AND ANOTHER THING
Waiting for the whip-crack of firm editorial government
PAUL JOHNSON
When governments weaken, the media grows stronger. This is a good time to be editor of a national newspaper, par- ticularly if you are clear in your views and single-minded in pushing them. Take the case of Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail. He is a devoted husband and father of a young family who believes passionately that the institution of marriage is the founda- tion of all that is best in our society. He sees us governed by a divided Cabinet under an indecisive Prime Minister, at the mercy of lobbies and pressure groups with their own agendas which have nothing to do with domestic stability and everything to do with fashionable progressive theory. As a result, ministers saddled themselves with two measures which strike deadly blows at marriage. At that point, Dacre launched his attack, using all the formidable resources of Britain's most professional and best- financed newspaper.
The Government almost immediately sought to appease the Mail by dropping one bill completely. On Monday the Cabi- net tried to save its face by clinging onto the divorce bill for the time being but the same evening it was massively defeated in the free vote on Nolan. As ministers will have to concede free votes on the con- tentious clauses of the divorce bill also, the odds are that they will lose that too on the floor of the House. So Dacre will get his prey in two bites rather than one. Newspa- pers, like sharks, prefer it that way. It looks like being the most significant political tri- umph for a British newspaper in years, and an honourable one too. It is one thing for a tabloid to destroy a minister by buying up his mistress and getting her to tell all — any editor can do that if he has no scruples and lots of cash. It is quite another to force gov- ernments to drop bills by the logic of rea- soned argument and the skilful exploitation of its parliamentary position.
All the signs are that there are more humiliations in store for John Major at the hands of the media. He has now lost his last two significant supporters in the press. Nick Lloyd has departed from the Daily Express and it is not clear what will happen to this anaemic ghost of a once great newspaper, whose circulation, blood and money drain away daily into the sands of lost causes. At the end of the year, Major also loses Stew- art Steven of the Evening Standard, a bril- liant Labour-leaning maverick who proba- bly backs Major because, like Tony Blair, he believes he is the easiest Tory leader to beat. It is ominous for Major that his most consistent support now comes from the Guardian and the Independent, and such columnists as Andrew Marr and Hugo Young. They would not be backing Major if, as Labour claims, he were truly lurching to the Right. He is certainly lurching, but not in any particular direction. He is simply staggering about to stay on his feet and dodge some of the rain of blows being hurled at him from all angles. This is not a right-wing government or a left-wing gov- ernment, or a Tory or Conservative govern- ment. Indeed, it is not a government at all. It is a motley collection of old lags serving out time in the condemned cell, while wait- ing for the voters to sign the order of exe- cution.
Editors, then, hold the whip hand and the next few months — the odds are against the Government surviving 1996 or even this winter — will resound with the healthy smack of the editorial lash on cowering ministerial backs. But making the most effective use of editorial power is not easy. The Mail gets its way because it is a highly integrated paper with a strong individual character which exactly suits its readers. Its editor and writers are imbued with this spe- cial character and know exactly what they are doing. Editorial character and person- ality are all-important in newspaper power. Charles Moore and Dominic Lawson are fortunate men who take over two national institutions, the Daily and the Sunday Tele- graph, at exactly the right time. But they will succeed or fail in accordance with their appreciation of the character factor. Their tasks are quite different. Lawson inherits a paper with a marked and lively character: collegiate, eccentric, ultra-Tory in some ways, radical and original in others, a paper where writers are cherished and given their heads and kept harnessed to the chariot by gentle diplomacy. That is a valuable charac- ter to inherit and he must preserve it, while at the same time injecting into it his genius for outrageous news and fascinating scurril- ity. He is a high-risk editor and I like that; indeed, we need high-risk editors more than ever. But he must remember he is now wedded to a beautiful woman with a char- acter to preserve.
Charles Moore, on the other hand, inher- its a newspaper with formidable resources of professional skill but with a character grown muzzy in recent years. Time was, in the days Colin Welch ran its editorial poli- cies, when the Daily Telegraph was the sea- green incorruptible, the last hope of the stern, unbending Tories, whose character was sharp, angular, uncompromising and above all recognisable. It was not pre- dictable — far from it — but it responded to events according to a recognisable canon of principles which were thoroughly famil- iar to staff and readers alike. Everyone knew exactly where they stood. When Max Hastings took over he had to rescue the body of the paper from hypothermia and undernourishment and he did this with magnificent aplomb. But in the process the character slipped into the background, not so much on the op-ed pages, where it per- sisted in dim palimpsest form, but in the arts and features, and even on the news pages. Moore must now get that character back, naturally in accordance with his own marked ideas, but in such a shape that the paper's response to events is clear, salty and full of an unmistakable Daily Telegraph flavour. He has to make the paper sui generis again. If he can do that, and I am pretty sure that he will, then the world is at his feet. At its best, the Daily Telegraph is a magnificent machine for delivering a politi- cal and cultural message. No such message has been coming across in recent years. But Moore has certainly got one to propound. He now has the chance to give Paul Dacre a splendid run for his money as each, cat- if-nine-tails in hand, presses hard on the heels of a scampering, demoralised and doomed government. 'Hard pounding, gen- tlemen,' as the Duke of Wellington said. `Let's see who can pound the hardest!'
Previous page
