The New Statesman * Sir: The Chairman, the Editor, the staff
and some of the readers have had their say on the New Statesman's future. May 1 offer the point of view of a freelance who has worked for the last thee editors — and compare their editing styles? John Freeman was the best. Not a political doctrinaire, he anowed space to very different opinions, provided these were expressed in an entertaining manner. Not an outstanding writer himself, he was a good judge of writing by others. Above all, he was receptive to ideas for an article. He was interested in a great range of subjects: the sort of man who reads a newspaper right through — home, foreign affairs, arts, city and sport. It is also worth mentioning that it was fun to drop in at the office in those days. Small magazines gain a lot from having a gossipy, coffeeshop atmosphere. Unfortunately Freeman set a very bad precedent in 1964 by publishing a series of boring, propaganda articles on behalf of the Labour party, written by people like Michael Stewart. Of course, practically everyone who wrote for the NS hoped that Labour would win the election. But the NS can best help Labour as friendly critic rather than spokesman.
The tendency of the NS to become a Labour party organ grew worse under the editorship of Paul Johnson. I do not suggest for one moment that Paul was insincere in supporting, for instance, the Industrial Relations Act, or Britain's aid to Nigeria in the war against Biafra. But while arguing for such policies—and he argues with great polemical force — Paul should have allowed more voice to opponents. The NS continued to advertise as a journal of dissent ', when in fact it was no such thing. Apart from anything else, this was bad for the circulation figures. since 'weeklies thrive on controversy. For example, people still remember the great Leavis-Snow debate in The Spectator. When people argued with him, Paul said that the NS should support the Labour government because all the Tory press was attacking it. But the NS carries few votes. And it is arguable that the Labour party would now have more chance of a comeback if the NS had used its undoubted influence in the parliamentary party to change the disastrous policies of the Wilson government. I feel that this propagandist role affected other aspects of Paul's editorship. It was during this period that the various new left movements grew up. Young people especially were get ting excited about Marc use, Trotsky, Fanon and so on. I don't suggest that the NS should have swung to the new left. But it should have taken more interest. Instead the paper concentrated attention on Parliament. This was saddening because in many respects Paul was a good editor. He
encouraged contributors, was appreciative of good work and, unlike some editors, was never afraid of being up-staged by star contributors such as Levin or Muggeridge. Much has been said about Dick Crossman's editorship. For an outside contributor, such as myself, whether one finds it easy to work for him is largely a matter of temperament. You put up an idea, He knocks it down and puts up another idea, which you are expected to knock down. A kind of Socratic dialogue ensues in which you end up either by writing nothing at all or by writing an article based on his idea. Unfortunately writers are not normally good debaters. This may explain why so much of the NS is written by politicians, many of them on retainer. His editorship has been best when he has something to say (e.g. Ireland) even when these views were pretty fat-headed (e.g. Ireland). But here again he has given the right of reply to people who knocked down his own arguments (e.g. Conor Cruise O'Brien) and indeed seemed to enjoy the argument. But too much of the paper is filled with tired leaders and comments on the week's news. These may have been useful in the 'thirties when there was no voice of the left in London. But the Guardian does that sort of thing better these days. Moreover Dick Grossman has no interest in foreign countries, except Israel and Germany. With these uncalled-for and no doubt impertinent comments I have tried to infer what characteristics make a good NS editor, from the point of view of an outside contributor. But I do not believe that any editor has a chance of reviving the paper without a profound change in the management. The board of the NS is now dominated by businessmen. The chairman, Lord Campbell, is President of a company with extensive interests in the underdeveloped countries. He is also deputy chairman of London Weekend Television. His new aide Hugh de Quetteville is an ad man turned management consultant. They are supported by a lawyer and an accountant. I believe that the business mentality of the board and management has had a bad effect on editorial policy. Let us take four examples.
The publication of full page 'prestige' ads discourages editors from attacks not only upon the companies that advertise but on big business in general. Of course there are no conditions attached to these ads: the companies would not be so crude as to make conditions. But it is noticeable that the companies that place these advertisements are almost always companies open to criticism. This week for instance, we had BP, who have been criticised by conservationists from Canada to the Isle of Wight, by the Biafran side in the Nigerian civil war and by the Libyan government. Other 'prestige advertisers who are also vulnerable to political attacks, are Guest, Keen and Nettlefolds, the Brewers Society, British Steel and the independent TV companies. These ads help to ex plain the remarkable absence from the NS of the kind of stories, criti cal of capitalists, which appear in
the Private Eye 'Footnotes.' If the NS published such stories, the 'prestige' ads would disappear but the readership would increase and with it the small ads. The NS has been afflicted by what might be called the 'promotion mentality.' To attract Young readers, it promoted a competition for young writers. To attract more readers in provincial England, it ran a series of articles on provincial cities. Such promotion drives are said to work on popular newspapers, whose readers, so it is said, do not see through them. They do not work with a paper like the NS. The way to attract young readers is to publish articles which they find interesting. Time Out has succeeded here. A series of articles on provincial cities is likely to lose readers there who feel that their intelligence is insulted. Nor are the articles very likely to be of interest since no writer gives of his best to promote a circulation drive.
Even worse than circulation drives are stories or supplements designed to attract advertising. When Paul Johnson wrote an article favourable to Israel, it appeared surrounded by ads for Israeli, or pro-Zionist companies. This gave the impression (quite unfair to Paul) that the article was in return for the ads. That issue of the NS enraged not only the pro-Arab lobby, but those who fear the influence of advertising on editorial policy. There was a recent attempt, mercifully unsuccessful, to have articles on East Germany in return for ads. If the NS continues this way it will reach the predicament of the Times, in which crooked governments like Liberia buy favourable editorial comment in exchange for advertisements in a " supplement."
If, as some of us believe, the in
stitution of commercial TV was the single worst thing that has happened to Britain since the war, it is sad that the chairman of the NS should be deputy chairman of London Weekend Television. I am sure that Lord Campbell would not object to the NS publishing attacks on his or any other commercial TV company. But such attacks have been conspicuous by their absence.
This businessmen's board has
created a huge disparity between the pay for contributors and the pay for its business executives. The NS is not a poor paper. It is a thriving capitalist concern employing a large staff of business executives, some of whom earn more than £5,000 a year. The payment for contributions is very low. A freelance contributor is lucky to get £40 for a week's work. If he pays his own expenses on a foreign trip he may not earn more than £4 a week. An NS director's fee exceeds the total year's earnings of the average NS contributor. It was typical of the board's business mentality that it tried to reverse a decline in circulation not by improving the quality of the editorial matter but by changing layout and typography. The implication is that the NS is a product like soap flakes or cigarettes which is sold on the attractiveness of the packet. The new lay-out rules out very long articles and means that articles have to be fitted into the page so that the writer is asked to cut or, still worse, pad out his words at the
last moment. I am sure most readers would give up all the typographical gimmickry in exchange for more, better reading matter.
Finally, may I remark that I am not a candidate for the editorship.
Richard West 80 Cliffords Inn, London EC4 *This letter was rejected for pubrication by the New Statesman.
Previous page
