MEDIA STUDIES
Why Peter Mandelson put in a call to the editor of the Daily Telegraph
STEPHEN GLOVE
By way of background, this government regards the Daily Telegraph as enemy numero uno. The Daily Mail is not yet seen as beyond the pale. Its editor, Paul Dacre, is still sought out by Mr Blair. After all, the paper sells more than twice as many copies as the Telegraph, and its goodwill is regard- ed as essential if Middle England is to be kept on board the New Labour bandwagon. Moreover, although the Mail is often criti- cal of the government, it is not oppositional in the way the Telegraph is. The Daily Tele- graph is Mr Blair's only real out-and-out enemy in the British press.
In a recent interview on Radio Four's Today programme, Mr Blair made three dismissive references to the Telegraph, associating it, in the aftermath of his party conference speech, with the 'forces of conservatism' in British society. He would not have dared talk about the Daily Mail, or indeed any other right-wing paper, in such a way. His strategy, and that of his press secretary, Alastair Campbell, is to represent the Telegraph as being off the radar screen of reasonable opinion, as the reactionary representative of Old Britain. And it is true that the Telegraph is fighting the government tooth-and-nail over its plans to abolish fox-hunting and its grow- ing, if surreptitious, support for the single currency. Above all, the paper has bitter- ly attacked almost everything Mo Mowlam and Tony Blair have done in Northern Ireland. It is even orchestrating a campaign on behalf of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, which will cease to exist in anything like its present form if Chris Patten's recent recommendations are implemented.
I suppose one might, if one were too charitable and very naive, regard Mr Man- delson's telephone call to Mr Moore as no more than a big-hearted attempt to re- build fences trampled down by the exuber- ant Mo Mowlam. In a superficial sense that is what it was. The new Northern Ireland secretary has always been very adept at but- tering up right-wing editors. He hopes that his charm will work its wonders on Mr Moore, and that he may be able to con- vince the ultra-Unionist editor of the Daily Telegraph that he has no wish to break up or even weaken the Union. But we may be sure, I think, that although Mr Mandelson's style will be altogether more suave than that of Dr Mowlam, his policies will be pretty much the same. Has he not already said so? He may toss the odd sop to the Right, but that will hardly suffice. It won't be long before the Daily Telegraph is writing about Mr Mandelson in the same agitated way that it has been writing about Mo Mowlam.
What will Mr Mandelson do then? We know that he shares the Prime Minister's analysis of the 'forces of conservatism' — indeed, the phrase appears to have been invented by him — and that he doesn't really like or admire the Daily Telegraph any more than Mr Blair or Mr Campbell do. So I believe that this most brilliant of propagandists will try to continue what Mr Blair has already started. He will attempt to corral the Telegraph into a far-flung pen outside the habitual bounds of political dis- course, and to portray Mr Moore and his colleagues as representatives of an outdat- ed Britain who are a couple of apples short of a picnic. These are calumnies he may seek to communicate to his close acquain- tance Conrad Black, proprietor of the Daily Telegraph. The argument will be that the Telegraph has left reasonable opinion behind and is embracing extreme, minority views.
This would all be nonsense. There is nothing extreme about the Telegraph's position on Ulster, any more than there is anything over the top about its line on the single currency. Millions of people share these views. What differentiates the Telegraph from other newspapers is the degree of its commitment to Ulster. This has helped make it the government's implacable foe. Which is why New Labour and Mr Mandelson will try to isolate the Daily Telegraph from the mainstream of political life.
Next week a book I have edited is pub- lished. I wouldn't dream of mentioning Secrets of the Press if it were my own work, but since my written contribution is small and insignificant, and the subject of the essays may conceivably be of interest to perusers of this column, perhaps I will be forgiven. Contributors who will be familiar to long-standing readers of this magazine include Peregrine Worsthorne, Alan Watkins, Andrew Brown, Niall Ferguson, A.N. Wilson, Petronella Wyatt, Richard Ingrams and the late Alan Clark; and there are equally brilliant writers such as Michael White, Paul Foot, Francis Wheen, Peter McKay, Henry Porter and Lynn Barber who normally grace the pages of other pub- lications. They are a very lively bunch.
However, it can't be said that the notices the book has received so far have been par- ticularly favourable. First we had my old friend Peter Stothard, editor of the Times, who was given 1,300 words to attack me in the New Statesman. That, all things consid- ered, seems fair enough. Then Mr Stothard, possibly thinking that his own efforts could be improved upon, commissioned my old colleague Andreas Whittam-Smith to do a review for the Times, presumably calculating that he was the man who could be most depended on in the whole country to write something nasty. To his credit Andreas didn't really take the bait. Finally Alexander Chancellor, the greatly esteemed former editor of this magazine, wrote an inexplica- bly waspish review in the Daily Telegraph in which he forgot to mention that he had been asked to contribute an essay to Secrets of the Press which, alas, was rejected, though he was certainly paid in full.
Who will we have next? I must say it does seem a bit hard on the contributors. They find themselves in the position of innocent diners in a restaurant who are caught in the crossfire of a gunfight between rival hood- lums. But the experience has reminded me that a good deal of what is published in newspapers and magazines is part of a pri- vate conversation — or argument — between journalists which a wider audience can scarcely be expected to follow. There are two constituencies among readers and their interests do not always coincide. I can't help feeling that I have rather failed in not com- missioning an essay on this subject. All the same, my strong recommendation is to buy a copy of Secrets of the Press while stocks last.
Previous page
