SHOOT THE PENSIONERS
The media: Paul Johnson examines the claim that old folk get a raw deal
JOURNALISTS are scratching their heads over a report by the Centre for Policy on Ageing, which accuses them of 'Ageism', `reinforcing gerontophobia' and 'stereotyp- ing the over-sixties'; particularly reprehen- sible is excessive use of the word `pensioner' in headlines. Well: is it true? Does the media give the old the brush-off? The accusation comes shortly after Jonathan Miller, in one of his periodic flounce-outs, made the same claim that in Britain opinion-formers tend to dismiss all except the young as senile; he was, he said, making his home in Italy, where old fogies, or in his case old trendies, were still appre- ciated.
It is true that the media tends to thrust enormous power, or at least the appear- ance of it, into the hands of the very young. When I first became involved in television, in 1957, the great power in the Industry was Donald Baverstock, editor of Tonight, who was then 33; five years later That Was the Week That Was made David Frost the most famous man in Britain at the age of 23. Newspapers were no differ- ent: Hugh Cudlipp became editor of the Sunday Pictorial (in 1937) at the age of 24. The trend was not new even then. In May 1841, when Thomas Delane was made edi- tor of the Times, he was not yet 24. C.P. Scott was a year older when he became editor of the Manchester Guardian in 1872: most of those on the staff had been serving the paper before he was born, and he grew a beard to disguise his youthful mien. Northcliffe was 29 when he first acquired a national newspaper and 31 when he launched the Daily Mail. Beaverbrook was 37 when he bought the Daily Express (for £17,500) in 1916. I suppose you could say that J.L. Garvin, at 40, was quite old when he became editor of the Observer in 1908.
But youthful prodigies have an annoying but entirely human tendency to linger on Into middle age and well beyond. Garvin was still editing the Observer 34 years later, at which point, aged 74, he was booted out (his last article appeared in the Daily Tele- graph a week before his death, aged 79, in 1947). Delane edited the Times for 36 years when, having reached 60, he thought It politic to retire. Young Scott became old Scott, his beard grew longer and longer, and eventually white, and as he controlled the equity no one could get rid of him: he had been in the editor's chair 57 years when, in July 1929, he vacated it in favour of his son. Beaverbrook remained in effec- tive charge of three newspapers until his death, aged 85. Even Cudlipp, the boy wonder, was 60 when he retired as chair- man of IPC, then the world's biggest pub- lishing company, in 1973. Indeed, one factor which prevents the media from becoming a gerontocracy is simple wear-and-tear. Powerful journalists and television people tend to pop off in their fifties as a result of workaholism, genuine booze, multiple marriages, sheer bad temper, etc, thus clearing a bit of space for the young. Most of those I have mentioned above were notorious for abstemiousness or zest for healthful exer- cise. Scott continued through his years of power to bicycle to and from his office, the chief threat to his life being the risk of his beard getting entangled in the spokes. Most media climbers take little care of themselves. It is a deleterious trade. As the case of Neil v. Worsthorne revealed, it is amazing how many busy editors find them- selves prancing around nightclubs. What do they see in such places? A means to delay the flight of youth? That would seem to prove the point of the Centre for Policy on Ageing. On the other hand, a lot of jour- nalists live long. At a recent select reunion of colleagues, I found myself dining with four in their seventies, one in mid-eighties and two in their nineties.
The truth, of course, is that the media favours neither youth nor age; what it likes is extremities. A youth who defrauds share- holders of millions at the age of 16, a girl who whacks a Wimbledon champ at 15, an old lady who 'routs masked intruders' in her nineties, or alternatively is raped, robbed and murdered by them — these are the staple fare of newspapers and television alike. The media reflects the viewpoint not of the old or the young but of the middle group. In the senior posts, experience and judgment matter, but so does energy: the best editors and television moguls tend to get there in their thirties or early forties. Even in the old-fashioned hierarchy of the BBC, which has almost a Civil Service structure, John Birt has just become direc- tor-general-in-waiting at the age of 46. Among the more successful national news- paper editors at present, Andrew Neil of the Sunday Times is 42, Kelvin MacKenzie of the Sun is 44, Max Hastings of the Tele- graph 45, Simon Jenkins of the Times 48, Nicholas Lloyd of the Daily Express 49, Peter Preston of the Guardian and Donald Trelford of the Observer both 53, Andreas Whittam Smith of the Independent 54 and David English of the Daily Mail 60 (he is also the longest-serving, 20 years). Among the key proprietors, Lord Rothermere, now 65, took over Associated Newspapers when he was 53, Rupert Murdoch, now 60, made it as a leading British press tycoon when he was 38, and Conrad Black, now 46, became Chairman of the Telegraph group when he was 42. None of these people, so far as I can judge, shows the smallest predilection in favour of either youth or age. I suppose you might argue that down-market tab- loids, with their pin-ups, are guilty of ageism; but equally you could accuse up- market broadsheets, which print long obit- uaries, of youthism. It is all nonsense. The media goes where it thinks the money is. Up till a few years ago it was widely believed young people had all the ready cash. Now the conventional wisdom is that the old, who have paid off their mortgages, dominate the purchasing power. Hence, at a time of acute advertising famine, it is grey hairs that glitter. So the Centre for Policy on Ageing has got it all wrong. But then what can you expect of an organisation which wants to replace Shakespeare's `Seven Ages of Man' with the 'Four Socio- logical Ages', beginning 'Childhood and Socialisation' and ending 'Decline and Dependence'?
Previous page
