The press
Battle honours
Paul Johnson
What was striking about Fleet Street's handling of the British re-entry into the Falklands was the deep cleavage bet- ween the pessimism of the weedy-wary papers and the restrained jubilation of the rest. It was already clear that the landing had been a remarkable success, but you would not have grasped that from Satur- day's Mirror. 'Many Dead in Battle for the Falklands' was its main Page One splash; and over Pages Two and Three: `Tragedy and the Tears: Thatcher Fights Back Her Anguish'; '21 Die in Sea King Plunge'; 'The Words that Chilled Britain Yesterday'; over Pages Four and Five: `The Beaches of Death'. The Guardian echoed the gloom: `Five Warships Hit as Task Force sets up Bridgehead', '21 Die in air accident before invasion', 'Argentine Backers win UN council meeting', `Frigates sinking, Junta Claims'. By contrast, the rest of the press seized — rightly as it turned out — on the salient point that the British were ashore in strength: `Troops Gain Falklands Bridge- head' was the main Times lead. 'Firm Bridgehead Established as Task Force Troops and Equipment Pour Ashore' an- nounced the Telegraph. The rest was trium- phant chorus: 'The British Are Back' (Mail); 'Falklands: We're Back' (Express); `The Union Jack Flies Again' (Star); Our Flag Flies Again' (Sun).
It was significant, too, that the patriotic press had something to say. `The govern- ment has now passed the test of courage' thought the Telegraph. 'Bridgehead' was the title of the Times leader: 'We must untie with our teeth a knot that would not yield to the tongue'. 'We are there to protect great and abiding principles', said the Mail; 'we say aggression cannot be allowed to pay'. 'It now is plain', wrote the Express, `that we are answering Argentina's aggres- sion in the only honourable way possible'. `Britain has established a firm bridgehead on the islands', the Sun editorialised. `This is a remarkable success on the very first day of the real war'. I turned to the Mirror in vain for a word of comment, but it had joined the Don't Knows — or the Daren't Says. So had the Guardian. The day before it had published a confused and, to me, in- comprehensible editorial. Now that the event had occurred it had no thought to of- fer until Monday. The Guardian, I fear, has come a terrible cropper over the Falklands: it has been unable to fix upon a clear and consistent policy, perhaps because of inter- nal divisions, and has fallen back on a mix- ture of cynicism, frivolity and irrational hand-wringing. The anaemia of its editorials has been made more conspicuous by the lack of heavyweight political com- mentators capable of seeing the issues in other than party-political terms. The truth is that the Guardian is a fun paper with engaging women's features and sports- writers, but not one to go to war with.
The Observer has almost, though not quite, fallen into the same pit. It, has not achieved the impact and courage it displayed in the Suez crisis: Donald Trelford is hardly A man for all seasons, I'd say. One of its political commentators, Adam Raphael, tends to underestimate the strength and skill of Mrs Thatcher; another, Alan Watkins, suffers from the same debility and has had the additional handicap that his stock-in trade of worldly- wise Westminster jokes and obiter dicta which badly needs renewing anyway — is ill-suited to a crisis of this gravity. Happily the Observer has been redeemed by some excellent columns from Conor Cruise O'Brien, who has explained the position at the UN with devastating force: what a pleasure it is to read someone who com- bines the knowledge of a historian with the grace of a true man of letters and a bent for philosophy. As I say, the Observer has not fallen into the Guardian pit and there were signs last Sunday it was scrambling away from the brink. Granted the Argentines were not to be trusted, it grudgingly admit- ted, 'Mrs Thatcher has conducted both the diplomatic operation and the military build- up, as well as the domestic political dimen- sion, with remarkable skill, determination and single-mindedness'.
The Sunday Times, which has also wob- bled a bit, was brought back to sobriety by the British landings, and its leader on Sun- day (`The war that had to be') was robust and realistic about the next step: 'it will be very difficult to contemplate transferring sovereignty to Argentina in the foreseeable future'. But no change from the Mirror group, whose Sunday paper had nothing to say about the British assault, writing about the Pope instead. Its stable-companion, the Sunday People, merely offered up prayers, including one for General Galtieri, to 'bring him back to his senses', before moving on to more profane matters ('High-Speed Live Life of the Bike Race Kings'). Other Sun- days were rah-rah: 'Our Troops Go Sweep- ing On' (Sunday Express); 'We've Got 'Em on the Run!' (News of the World).
As for the BBC, after watching carefully its coverage of the first days of the British counter-invasion, I fail to detect any ob- vious anti-British bias. What is, however, notable is the embarrassing superiority of the ITN product: it simply tells you a great deal more, in words and pictures, often earlier and in a more vivid and interesting fashion and (as subsequent events show) usually exercises better editorial judgment than the BBC. What the Corporation manifestly lacks is authority. Nor is this surprising, in view of its shabby treatment of Robert Kee, the only BBC man — since the radical cowboys got Robin Day shunted sideways — with any claims to national status. Even with Kee, Panorama was fee- ble; without him it can safely be ignored. The truth is the BBC news and current af- fairs empire is unsuccessful, accident- prone, lacking in talent and demoralised. In these circumstances it's not difficult for lef- tist infiltrators to make their mark.
Alasdair Milne will have to act fast and cut deep, and I wish him luck. But for the first time I begin to believe that the BBC may be past salvation. The Falklands row has undoubtedly done it lasting harm, for it has revealed the BBC for what it is: a public-financed quasi-monopoly run by a self-perpetuating oligarchy whose extreme minority views are out of touch with the na- tion's. In these circumstances, the anomaly of the licence fee, and the other statutory privileges the BBC enjoys, comes to seem intolerable. Dick Francis's imprudent remarks about the Conservative Party did not help either; and a vulnerable entity like the BBC needs a more formidable chairman than a rich booby with a big house and a private line to Willie (`Quivering Jelly') Whitelaw. The Tory rank-and-file has its blood up, on a popular issue, and I foresee growing demands that sorting out the BBC should figure prominently in the next elec- tion manifesto.
Previous page
