A NEW AGE OF EDITORS
that 1986 dethroned the unions and put editors on their mettle
THE year 1986 was of outstanding import- ance for the British national press and on balance brought good news. Two new dailies, Today and the Independent, are now established and both, in my view, will survive. It is true that Today proved an editorial failure and the year's end saw the departure of its first editor. But that is not surprising — he who launches a new paper seldom survives to steer it to success. What is remarkable is that Today, despite all its mistakes, is still on its feet: the huge fall in the costs of production now enables a new title to have a second and a third shot at getting its formula right. All Today needs is a self-confident editor with personality and punch, who can give the paper a distinctive role.
The Independent must already be rated a success, despite my reservations about its muzzy editorial tone. The people who launched it, profiting shrewdly from To- day's experience, made very few technical and commercial mistakes. It has already created a solid sales-base from which to expand and, equally important, it has established a reputation among educated people with a wide range of political views that it is a paper worth reading. But the question remains: has it enough indepen- dent backing to see it through the long haul to profitability, or will it fall a juicy prey to one of the big fellows? Fairfax, Goldsmith, Packer and Rowland have been talked about (there are others) and such a pur- chaser would get a bargain, for its long- term future could be tremendous.
Shortage of cash is also likely to be the problem of the News on Sunday, the left-wing national due in April, which has saddled itself both with much of the old-style union restrictions and self- imposed problems of editorial control. If its money runs out, I don't see a capitalist angel descending from on high. By con- trast, Robert Maxwell's proposed new 24-hour London paper will certainly not lack for funds since Maxwell's financial dealings in 1986 more than doubled his already vast resources. With Charles Win- tour in command, this venture will be a real challenge to the Standard, those new editor, John Leese, is rightly taking it seriously. What is not yet clear, however, is whether Maxwell has a secret plan to use his new project as part of a gigantic leap-frogging operation to get this entire Mirror publishing operation out of the clutches of the London print unions.
Until recently, such an audacious scheme would have been regarded as impossible. Rupert Murdoch's move to Wapping shows that it can be done. Tech- nically, there are no longer any serious. problems. Murdoch can now produce as many papers as he pleases, and distribute them anywhere. There are no union res- trictions on expanding his page-numbers or making other production changes as and when appropriate. For all practical pur- poses the unions are beaten. They have lost their political battle against Eric Ham- mond's electricians in the TUC; they have lost their physical battle on the Wapping streets. A third of their displaced members have individually accepted the terms Mur- doch offered. In short, this is a classic failed strike. The NGA and Sogat have been badly led throughout. Even now they are foolishly persisting in the dispute in- stead of swallowing their pride, settling and reforming to fight on a second front
'There's a Mister Big somewhere behind all this.'
which is sure to open soon. For the cuts in costs and the gains in freedom Murdoch has achieved at Wapping pose continuing threats to his competitors. That means they must, sooner or later, bring pressure to bear on the unions for more concessions. Hence I do not rule out a Maxwell leap for liberty in 1987 and strong action by both the Express and Mail groups. The muted response by the unions to the demands by the Telegraph management for further sacrifices, announced a fortnight ago, indi- cates the general collapse of morale among the once all-powerful Fleet Street chapels.
The Wapping move has produced a huge increase in profitability for Murdoch's Brit- ish operations. In theory this should lead to a steady improvement in the quality of his papers. One of the strongest arguments for pushing ahead with the new technology, and facing down the old print unions, has always been that the cash thus saved could then be ploughed back into editorial. I have used it myself constantly, not least in urging journalists to back proprietors with the guts to fight for change. However, I must admit that there is no evidence, so far, that the Wapping cost-savings are producing better papers. Take, for inst- ance, the Sunday Times, now reputed to be making by far the greatest profits in its history. I warmly supported its editor, Andrew Neil, for his courage and deter- mination during the Wapping crisis. But he has made poor use of the greater editorial scope which the transformation has given him. The Sunday Times story about the Queen and Mrs Thatcher, which failed to stand up, was the most serious piece of editorial misjudgment during 1986 and has undoubtedly damaged the reputation of the paper. Neil may have more money to spend, but the results do not sparkle. The recent Eisenhower serialisation was the dullest Sunday newspaper series I can ever remember. More serious of all, the paper is getting an unenviable reputation for pluck- ing highly successful columnists from other papers and then burying them in a kind of typographical graveyard.
This brings me to a general point, in summing up 1986. The year has begun the process of lifting the union tyranny from the backs of our national papers. Managers can now manage, and editors can edit, with much greater freedom than before. But the access of liberty has also removed the excuses for failure. It has switched the spotlight of attention away from the ob- structive chapel and onto the whole subject of editorial skills. Today and the Indepen- dent, in different ways, show that there is no substitute for journalistic flair. The tech- nology may be perfect, the unions may be cowed, but what make a good paper are fresh ideas presented with high profession- al polish. In my view, a new age of editors is dawning in British journalism. But it will mean a fierce struggle for the survival of the fittest and much blood on newsroom walls.
Previous page
