RUNNING A RED RAG
why the Left is unlikely to produce a successful national paper
ALL new newspapers are welcome. I am particularly keen to see a new left-wing paper launched, as its content, conduct and circulation will make a fascinating study. That was one reason I was disappointed the unions did not take up Rupert Mur- doch's offer to give them his plant and offices in the Gray's Inn Road. An alterna- tive project, now called News on Sunday Publishing plc, invited subscriptions to shares on 9 July, an offer which closed on Tuesday, and its prospectus is instructive.
The proposal has much to recommend it. A popular Sunday, printed on someone else's presses rather than its own, has a much better chance of establishing itself than a daily or a seven-day operation, like Today. The positioning of News on Sun- day, at 35p a copy, between the Mirror! People, at 28p, and the Mail on Sunday! Express at 40p, seems right. It would be printed in the new and impressive Tele- graph works at Trafford Park, Manchester, and the Isle of Dogs. The actual editorial and business HQ would be in Manchester too. This makes sense. A preponderance of the paper's readers would come from the North (and Scotland). The North has lacked a national newspaper voice since the Guardian transferred to London. A successful paper with a left-of-centre view- point operating from Manchester would be a substantial and welcome bridge across the yawning North-South divide. Then again, I like the proposal to give readers of News on Sunday a genuine 'right of reply'.
Doubts arise when the company explains how it would conduct its affairs. The structure is twofold. Ultimate control over editorial policy is in the hands of a found- ers' trust, whose members constitute a special shareholder. The special sharehol- der appoints three founder directors, has power of veto over the appointment and dismissal of the editor, and can prevent any fundamental change in the policy, struc- ture or ownership of the company. The trust controlling the special share has 12 members, who have powers `to expel existing members or admit new members on an affirmative vote of 75 per cent of the members present'. That sounds to me like a formula for acrimony, for the sudden coup or putsch beloved of the Left which has led to endless trouble on Tribune and the Morning Star.
The three founder directors who sit on the main board are a trade union organiser from Ford, another from Glaxo, and a research psychologist who is now circula- tion manager of the New Statesman. Of the remaining seven directors, the chairman, or chair as he has to be called in ventures like this, runs a North of England dairy company, the chief executive has worked for the BBC, Ford, Channel 4 and the GLC, and the rest are, respectively, a former trade union official, a left-wing journalist, a former economic adviser to the GLC, a film director and a financial expert. There does not seem to be anyone on the board with experience of running a national newspaper at a senior level. Of course such people can be added but it seems odd to me that the core directors 'Well at least nobody can object to us sending our prayers.' have so marginal a footing in this highly specialised and competitive industry.
What I disliked most, however, are the arrangements for producing the paper. It will involve '100 per cent union shop agreements' (closed shops) with Sogat, the NGA and the NUJ. The journalists will be allowed to put in their own copy and sub-edit it, but the NGA wil be in charge of the checking process, its members will put in copy from contributors, 'either before or after sub-editing', and correct it, and they will be 'exclusively' in charge of the make- up and assembly of the pages. The NGA have agreed 'in principle' for Sogat mem- bers who receive advertising copy over the telephone to put it directly into the system. Oh dear! Agreements 'in principle' are a fertile source of discord in national news- papers, and this whole production set-up seems to me certain to lead to overman- ning and inter-union disputes, as well as frequent clashes with management.
Still worse is what the prospectus calls 'a direct provision for industrial democracy'. Employees, in addition to appointing three directors and benefiting from a share op- tion scheme — both excellent notions in theory — will have the right 'within each department' to summon special meetings at which 'departmental managers will be required to discuss with their staff the performance of their departments'. These meetings will also be 'expected' to 'consid- er the general direction of the newspapers'. They will have the power `to request the attendance of senior executives, such as the chief executive or the editor'.
The human race is divided into two groups: those who like to get on with it, and those who like to attend meetings. This distinction is particularly marked in newspapers. The trouble with the News on Sunday is that it threatens to provide a perfect environment for the second group, and a thoroughly harassing existence for the first. That is not the way to produce good newspapers. Editorial conferences are fine, provided they are businesslike, but a paper is governed by the inexorable ticking of the clock and the need to take a large number of decisions quickly. That means it must be, both on its business and its editorial sides, an autocracy. At the News on Sunday, with the founders' trust meeting at the top and the workers meet- ing at the bottom, the creative people are going to be a very thin slice of meat in a very thick, argumentative sandwich. What I suspect is that this kind of arrangement, whereby the actual pro- ducers will be heavily and constantly super- vised by all kinds of difficult people spouting ideology and demanding 'rights', is absolutely inherent in any project to produce a left-wing paper. After all, that is what the Labour movement is about. And that is why it is most unlikely it will father a successful paper.
Previous page
