BLACK OR WHITE KNIGHT?
The press: Paul Johnson on the media's most enjoyable row in years
THE furious row that has broken out between the Telegraph's owner, Conrad Black, and his former Chief Executive, Andrew Knight, over the latter's abrupt transfer of allegiance to Rupert Murdoch, has caused more innocent amusement in media circles than any event since the ousting of Cecil King by that wily Welsh- man Hugh Cudlipp. Neither man emerges unscathed. Black is an exceptionally tough and astute businessman who is used to coming out on top and this is the first time, so far as I know, that he has been hornswoggled himself. So of course he is cross. On the other hand, in great part through Knight, he is £300 million better off than when he came to Britain, so he has no long-term cause for grievance.
The damage to Knight is perhaps more serious, since he pays more attention to his public image than any other man I have ever met, and the image he wants the Public to accept is that of an ecumenical, not to say eirenical gentleman, who wishes the whole world well and has a unique gift for sailing smoothly through troubled wat- ers into a safe haven. He has now landed himself in an appalling row centring on What is, in effect, a charge of lack of integrity by his former employer and ben- efactor. He, too, is many millions to the good but it is unlikely he will be laughing all the way to the bank. As Black himself put it to me not long ago, Knight 'has become so sensitive to criticism that if a single reader wrote a critical letter from Land's End he would go down to Cornwall to put his case'. I doubt if he will know how to handle this explosion emotionally, and I am sure he will never be quite the same man again. Oh well, we all have to grow up some time.
The Knight Affair raises three issues. First, was he justified in moving swiftly !rem running one organisation to running its biggest rival? (Knight and Black are arguing about dates but in my view the exact timing is a quibble.) In terms of strict morality one could debate the issue and, since both men are papists, perhaps they should refer the matter to Cardinal Basil Hume or, better still, to that splendid prince of the church, the Cardinal- Archbishop of Toronto. In terms of busi- ness practice, I think Knight was quite within his rights. It might not be acceptable in every trade but national newspaper publishing, in practice if not exactly in theory, has always tolerated, indeed often encouraged, what used to be called 'cross- ing the street'. Any editor will shamelessly pinch his rival's best people if he thinks they are good enough and he can afford it. Any talk about trade secrets is piffle. The maxim is that if you sack a man or he leaves, he clears his desk the same morn- ing, the assumption being that he will take any knowledge of value straight to your chief competitor, and that if you let him hang around he will engage in active sabotage. There are no Queensberry Rules in newspapers.
The second issue is whether it is a good idea for proprietors to give senior execu- tives and editors a slice of the equity and thus make them financially independent. I believe it is, on the whole, and I rejoice that recently — in effect since the Wapping Revolution — it has become possible for shrewd and courageous journalists like Andreas Whittam Smith to become rich men. Knight, as Black observes, has been `well rewarded' but he has fairly earned what the late Reggie Maudling used to call 'a little pot of gold', both because he helped Black to get the Telegraph group in the first place and because he carried through its demanning with great adroit- ness. However, as the row indicates, there are drawbacks to the options game. They are particularly serious in the case of editors. In the 19th century it was quite common for an editor to get a share of the profits or even own the paper outright, and as late as the 1930s it was not unusual for an editor to get a percentage if profits rose above a certain figure. The trouble with options, particularly if they are phased over a period of years, is that they do give the proprietor a huge financial hold over .an editor which no salary, however munifi- cent, quite conveys. There are times when it is the duty of the editors to spend money freely, regardless of the short-term finan- cial consequences. There are other times when editors must stick up for the journal- ists in the face of management pressure. Editors are usually on boards and to that extent they are bound to be a bit schi- zophrenic. But the lure of options makes it likely they will side with management (or be blackmailed into doing so) more than they properly should, especially if the company is soon to be floated. I know of no way round this dilemma: it merely strengthens the need for courageous edi- tors of strong principles, and a fat chance we have of getting them.
The third issue is what Knight is likely to do at News International. The last impor- tant decision he took at the Telegraph group, to merge the two papers into a seven-day operation, has proved a failure, as I and many others warned him it would. In some ways it has been a disaster. Of course there are savings to be made by rationalising the operation but the most important and valuable thing about a paper is its distinctive character — the reason the Independent succeeded is that it created one virtually overnight — and the effect of the seven-day fiasco has been to destroy the Sunday Telegraph's superbly idiosyn- cratic persona. At the moment, moreover, it has four editors, and perhaps the quick- est way Black can wash Knight out of his hair is by restoring Peregrine Worsthorne to his rightful place as the sole one. In view of what has happened at the Telegraph group, I doubt if Knight will attempt to merge the Times and the Sunday Times, which would be even more foolish, and I am sure Murdoch will not let him anyway. Indeed Knight may well discover, to his cost, that Murdoch will find it hard to be a hands-off proprietor.
Knight's immediate tasks, when he takes over in March, are first to reduce the crushing losses on Sky TV and steer it towards profitability within the period Murdoch has set (three to five years). Second, he must beat off the challenge from the Sunday Independent to the Sun- day Times. Third he must restore the Times' reputation for being the Establish- ment daily, in danger of being snatched from it by the Independent. Finally he must keep the Sun and the News of the World expanding and hugely profitable in the increasingly restrictive atmosphere which is now developing. None of these is going to be easy, but I know of no one more likely to tackle them successfully than Knight, especially if he now shows himself big enough to learn from his mistakes.
Previous page
