Press
Politicians and platitudes
Bill Grundy
Every schoolboy knows that the Sage of Ecclefechan had a poor opinion of the public. When asked what was the population cif • England, Mr Carlyle is reported to have said "Thirty million — mostly fools." He had an even lower opinion of Parliament. In 3 book on the subject he referred to it as "Speaking through reporters to Buncombe and the twentyseven million, mostly fools." Kis arithmetic may have been lower; tam, but his opinion of Parliament and the press was clear — he didn't think much of them. This last week has put me in mind of old Thomas Carlyle again, for we've seen Parliament speaking to the 'twenty-seven million' not through reporters, but about reporters. We have, in other words, had a debate on the state of the press.
I remember there used to be an advert which talked about 'that sinking feeling'. I can't remember
what was supposed to cause it ill the case of other people, but I
know what causes it in rne' Whenever a politician speaks about the press, I begin to disar pear slowly through the floor. When a lot of politicians talk about the press at the same Ore
I sink very rapidly through the floor, and seldom stop until 1 reach the basement. Last week nearly had me through the foun" dations as well. The House was at its wonderful worst. Mr Wilson said rudethings,
about Mr Heath. Mr Heath said
rude things about Mr Wilson. Mr, Wilson said nice things about himself and his concern for the
press. Mr Heath said nice things etc etc. Mr Raphael Tuck made a°
ass of himself (in case you missed it, he actually suggested there should be legislation compelling every national newspaper te Pectator May 25, 1974 devote an equal number of pages tc! Conservative, Labour and Liberal news and views on different days of the week, with the front page being given to the Parties in turn! Mr Jo Grimond said he couldn't imagine anything more certain to finish off the national press once and for all. He Was however, courteous enough not to add that such a catastrophe Would have at least one benefit — We wouldn't have to listen to any rnore of Mr Tuck's ravings on the subject, since there wouldn't be 411Y subject for him to rave about. Mr Ian Gilmour, a former owner of this paper, said some Conservatives thought the Daily Mirror's Performance during the last general election had been deplorable. By this they presuma blY meant that it disagreed s, rongIy with what Mr Heath and Ills government were up to, and ,said so. (Far from being deploraule, this seems to me what a free press is about, and, incidentally, What democratic politics are about, though I know a good few Politicians who do not subscribe to this view.) Mr Gilmour also thought it time Mr Wilson was exorcised of his paranoia. And so say all of us. There is no Tory tlihewsPaper plot against Mr Wilson, "'ere never has been. Mr Wilson Understandably did not see eye to eye with Mr Gilmour on this one. Maurice Edelman, whose smooth eXterior hides a smooth interior, :ald he would like to see a new Laboorpress emerge as a challenge to the Conservative press. Well, so snould I, and so should any man. But when will it come, Mr Edelman? If Labour supporters wanted a Labour press, they should have bought more copies of the Daily Herald when the poor thing was dying of a circulatory complaint. And they should, have bought the 'old' Sun, too. But they didn't. And they won't buy. a Labour paper now, unless it entertains, instead of just dogmatising. Labour policy is so dreary. That's why they buy the Daily Mirror instead of the Socialist Weekly, despite the work Mr Paul Foot puts into that doubtless necessary news-sheet.
The debate inevitably had its laughable side. Mr Heath is eg.pecially prone to attacks of the Pomp. He was seriously stricken on this occasion. He was against overmanning, restrictive practices, and out-of-date plant. He is probably against sin, too. He was not against high wages as such, but those wages had to be worked for. Productivity was the answer (where have I heard that before?). The press must be responsible for its own standards. It is the surest safeguard of the individual's own freedom. Unexceptionable sentiment, all of them, until uttered in Mr Heath's plummy voice, when they take on a curiously suspect colouring. Nor was Mr Wilson any better. He reminded us of how in the past, he had defined the freedom of the press. His definition largely consists of our being able to buy a paper containing Mr Wilson's point of view. He was distressed that on certain days he had found
it impossible, even with total daily sales of 141 million, to buy a newspaper expressing one side of a particularly important case. His side naturally.
And what did the debate prove really? Nothing. Not a fact was produced that hasn't been available to interested parties for ages. Not a sentence uttered that one could really disagree with (the ineffable Mr Tuck excepted). And not one convincing idea for curing the press's ills volunteered. Mr Wilson seemed to think the new Royal Commission would do it, Mr Heath did not, and that was .about that. The rest was, mercifully, silence.
One final comment. If you're going to clean out the Augean stables, it helps, as Hercules found out, to be given a bit of divine assistance. I can't see that happening to Fleet Street. And what does that leave us with? What it would have left Hercules with — one hell of a mess. It is therefore time for every good man to come to the aid of the press — and bring his own brush and shovel.
Previous page
