MEDIA STUDIES
For a nation obsessed by Germany, it's hard to find out anything important about the Germans
STEPHEN GLOVER
How big a mess is Germany in? I have scoured British newspapers for the past few days and haven't found an authoritative answer. I haven't read a piece — perhaps I missed it — which has told me in any detail what effect Germany's latest unemploy- ment figures are likely to have on her abili- ty to meet the Maastricht criteria for a common currency. I have, however, read several articles by columnists who seem to know even less about the German economy than I do.
The basic problem has to do with report- ing, not punditry. It is amazing how inade- quately all our newspapers, with the excep- tion of the Financial Times, reported last week's staggering news from Germany. The FT apart, the reader of any single seri- ous newspaper would have missed some- thing or other. Even I, who forced myself to read them all, only got a fairly complete pic- ture by looking at the FT and the Internation- al Herald Tribune. It wouldn't matter if it were a humdrum foreign story of little rele- vance to ourselves, but the health of the Ger- man economy is of incalculable significance.
The Times was quickly off the mark last Thursday — before figures were released — with a foreign-page piece by Roger Boyes in Bonn saying that German unem- ployment had jumped by about 450,000 to 4.6 million. Good for the Times. But the next day, Friday, the paper didn't run so much as a foreign 'news-in-brief even though the official figures were worse than Mr Boyes had predicted — an increase of 510,100 to 4.66 million. On the same day, the Daily Telegraph carried the news in a rather short foreign-page lead by its excel- lent German correspondent, Andrew Gim- son. The Independent, once famous for its foreign coverage, banished the story to its business pages. Only the Guardian and the Financial Times ran front-page pieces.
On Friday, something of equal impor- tance happened: Helmut Kohl, the German Chancellor, said that Germany could fail to meet the Maastricht criteria if measures to tackle her rising unemployment are not successful. This was reported the following day on the front page of the FT and on the foreign pages of the Independent and Times. The Guardian, having done well the previous day, ignored the story. The Daily Telegraph limited its news interest in Ger- many to a front-page piece about the 2006 World Cup, though it did carry a thoughtful leader on the German economy. After the uneven coverage of the dailies, there was much for the Sundays to chew on. All the broadsheets save the Observer carried lengthy summaries. The Sunday Times drew comparisons with unemploy- ment in the Weimar republic. But apart from an enlightening piece by Bill Jamieson in the Sunday Telegraph there were few attempts to answer these all- important questions: by how much will Germany's public borrowing rise as a result of this unprecedently steep increase in unemployment? Will Germany breach, under existing trends, the public borrowing limit of 3 per cent of Gross National Prod- uct which countries signing up to monetary union are required to meet? If so, what are the prospects of her making further bud- getary cuts so that she can qualify for mon- etary union, given that Germany, unlike France and Italy, is averse to cooking the books?
Mr Jamieson apart, no phndit I read helped much in answering these questions, though there was, as I say, a well-balanced leader in the Daily Telegraph, as well as a very good editorial in the Times on Mon- day, both of which attempted to put Ger- many's serious problems in perspective. Last Friday, Simon Heffer in the Daily Mail had been quick off the draw with a column in which he rather wildly described the German economy as 'smashed' and assert- ed that 'the early signs of German rever- sion to unpleasantly nationalistic type are fleetingly visible'. At the opposite extreme, Will Hutton in the Observer (the paper's sole contribution to the debate that I could find) was equally wrong-headed in suggest- ing that British unemployment is really much higher than German.
The comparative sleepiness of our news- papers had one interesting side-effect. Right-wing tabloids have been slow to make domestic political capital out of Ger- man difficulties. It took until Tuesday five days after the story broke in the Times — for the Daily Mail to say in an editorial that unemployment in Germany was 'the real news which should dwarf into insignifi- cance prissy spats between Ministers about the Tory approach to Scottish devolution . . . [New Labour] is fatally attracted by that failing social market economy for which Germany has so long been the Euro- pean model.'
So Germany does exist as a stick for beating Labour. I don't object. But we remain in the dark as to whether the coun- try most committed to monetary union is likely to qualify on the most fundamental criterion of all.
Fellow aficionados of Max Hastings, editor of the Evening Standard, will want to turn to his letter on page 23 in which he denies ever having planned to run a piece, knocking or otherwise, about this maga- zine. As I have only met Mr Hastings once, and then only briefly, I cannot easily describe the joy of reading such a letter. In my madder moments I have sometimes wondered whether he is not at least in part a crazy figment of my imagination. To see him responding to an article — and, more- over, deploying satirical imagery of Swiftian power — is an exceptional treat. Exhaustive enquiries suggest that Mr Hastings is broadly right. I had foolishly relied on a single source. I no longer believe that he was inspired by my recent piece to plan an article about the decline of The Spectator, and I apologise for having said so. But some of his trusty knights have considered just such an article, perhaps to please him. The idea cropped up in confer- ence many months ago — no doubt Mr Hastings was absent — and his media edi- tor, Victor Sebestyen, has given much thought to the idea. Mr Sebestyen is firmly of the opinion that The Spectator has declined, and has discussed his theory with colleagues several times. The name of Lord Gilmour, a former distinguished editor of this magazine, was raised as one possible author, though I don't believe he has been approached. There are conflicting versions about what happened after my piece about Mr Hast- ings appeared two weeks ago. Some assert that Mr Sebestyen plunged his head in his hands, and moaned that the long-planned attack would now have to be postponed for fear of carrying the taint of retaliation. Others say that he momentarily considered getting on with his project. In either event, I see no reason for self-denial. Mr Sebestyen, having set his heart on such a piece, should write it himself. If Mr Hastings really remains adamant about not running it in the Evening Standard, may 1 suggest that Mr Sebestyen try and place n elsewhere? To continue like this will only lead to an unfortunate build-up of frustration.
Previous page
