MEDIA STUDIES
Branson doesn't play games of chance with the red tops
STEPHEN GLOVER
Last Thursday in the High Court Mr Justice Richards said that the Lottery Com- mission's decision to rule out Camelot, and deal only with Sir Richard Branson, was 'so conspicuously unfair' as to be 'an abuse of power'. It is hard to think of a more damn- ing judgment of the Commission, and its `chair', Dame Helena Shovelton.
One would have expected newspapers to express reservations about the Lottery Commission's conduct, and possibly a little outrage, but their reaction was far from uniform. The Daily Mail threw a fit. The Independent described the Commission's decision to rule out Camelot as 'incompe- tent' and called for Dame Helena to resign. In a slightly more muted leader, the Guardian suggested that she and her 'fellow quangocrats must consider their position'. The Daily Express welcomed the judge's ril- ing, while the Daily Telegraph ran a short editorial conveying its general distaste for the National Lottery.
On the other side, the Times — almost unbelievably — had nothing to say about Mr Justice Richards's judgment, though on 24 August it had welcomed the Lottery Commission's exclusion of Camelot as `responsible'. Its sister paper, the Sun, was also oddly silent, having played its custom- ary role as Sir Richard Branson's cheerlead- er on 24 August. The Mirror ran a leader criticising the Lottery Commission for being `silly' and restated its perennial enthusiasm for Sir Richard. 'Let the Commission now get on with it. And tell Sir Richard Branson that his People's Lottery has won.'
We should not be altogether surprised by the reaction of the Times, Sun and Mirror. All three newspapers have a warm place in their hearts for Branson. As a broadsheet, the Times is the most circumspect, and occasionally allows some of its columnists to write about Sir Richard as though he were a normal human being: Patience Wheatcroft has questioned the decision to exclude Camelot, and on Monday William Rees- Mogg wrote that Branson was not the sort of chap who should run a lottery. The Sun has few, if any, dissenting voices. It is consis- tently pro-Branson; indeed, its editor, David Yelland, is an old and close friend. The paper rarely misses an opportunity to puff the tycoon, and gave him an enormous boost when Virgin Mobile was launched in March. Many letters, almost invariably favourable, are carried about him. The Mir- ror is equally supportive — its editor, Piers Morgan, is also an admirer of Branson's and has rooted for the People's Lottery, and berated Camelot, for many years. It should go without saying that the Lottery is closer to the hearts of the readers of these two 'red tops' than it would be to the readers of the Times. It matters a great deal to them.
There is no reason why newspapers should not be beastly about Camelot, which doubtless has many flaws. It is equally legit- imate to favour the People's Lottery. For all I know, it may be the better bet. My only point is that the Mirror and the Sun, and to a lesser extent the Times, idolise Sir Richard Branson, and therefore do not object when his opponent, Camelot, is shoddily treated by the Lottery Commis- sion. The Sunday Times is also a long-term admirer of Sir Richard's.
Last week saw the publication of Branson by Tom Bower, the outstanding investiga- tive journalist of his generation. His picture of the tycoon is a very dark one — philan- derer, ruthless and devious businessman. One of Bower's most disquieting claims is that Sir Richard is brilliant at manipulating journalists, some of whom are favoured with upgrades on Virgin flights, or are recipients of other largesse. He suggests that this indulgence of hacks partly explains the extraordinarily good press which, at least until recently, Branson has received. Setting aside a very unflattering portrait by BBC1's Panorama, I can think of only three really hard-hitting pieces about the man's financial affairs — in the Financial Times, the Economist and this magazine.
It would, of course, be preposterous to suggest that any senior executives on the Mirror or the Sun or the Times or any other paper had ever received any largesse from Sir Richard Branson. Or, in the unlikely event that they had, it would be utterly infa- mous to link the receipt of such alleged favours with the positive coverage that the tycoon has received in these newspapers.
All I do know it that it is relatively easy to charm journalists. This is not because they are more venal than other people. Contrary to public perception, many journalists want to be nice and, when a smiling, indulgent man comes along, it is tempting to treat him in the same way. Some journalists are impressed by great wealth, or the appear- ance of it. This may all explain why a man such as Sir Richard Branson should have received so sympathetic a press over the years. But if it should emerge that he is much less good than has been made out, then those journalists who have favoured him, and been favoured by him, had better be careful.
Something extraordinary has happened to the Daily Express. Ever since Rosie Boy- cott became its editor, it has supported New Labour. Lord Hollick, chief executive of United News and Media, has been a fer- vent New Labourite, and delivered the paper into the Blair camp. I have suggested in these pages before that some older Daily Express readers are not wholly up to speed, and may be under the illusion that the paper still supports the Conservative party and the Empire as it did in Lord Beaver- brook's day. Nonetheless, no one could say that Ms Boycott and Lord Hollick have been half-hearted in their support for New Labour, or that they have in any way short- changed Tony Blair.
Until now, that is. Over the past few weeks the Daily Express has become a constant thorn in the government's rear end. Uniquely in the Blairite press, it sided with the fuel protesters. It has run a spirited campaign on behalf of pensioners who, it must be said, make up a good proportion of its readership. Day after day its front-page headlines scream abuse at New Labour. On one day, the word `Defeated' hangs over a picture of Tony Blair. On another, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is described as 'Miser Brown' and `Moneybags'. On another, the front-page headline tells us that 'Dome Minister "Lied" To Lords'. On yet another, that 'NHS Is Worse Under Labour'. All in all, the Daily Express is making the Daily Mail look like Tony Blair's loyal friend.
What on earth is going on? I think I have the answer. Some eight weeks ago Stephen Byers, Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, changed the rules governing tele- vision franchises. As a result, Granada swooped on Lord Hollick's United News and Media, and flew off with Meridian, HTV and Anglia. United was left a mere husk of what it had been, and could scarce- ly call itself a media company any longer. To its credit, the government was acting in a disinterested way but it offended its old stay and comforter Lord Hollick, and now he is having his revenge.
Previous page
