It is time to praise Mr Rusbridger — for not turning the Guardian into a tabloid
There are lots of people who believe that Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, has messed up. Some journalists on his newspaper think that he has. So do many on the commercial side of the Guardian. The case against him is that over two years ago he shot out of the water a proposal which had been produced for the Guardian Media Group board suggesting that the newspaper go tabloid. According to this report, if the Guardian did so it might put on 15 per cent in sales. Readers were evidently crying out for a smaller shape. Whether out of an innate conservatism, or because he did not like the tabloid shape, Mr Rusbridger successfully opposed the plan. The rest, say his critics, is history.
Last autumn the Independent produced a tabloid edition, and the paper is now available only in that form. Its circulation has increased by about 15 per cent, whereas that of the Guardian has fallen by some 6 per cent. Case proved, say Mr Rusbridger's detractors. The Guardian has missed an opportunity thanks to Mr Rusbridger's obduracy, which was on show again when he refused to take his newspaper tabloid after the Independent's version had shown striking initial success, Now the Guardian has decided to adopt the larger Berliner shape — that of Le Monde in France — though not until 2006. New presses costing an estimated £50 million will have to be ordered, since existing presses can produce either a broadsheet or a tabloid form but not a Berliner. The Guardian may face penalties for withdrawing early from its existing printing contracts. Presumably the thinking is that with the Independent now tabloid, and half the sales of the Times tabloid, the paper cannot simply sidle into the market with a `me too' product. But Mr Rusbridger's critics say that had he adopted the tabloid form before the Independent did so, he would have saved the Guardian an investment of some £50 million.
Readers with long memories may remember that this column has had its quarrels with Mr Rusbridger in the past. It would be very easy — and it is even a little tempting — to join the herd accusing the editor of the Guardian of having made the kind of error which in a more commercially minded company would have led to his dismissal. The trouble is that, try as I may, I cannot persuade myself that Mr Rusbridger has made a terrible mistake. It seems to me probable, whether out of luck or judgment I am not sure, that he has made the right decision.
The Independent went tabloid out of desperation. It was a last throw of the dice which has worked out better than almost anyone could have hoped. The position of the Guardian was different. It did not find itself in the same dire straits as the Independent. Moreover, bulging as it does with classified advertising dropped into its lap by HMG, it could not have adopted the tabloid form without being disagreeably chunky. If Mr Rusbridger had agreed two years ago to take his newspaper tabloid, it might have enjoyed the same kind of circulation lift as the Independent has done. But where would it have led?
There are tabloids and tabloids. The Independent and the Times are the same size as the Sun. To my eye it seems rather cramped. There is the larger Daily Mail size, which is about an inch longer, and there is a bigger size still, not widely available in this country, about a further inch and a half longer, which resembles La Repubblica in Italy. All these tabloids are the same width. Then there is the Le Monde or Berliner size which, being both longer and wider, cannot be produced by any press in Britain without adaptation that would render it unfit for producing any other shape. Of all these forms the Berliner offers the most scope for striking design. The Independent and the Times are in effect compressed broadsheets. It is possible to produce a well-designed upmarket tabloid in this form — look at El Pais in Spain — but the Berliner offers a larger canvas which still has the advantages of being significantly smaller than a broadsheet. The Berliner shape is both stylish and practical.
The market may not change very much until the Guardian produces its new shape in 2006. The Independent's circulation increase has flattened out. (Do not assume, by the way, that its sales growth has come entirely as a consequence of its tabloid form. Some new readers may have been attracted by its strong anti-war stance.) The Times seems stuck, with half its readers cherishing the tabloid, and the other half anxious to hang on to the broadsheet version. As I have said before. the Daily Telegraph's older and more conservative readers would probably not welcome a tabloid, and the newspaper's new owners would be unwise to go to the vast extra expense of producing one in addition
to a broadsheet. So unless a new entrant should come along — about which I should not say anything at all — the quality newspaper landscape in 2006 may well look much as it does now. The Guardian has probably lost all the sales it is going to. Mr Rusbridger has the leisure of being able to design a beautiful Berliner which will not look like a compressed broadsheet. Moreover, when the Guardian relaunches in its new form it will do so without producing a parallel broadsheet, and will thus escape the expense of producing two versions. Of course, there is always the risk that some Guardian readers will not like the Berliner shape but, equally, non-Guardian readers may be attracted to it. All in all, this looks to me very far from the mess that Mr Rusbridger's critics claim it to be.
Why do so many people dislike Andrew Neil? I have been pondering this question since reading a letter in Tuesday's Guardian from the wit and humorist Craig Brown. Mr Brown, who writes the 'Way of the World' column in the Daily Telegraph, made immortal by Michael Wharton, threatens to resign from the Telegraph if Mr Neil is put in charge by its new owners, the Barclays. He was enraged by a suggestion made in the Guardian by my esteemed colleague Roy Campbell-Greenslade that 'Neil and the Telegraph fit like a glove'.
I must say this shows how very little dear old Roy understands the Telegraph. Mr Neil is a right-wing, metropolitan, social liberal, The Daily Telegraph is Tory, non-metropolitan and more socially conservative. Mr Brown puts it a little differently. He says that 'Neil's outlook is essentially angry, fingerwagging and neophiliac, while the Telegraph is cheerful, tolerant and traditional'.
But still this does not fully explain why people such as Mr Brown so dislike Mr Neil. It is a question to which we may have to return in the coming weeks.
The other day I received one of those pieces of viral marketing via email from the publisher of The Spectator, promoting last week's issue. It is good to see that the magazine is so up with the times. But I was a little taken aback to read that I had written an article 'praising the wit and sagacity of the Barclay brothers'. Did I really? Perhaps in a few days' time I will learn that I have written a devastating attack on Alan Rusbridger.
Previous page
