that he is paid by our chief rival, the Daily Mail. When the Mail is standing on the high ground of journalistic ethics, some people might want to jump off. It is a great paper and naturally wants to embarrass the Express. Nothing wrong in that. I wouldn't for a moment suggest Mr Glover was encouraged to write the article by Sir David English, but I don't suppose the latter was too cross that it appeared.
You don't need a very long memory to recall the Mail's fiercely independent — I don't think — coverage of the Tory years under Margaret Thatcher. It didn't mean they didn't criticise her at all, but by and large it was sympathetic to her because the proprietor wanted it to be. I don't suppose Lady Thatcher ever told him what he should and shouldn't publish. There was hardly any need for her to spell it out in plain English. The Mail knew.
It was similar on the Sun, where I worked for much of the Thatcher-Major era, anoth- er great paper with a powerful proprietor who is not averse to using it to promote his interests now and again. It didn't mean the Sun didn't trip up Maggie and Major from time to time by exposing some of the most famous Tory scandals. And the fact that roughly half its readers were Labour proves its coverage was credible. The Sun's Trevor Kavanagh (my old boss) and the late Gor- don Greig of the Mail are generally regard- ed as two of the best political editors of all time. You don't get reputations like that by pumping out the party line.
The Mail got an almighty shock when, for the first time in years, they were beaten by the Express at their own game — cheque- book journalism — after Rosie Boycott signed up one of the Saudi nurses. The fiercely independent Mail promptly changed its the-nurses-are-innocent line to the-nurses-are-guilty, all because they were miffed. There were even rumours, totally unsubstantiated I am sure, that they tried to lean on the Press Complaints Commis- sion to stop the Express publishing the nurs- es story. We all know that the Mail's bril- liance is surpassed only by its ruthlessness. Could it be that, as Lady Thatcher would have said, they are frit? If so, it's about time.
You can argue over the rights and wrongs of the nurses buy-up, but it has done no harm to morale at the Express. At last we are fighting fire with fire.
Because of her lack of tabloid newspaper experience, many people were surprised when Rosie Boycott became editor. But she has shown in the nurses affair that she has the guts — and the cash — to challenge the Mail head-on. She has blown smoke in Sir David's face and left him choking. I joined the Express just before Lord Hollick took over. One of the first things he did was to ditch its slavish pro-Tory line, a political act. It was long overdue. Unlike the much cleverer Mail and Sun, it was so biased it was a joke. Since most middle-market vot- ers clearly think Tony Blair and New Labour are doing a good job, it would be extraordinary if a middle-market paper like the Express didn't reflect that. It does not mean we are going to be Tony's toadies, or anyone else's. We prove that every Sunday. Buy it and see. Got any dirt on Blair? Ring me straight away on 0171 922 7276.
The author is deputy editor of the Express on Sunday. This is one of a series of guest Media studies during Stephen Glover's absence.
Previous page
