MEDIA STUDIES
The Independent's past isn't as rosy as it's painted. But its future is not all black either
STEPHEN GLOVER
I can't really complain about this view of things, having written a book which attempted to describe the paper's fall from grace. Let us just say here that it was caused by overreaching, vanity and hubris — pretty normal human failings — and a large dollop of ill fortune, plus some inex- perience. But my book was also about an enduring achievement. As I write, I have today's edition of the Independent in front of me. It looks pretty handsome. I'm glad it's there. It seems to make a difference. In a stack of newspapers in the corner lie copies of the Independent on Sunday. I'm glad this paper is here too. I think you could make a good case for saying that it is better than the Observer, which has been around for more than 200 years.
A list of what has gone wrong is not diffi- cult to draw up. The Independent started out independent, now it is co-owned by Mirror Group Newspapers and Tony O'Reilly's Irish Independent group. The sales of each title stand very close to an all- time low: the Independent is selling roughly what it did in its dog days only four or five months after its launch. Both papers have lost a lot of money (though the Independent did make a profit of over £3 million in the boom year of 1989) and continue to be unprofitable despite round after round of cost-cutting. As to editorial quality, the Independent, whose foreign news was out- standing, whose photography and design were once greatly praised, is no longer pre- eminent in any single area. Though it's pretty good, it's no longer the best at any- thing.
But don't let us exaggerate the editorial falling off. Journalists who worked on the Independent after its launch sometimes remember those early days in too rosy a light. They forget that, apart from a single month in which it outsold the Times by 1,000 copies, it has been the worst-selling of the four quality newspapers for all of its life. They may also forget the improve- ments which the Independent's launch pro- voked in other titles. There are no secrets in journalism, and the things the young paper did well its rivals were sometimes soon doing better. What the Independent has seemingly lost is its ability to innovate, though pace Mr Fenby this lasted well beyond his early departure, the Indepen- dent's very good Saturday magazine being launched without the benefit of his presid- ing genius, as was the Independent on Sun- day. It is the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph and the Times that now seem to have the best new ideas.
I suppose of all the failings it is the loss of independence which galls the paper's early supporters most. But their concern may be partly based upon a misapprehen- sion. The Independent was never truly inde- pendent. It was never owned by its founders or its journalists. Individual investors were theoretically each limited to a holding of 10 per cent, but collectively they spoke for over 80 per cent of the news- paper's shares. The deal between us and them was that in four or five or six years these investors — mostly City institutions — would be able to get their money out, which is indeed what happened. Rail against the capitalist system if you will, but looking back it is difficult to see how it would have been possible to keep publish- ers from assuming a dominant position once these early investors had dropped out.
The argument should be about the kind of proprietor the Independent has ended up with. In the ten years since its launch, I have come to understand that the meaning- ful distinction is between good and bad publishers. They are not all Robert Maxwells. A good one might have helped us to avoid some of the mistakes we made. As it was, Andreas Whittam Smith, the paper's editor and chief executive, acted rather too much like a proprietor even though he was not one. The pity is that when the two Independent titles stood in need of support, they should have thrown themselves at the mercy of Mirror Group Newspapers, which has absolutely no expe- rience of publishing quality newspapers. Many of the newspapers' current problems — their lack of an editorial vision for them- selves — arise from this relationship.
On the credit side, there is Dr O'Reilly, who may have an idea what to do if he can find a way, the Mirror people being effec- tively in charge, though they seem not to interfere editorially. The other day I heard Colin Hughes, the Independent's deputy editor, say on television that it was for the paper's senior journalists to shape the paper's future. Not by themselves, it isn't. They are too much embroiled in the day-to- day struggle. If the Independent is to recov- er, it needs inspired editorial guidance. It cries out for the support and confidence and vision of a publisher who, for example, might question whether a paper which after its launch was gently Euro-sceptic, sympa- thetic to the Unionist cause in Ulster and a strong advocate of an independent nuclear deterrent, hasn't bought too much of the centre-left ticket for its own good. It needs editorial investment too. You can't have the best foreign pages if you close down foreign bureaux, and cut back London staff.
I don't know whether Dr O'Reilly will prove the catalyst through which these changes take place. But if it is not him it will be someone else. The Independent has somehow acquired considerable institution- al strength. Its roots go deep. It is unlikely finally to be cast aside, as was Today, not only because it is by any reckoning a much better newspaper but because it is also a better loved one. The occasion of its tenth anniversary is a time for celebrating what has been achieved rather than for dwelling sourly on what went wrong. There are two more good-quality newspapers than there were ten years ago. For all the mistakes that the newspaper's prime mover Andreas Whittam Smith and the rest of us made, the Independent, along with its Sunday sis- ter survives, and with its Sunday sister it should one day thrive again.
Previous page
