THE NEW EDITORIAL AMAZONS
The media: Paul Johnson notes a breakthrough for women in journalism IT WOULD not surprise me if, in 50 years' time, perhaps even in 30, the British newspaper scene were dominated by women. This will be achieved not by feminist militancy but by personal success stories. Fairness between the sexes (the word equality should be dismissed with contempt) is brought about not by ideolo- gical nonsense or ridiculous bodies like the Equal Opportunities Commission but by getting real women into actual jobs and allowing them to show how well they can do. One Thatcher is worth regiments of Kate Milletts and Gloria Steinems. When I was an editor I was not keen on publishing Women's Lib material but I had women correspondents in New York, Moscow, Berlin, Paris and Jerusalem and brought in one of the first woman leader-writers. That seems to me then, and still seems now, the right way to do it. There is a continuing need, however, to give women positive encouragement. Jour- nalism is still a man's world: you have only to peer into the newsroom of a national paper to see that. Young women in par- ticular can do with a helping hand, through such institutions as the Catherine Pakenham Memorial Prize. Catherine was the youngest daughter of an exceptionally gifted and competitive family and found it hard going to match up to her elders. She had just, to her intense delight, achieved her first real success, a job on the Tele- graph Magazine, when she was killed in a Car accident. Her parents and the Tele- graph set up the prize, awarded annually to the best piece of journalism by a woman under 30. It has been an outstanding success in encouraging and discovering talent, with many of the prizewinners becoming stars in national journalism. It is now sponsored by the Evening Standard, an appropriate choice, for the Standard has long had a reputation for promoting women writers, of the calibre of Valerie Grove and Maureen Cleave. The Standard is owned today by Lord Rothermere's group and the presentation of the 1987 prize last month was made in Northcliffe's own office, now painstakingly restored, a spectacular chamber of ormolu, rosewood and Napoleonic symbols. I could not help thinking: what would the old monster have thought of this occasion? The answer is not in doubt: he would have strongly approved of it. For Northcliffe sought talent, what- ever the cost and provenance.
Indeed it is the archetype press tycoons, despised by the feminists as promoters of male-inspired stereotypes, who are now taking the lead in pushing women up the ladder. I have often complained in this column that, whereas women writers were now common, men remained in almost exclusive possession of the positions of power on newspapers. That is no longer true. Quite suddenly, women are being given key commands. This month, for instance, women take over as news editors of two of the most important regional dailies, the Southampton Southern Even- ing News and the Leicester Mercury. More significant, however, was Rupert Murdoch's decision, last summer, to appoint Wendy Henry to edit the News of the World, which with a circulation of over five million is Britain's biggest-selling pap- er and a top money-spinner in his empire. This adventurous decision seems to have proved a commercial success. It has brought a response from Robert Maxwell, who has given the editorship of the rival Sunday Mirror to Eve Pollard. She, like Henry, is young but hugely experienced, in magazines as well as newspapers. She has had a hand in Murdoch's Elle as well as Rothermere's brilliant You, and I take it that her appointment means Maxwell has decided to give the Sunday Mirror what it so badly needs, a colour magazine.
What we are going to see, in fact, is a struggle between two journalistic Amazons for the top position in the Sunday tabloid market. The News of the World starts out with a commanding, some would say un- assailable, lead of two million copies, and with all the psychological advantages of self-confidence, panache and (not least) money-power which such success pro- duces. By contrast, the Sunday Mirror is low-spirited and in danger of becoming demoralised. But that gives Pollard the opportunity to stamp her own personality on the paper and to pilot it in a new direction. What I shall be looking for is two things. First, does she recognise that the Age of Sleaze, which dominated tabloids in the 1970s and most of the 1980s is now on the wane – the failure of the first Bonk paper being a portent? In short, there is not much future for the Sunday Mirror as a mere me-too paper tagging behind the News of the World with the same formula of sex, royalty, television soap stars and privacy-invasion. Second, can she give back to the Mirror the characteristics which once decisively differentiated it from its rival: a political soul, a fiery conscience and a campaigning spirit? If so, this strug- gle for the new title of Queen of the Nationals is going to be well worth watch- ing.
Meanwhile, up market, where higher and more progressive values are supposed to prevail, there is no sign yet of a corresponding breakthrough by women. Lack of talent cannot be the answer, with journalists of the calibre of Polly Toynbee and Mary Kenny around. I suspect the reason is a lingering conviction that women are not suited to write about politics and finance, with which the qualities must principally concern themselves.. That is nonsense. The Mirror's Julia Langdon is an excellent political columnist, as was Nora Beloff of the Observer in her day. As for money-making, this is an area where women are now achieving the most rapid progress, both as doers and analysts. One of the smartest journalists I have met for a long time, for instance, is Amity Shlaes, now a big wheel on the European edition of the Wall Street Journal. The truth is there is now nothing to stop a woman editing a quality national, except pre- judice.
Previous page
