MEDIA STUDIES

Power of the press? No, power of the readers

STEPHEN GLOVER

Even more interesting is the way readers of different newspapers voted. Between 21 March and 29 April MORI interviewed 13,544 British adults about their voting intentions. After the election result, MORI 'weighted' its findings to take account of the. difference between what people said they would do and what they actually did. No doubt these new figures are far from perfect, but they give us the best insight we are going to have into how the readers of different newspapers voted. They also pro- vide us with a fascinating comparison with the 1992 general election.

One striking thing about the table below is the comparative uniformity in the swing from Conservative to Labour among the readers of all newspapers. (A reader is defined as someone who picks up a particu- lar paper three days out of four.) In fact the swing is a little less marked among readers of left-wing titles such as the Daily Mirror and the Guardian than among readers of right-wing papers like the Mail. The reason is that a paper such as the Mirror had a smaller proportion of Tory voters in 1992 to make the swing to Labour in 1997.

Look at the traditional right-wing titles — the Express, the Mail, the Sun, and the Telegraph — and you will see that the swing to the Conservatives was a pretty similar one of between 12 and 16 per cent. The Times records a slightly bigger swing of 17.5 per cent which probably reflects its very much larger and changed readership since 1992. The inference is that newspapers can- not 'lock up' readers even if they wanted to. No doubt readers can be influenced: one might speculate that the smaller Con-Lab swing of 12 per cent among Telegraph read- ers indicates that the newspaper's anti- Labour arguments were persuasive. But newspapers cannot resist national trends.

That said, it is remarkable how well matched newspapers' editorial policies were to the way their readers voted. (All these figures are for newspaper readers who voted. They don't include readers who didn't.) The lukewarm support the Mail gave the Tories is well reflected in the paper's figures. The same holds true of the Express. It makes sense that the paper most supportive of the Conservative cause — the Telegraph — should have the largest pro- portion of Conservative voters. Of course we can't say which comes first — whether readers are influenced by the newspapers they read, or papers influenced by what they take to be the views of their readers. The truth must lie somewhere between the two, though I rather think that readers usu- ally take the lead.

Newspaper readership Con % Voting Con-Lab Lab LD swing

%% %

Express 49 29 16 16.5 Daily Mail 49 29 14 15.5 Mirror 14 72 11 7.5 Daily Telegraph 57 20 17 12.0 Financial Times 48 29 19 14.5 Guardian

8

67 22 9.5 Independent

16

47 30 9.5 Daily Star

17

66 12 14.0 Sun

30

52 12 15.5 Times 42 28 25 17.5 Evening Standard

36

45 12 n/a All UK voters

31

44 17 10.5

It is almost uncanny how papers were so in sympathy with their readers. None of them made a recommendation in defiance of what turned out to be their readers' pref- erences. (By contrast, in 1992 the Financial Times supported Labour even though 65 per cent of its readers voted Conservative. This time it went back to the Tories.) Max Hastings, the editor of the London Evening 'Care to switch wild horses?' Standard, seems to have accurately predict- ed his readers' preferences in coming out for Labour at the last moment. We surely can't imagine that they were greatly influ- enced by his last minute declaration.

The editor of the Sun, and his proprietor Rupert Murdoch, seem also to have a remarkably good insight into their readers' feelings. I suppose that as the Sun came out for Labour at the very beginning of a six week campaign, it is possible that the paper did convert a few Conservatives to Labour. The paper may have paid a price, though. The 5 per cent loss of sales in April might reflect the disenchantment of some readers with the Sun's sudden change of heart.

Readers may recall that immediately after the election we were treated on televi- sion to the sight of Kenneth Clarke driving his own removal van out of Downing Street. Newspapers also used the same photograph, though a little more circum- spectly. In the Times of Saturday, 3 May, for example, there was a picture of Mr Clarke standing by the open door of a removal van bearing the legend Ashbourne Motors Self Drive'. The caption beneath reads: 'Kenneth Clarke leaving for London yesterday after hiring his own removal van in Nottingham'. The implication was that Ken was on his way to Downing Street to remove his chattels from Number 11.

This image moved me a great deal. I thought to myself that Britain is the only country in the world in which a senior min- ister would take it upon himself to under- take his own removals immediately after an election defeat. I reflected what a fine, unspoilt chap Mr Clarke is. Several people mentioned the incident to me and a former Cabinet colleague of Mr Clarke's remarked that it showed him in his best possible light.

Now I learn that Mr Clarke did not remove his own belongings out of Downing Street, and that the hire van in question never left Nottingham. Mr Clarke has told me that he was merely 'moving some stuff' for his mother. Naturally a professional removals firm was engaged to remove his chattels from Downing Street. He seemed to take the misreporting in good heart, as just one further example of media distor- tion. My high opinion of Mr Clarke momentarily collapsed until I reflected that he had honestly admitted that a story which had done him great credit was untrue.