PRINTING'S SEVEN DEADLY SINS
Paul Johnson on the
union abuses which Wapping will leave behind
THE unions and their allies on the fascist Left are building up the violence at Wap- ping. The campaign to stop the distribution of the four newspapers is taking on the evil face of Scargillism. It doesn't surprise me. The far Left hates free newspapers and will never tolerate their existence when it has the power to suppress them. Lenin's first act of despotism after he seized power by force in October 1917 was directed at press freedom. Two days after his putsch he published a decree, which he called part of `certain temporary, extraordinary mea- sures', warning that any 'insubordination' towards the government or 'slanderous distortions of fact' in the, press would lead to the closure of papers and the imprison- ment of editors. Within 24 hours he had shut down ten Petrograd newspapers, and ten more followed the next week. Nearly 70 years later, the `temporary' measures are still in force.
It couldn't happen here, could it? I sincerely hope not. But no one should be in any doubt that the freedom of the press is involved in the Wapping dispute. Journal- ists in particular ought to be clear about what they stand to gain if the experiment there succeeds and is followed by the rest of the industry. Let me list what I call the Seven Deadly Sins of the old monopoly print unions.
First, they imposed direct censorship by refusing to handle material to which they took exception for political or other reasons. It is notorious that for many decades Fleet Street has never printed the truth about its own industrial relations. Any such reports were subject to the veto of the union bosses and doctored accor- dingly. But that was only the beginning of the censorship process. In recent years the unions have been increasingly inclined to use their monopoly power to object to news stories and comment about the wider industrial and political scene. In some cases it has led to stoppages, or blank spaces appearing in the paper. Much more often, however, the threat of the union veto has led editors and journalists to exercise self-censorship, the most insidious form of all.
The second deadly sin of the unions was the killing of entire issues of newspapers often for the most trivial of reasons, or through sheer greed. A journalist might have sweated blood over an article or a story — perhaps taken great risks to get it — only to see his work destroyed by the contemptuous diktat of a union official. A generation ago, the loss of an issue was the greatest of calamities, a crime against civilisation. Gradually it became common- place, accepted with a cynical shrug of the shoulders. No-strike agreements will put an end to this cancer of the press.
Third, the unions, by banning the new technology, prevented journalists having direct control over their material. They constituted an insuperable barrier, an ex- pensive, unnecessary and monopolistic middleman between the writer and the production process. Now writers will be able to set and to a great extent edit their own copy. Fourth, the unions denied jour- nalists the new tools of their trade, as they emerged from labs and workshops. It will soon be possible for journalists to plug into the production process from their own home or from anywhere in the world. From now on, changes and new materials can be judged strictly on their professional merits and introduced as quickly and as extensively as those merits justify.
Fifth, the grotesquely inflated wage rates, restrictive practices and overman- ning which union monopoly power im- posed on the production process absorbed a very high proportion of total newspaper revenues. This led to the progressive finan- cial starvation of the journalistic side. Foreign news coverage in particular was emasculated. With the production unions taking such a huge slice of the cake, less and less was available to maintain overseas news bureaux, to train and finance expert foreign correspondents, or to cover back- ground comment which is one of the hallmarks of a good newspaper. Popular newspapers like the Express, Mail and Mirror, which once maintained impressive networks of foreign correspondents, suf- fered most, but even the qualities were increasingly starved.
The sixth deadly sin followed from the fifth. To meet ever-increasing demands from the monopoly production unions, editors and managements sought desper- ately to generate revenue by raising sales. They lacked the money to do this by improving the quality of the editorial pro- duct. So they sought the easy way out in sex, sensationalism and trivia. They inau- gurated the bingo age. The modern British national tabloid is a pretty disreputable product, but it is not the result of a conscious policy by editors and managers. It is the inevitable consequence of the greed of monopoly unions.
Newspapers produced under the crisis conditions which prevail at Wapping are bound to look pretty crummy at first. Adapting to the new processes is a night- mare even when everyone is behaving sensibly. But in the long run, the produc- tion revolution will bring clearer type, better photos, graphics and cartoons, few- er misprints, less restrictive deadlines and the ability to respond far more quickly and effectively to the changing news. Journal- ists will undoubtedly find it easier to do a good professional job. They will also find that breaking the old monopolies will unleash vast resources, and it is up to them to ensure that the lion's share of the new cash goes into improving the product. From now on journalists will have only themselves to blame if we fail to produce good newspapers. More newspapers too: for the seventh and perhaps the greatest of the deadly sins of monopoly unionism is that it prevented the creation of new titles. In effect, it restricted the business of newspaper own- ership to the big existing groups and the maverick billionaire. It is the old story: one monopoly tends to breed another. I look forward to seeing 20 or 30 daily newspap- ers available in the London area, express- ing every variety of view. Many of them, I hope, will be started and run by journalists themselves. That is one good reason why it is essential that they embrace the revolu- tion enthusiastically and make it their servant, not their master.
Previous page
