AN EDITOR'S PREROGATIVES
The press: Paul Johnson
on the powers and rights of newspaper editors
THERE are a number of new or newish editors on the national newspaper scene at present, with the prospect of more to come. The question of an editor's inde- pendence has recently been raised by the behaviour of the print unions at the Obvserver. So this is perhaps a good time to try to identify what exactly are, or ought to be, the powers and rights of an editor. Needless to say, such definitions often raise more problems than they solve. No one has ever yet successfully defined, for example, the freedom of the press. In a parliamentary democracy like ours, the duties and privileges of the media are probably best left undefined, at any rate in a legal sense. Nevertheless, there is some confusion about where an editor stands, and an attempt to dispel it is in order. The law holds the editor responsible for everything which is published in his paper, and that is as it should be. This leads to my rule one, founded on natural justice as well as common sense: he who is liable to go to jail must also have the power. The editor is, or ought to be, an autocrat. This does not mean that he behaves autocratically. On the contrary. A good editor delegates a great deal of his power. He holds regular editorial conferences at which not merely the contents of a specific issue, but the general policies and conduct of the paper are freely discussed by the senior staff (and even, if this is physically possible, by junior staff too). But this is a consultative not a Power-sharing process. An editor rules by prerogative, not constitutionally. A good editor carries his staff with him on all important issues but he should not hesitate to act alone. Nor should he be dismayed if he is in a minority of one. He is closer to a commander-in-chief in war than to a prime minister in peace. So a good editor should be feared and obeyed but also respected and (if possible) loved. For these reasons the editor's position on. the paper is unique and should not be obscured by titular inflation, above or below him. I deplore the American prac- tice, now quite common over here, of having an editor-in-chief, sometimes of more than one paper, or a board member termed Editorial Director. These positions are rarely created for intrinsic, logical reasons but as part of the settlement of a power-struggle or to avoid paying some- body more money or (worst of all) because the board does not trust the real editor. But if the so-called editor is jailable then he must be given the corresponding undi- vided power, and if you don't trust him then you must replace him by somebody you do. The nomenclature of the masthead should never leave anyone in any doubt who the responsible editor is.
Equally, below the editor, the term should be applied only to departmental heads with clear responsibility for specific pages: City Editor, Sports Editor, Features Editor, News Editor and so forth. Titles like Political Editor, Economics Editor etc are meanly awarded to avoid raising their holders' salaries. They devalue the word `editor' and mislead the reader. Not long ago a so-called Political Editor resigned because he claimed the editor was interfer- ing in the political coverage. This is non- sense. The editor is the political editor of the paper, as he is of every other aspect of its coverage, and all other power is dele- gated and instantly recoverable. Far better to use the older and well-understood term `correspondent', as sensible papers still do.
However much he may choose to dele- gate, the editor must have ultimate power over editoral content (plus power of veto over specific advertisements) and this pow- er should be maintained, subject of course to the law of the land, in the face of Tot's not as dangerous as cricket.' all-comers: management, advertising peo- ple, printing and ancillary workers, legal advisers and editorial staff. Owners and management should never be permitted to determine, against an editor's inclination, what does or does not go into a paper (though they have the right to settle the proportion between editorial and advertis- ing). The claims of production workers to interfere in editorial content should be rejected absolutely and on principle. In- deed I would make the threat or use of the strike weapon to limit the freedom of the press a criminal offence, like any other form of menace or blackmail. An editor must always obey the law and comply with a court order or verdict. But he is entitled to reject legal advice on the balance of risk, though this should happen only very rare- ly. An editor should also be prepared to resist the will of the journalists' union and produce his paper without the help of those members of his editorial staff who obey it. His job is to serve his readers and, pro- vided no sacrifice of moral principle is involved, it is always better to produce an inadequate paper than none at all. His ultimate concern, however, is to further the public interest by the light of his conscience, and if this means alienating readers, so be it.
The powers of the editor, rightly under- stood, are so great that they must be balanced by proprietorial power. An edi- tor's right to serve his readers as he thinks fit is qualified by the proprietor's (or management's) right to conduct a viable commercial enterprise. A newspaper is a business and in any business ultimate authority must rest with whoever has to pay the wages. A proprietor has no right to overrule his editor's control of editorial content either in a specific case or in general. But he has an absolute right to replace him. The right of an owner to sack an editor, and the right of an editor to sack (or move) around a member oft the edito- rial staff, are both vital elements in the freedom of the press because they enable power to coincide with responsibility.
For this reason it is wrong for Parliament or the Department of Trade and Industry to interfere in the relations between prop- rietors and editors and try to create special rules or 'independent directors' to govern the appointment of an editor. These schemes never work — the man who pays the wages must have his way in the end - and they obscure the realities of power.
They also constitute ominous precedents for further interference by government and politicians. The punishment of a rogue proprietor can safely be left to the readers, whose power to withdraw their custom is the ultimate deterrent: it will be greatly augmented as the revolution in print tech- nology increases the number of competi- tive titles. In the era of invigorating change which the British national press has now entered, it will pay proprietors to appoint strong editors — and stick to them.
Previous page
