MEDIA STUDIES
Were Radio Four's Mr Boyle a newspaper editor, he'd be sacked by now
STEPHEN GLOVER
Six months ago James Boyle, the new controller of Radio Four, introduced far- reaching changes to his station. Several per- fectly good long-standing programmes were scrapped, and there was a lot of reschedul- ing among programmes that remained. The Today programme was lengthened by 50 minutes. Perhaps readers will forgive me for mentioning that on 21 March I wrote in this column that I expected that 'this root and branch reform will make people unhappy'. Mr Boyle had relied too much on research, particularly 'focus groups', rather than the judgment and instincts of his own programme makers.
Last week new figures from Joint Audi- ence Research showed that Radio Four has lost more listeners than at any time in its history. In the past three months the network has mislaid 570,000 listeners, and its overall weekly radio audience has dropped to 7.7 million. Far from attracting new listeners, the audience of the expand- ed Today programme has fallen by 600,000 to 4.6 million. These figures cover one quarter, and Joint Radio Research tells me that we should treat them with caution. But it does seem clear that quite a lot of people have been made unhappy by Mr Boyle's changes.
Why did he do it? There was much talk at the time of Radio Four losing listeners, but in fact the station's audience has held up well over the years. Five years ago, in 1993, the average weekly Radio Four audi- ence was 8.6 million. Last year, when Mr Boyle seized the reins of power, the figure was 8.15 million. Despite the advent of Radio Five in 1994, and the proliferation of other independent radio stations, Radio Four's audience had been remarkably resilient. So why the wholesale transforma- tion? Because, as I said in my previous arti- cle, Mr Boyle is a modern manager who needs to leave his mark, who practises change for change's sake — ceaseless, never-ending revolution.
I must say, though, that part of me rather admires Mr Boyle. He bounces about from interview to interview repeat- ing in a chirpy sort of way that he is 'disap- pointed'. If an editor of a national newspa- per had brought about comparable changes and seen a decline in circulation, he would have been more than disappoint- ed. He would have been sacked. Indeed, that is what recently happened to Andrew Marr at the Independent. But Mr Boyle has not been sacked, and I don't expect he will be even if the next quarter's figures are bad. He has merely stated that he will fall on his own sword if the time comes. He will judge the moment.
I can't remember any senior manager being turfed out by the BBC for not deliv- ering the goods. The BBC pretends it is part of the market, and that it lives by the same rules as the rest of us, but it is really a sort of oligarchy whose revolutionary spirits are immune from the consequences of their own actions. That is why it is so rum.
Last week, in my column about Jonathan Hunt's book on the Guardian, I wrote that the paper's editor, Alan Rus- bridger, was contemplating a piece answering Mr Hunt's allegations of a con- spiracy and cover-up over the Neil Hamil- ton affair. It appeared last Wednesday morning. Alas, it did not amount to a con- sidered rebuttal of Mr Hunt's very serious charges, which were only fleetingly men- tioned. Mr Hunt was treated as being sev- eral apples short of a picnic, the sort of chap who comes up to you on a bus and tells you the world is going to end next Tuesday. The tone of Mr Rusbridger's article was part exasperated, part jaunty. You would think from reading it that he bore the allegations very lightly, though we know he has taken the matter far more seriously. Why else did he ask the Guardian's stringer in Brazil to nose around the affairs of Mr Hunt's collabora- tor, Malcolm Keith-Hill?
His assiduousness does him credit. As I wrote last week, I believe that Mr Hunt's most serious allegations are very wide of the mark. There is no evidence of any cover-up involving the Guardian. But it does not follow that Mr Hamilton was guilty absolutely as charged by the Guardian and Mohamed Al Fayed. Nor does it follow that the newspaper has noth- ing of which to be ashamed in its dealings with the wily Egyptian. In his scatter-gun approach Mr Hunt tends to lose sight of some simple questions. For example, shouldn't the Guardian have been made suspicious by the late appearance of Mr Al Fayed's three employees as witnesses against Mr Hamilton? And did Mr Al Fayed ever do the Guardian any favours we don't already know about?
We forget that two or three years ago, when Mr Al Fayed was serving as the Guardian's informant and star witness, he was widely seen as a decent cove much maligned by the British establishment. Subsequent events have shown this impression to be almost wholly false, and we have been reminded of the verdict of the Department of Trade inspectors that he is an inveterate liar. When the man upon whom you have staked your reputa- tion is so revealed, you may be in some difficulty. That is Mr Rusbridger's posi- tion, and I believe he feels it keenly. Although his predecessor, Peter Preston, had 14 meetings with Mr Al Fayed, Mr Rusbridger is eager for us to know that he has never met the man. Is it possible that he fears there is evidence still to emerge about the Guardian's close relationship with Mr Al Fayed that will shame his newspaper?
Every title has to have a media columnist these days. The Daily Telegraph has just acquired the services of Alexan- der Chancellor, late and esteemed editor of this magazine. The Independent has signed up Andrew Neil, former editor of the Sunday Times. Though I have criti- cised Mr Neil from time to time, I do admire his chutzpah, and he would seem admirably qualified for the role of a press commentator. But shouldn't his column inform readers that he is still editor-in- chief of the Barclay brothers' various newspapers, as well as a paid adviser to Mr Al Fayed?
Previous page
