The press
The monopoly game
Paul Johnson
The handling of the Observer takeover has been ridiculous. Of course the monopoly legislation is itself absurd, especially so far as Fleet Street is concerned, since the one type of monopoly which really does constitute a threat both to the independence and the survival of newspapers — the monopoly of labour exercised by the closed shop mechanical unions — is not covered by the law at all. London has a bigger spread of ownership, and a wider range of papers, than any other capital. It might have been argued that the Murdoch acquisition of The Times and Sunday Times, which left him with four British nationals, plus enormous newspaper holdings elsewhere in Britain and abroad, was a good case for a referral. That was not the view the Government took, and I agree with them. But for the Government to ignore the Murdoch case and then pounce on Tiny Rowland's peanut-size deal was illogical and hypocritical.
How did it happen? The main reason was that in the case of The Times the establishment in possession had agreed to the transfer, so there were no disapproving noises from the Great and the Good. As usual when the establishment closes ranks, it gets what it wants without fuss. In the case of the Observer, there was a split between its owners and its ruling priesthood. The former had the equity but the latter knew the right people; indeed in some cases were the right people. David Astor set up a highpitched whine. Lord Goodman began to caterwaul. All kinds of irrelevant bigwigs, like the President of the Royal Academy, were wheeled in to give tongue. Even this might not have been enough, had it not been for the Department of Trade's vendetta against Tiny Rowland. Officials there, I imagine, have a big, fat file, full of horrific 'evidence' against Rowland, none of which would stand up in a court of law; it is produced to terrify the incumbent Minister whenever Tiny tries to do anything. John Biffen was a new boy, a sensible fellow with excellent notions in principle, but hailing from distant and rural Shropshire and not yet up to the tricks of the Whitehall mandarins and liberal clubland. He fell for it and ordered an inquiry. In short, monopoly had nothing to do with it.
The result was a great deal of waffle, culminating in an 80-odd page report which might have been predicted in advance. Since a monopoly was not involved, the Monopolies Commission could scarcely veto the deal. Since the establishment was angry, it had to be given a face-saver. Since the Commissioner did not know what this should be, they did what an establishment body always does in such circumstances — stipulate that a similar lot be set up as a vague safeguard against wickedness. As Rowland had been shrewdly advised, and had offered this formula before the inquiry even began, the Commission insisted on giving it a number of additional functions, a case of gilding the window-dressing. The appointment of independent, outside directors is, to quote Kingsley Amis, a pseudosolution to a non-problem; most big newspaper-publishing companies do this anyway. It looks good, it feels good and, by golly, it makes no difference at all. Time and again it had been shown that such directors, however distinguished, are impotent if the paper goes into the red and the owner turns nasty. If, on the other hand, the paper is making money, they let well alone. The notion that a group of worthies are the best people to appoint and sack editors and supervise editorial policy is a fantasy, as we learnt from gruesome experience at Great Turnstile. What the Observer needs is not more establishment platitudinising — it has had plenty of that over the years — but some hard-headed wheeler-dealing which will set it up with a daily partner to spread its printing costs.
I am not one who believes in the sanctity of editorial traditions. Nor does David Astor, whatever he may say now. After all, the most formidable of the Observer's editors, J.L. Garvin, made it an organ of Unionism and Imperialism for over 30 years. Astor turned most of Garvin's policies on their heads. Which is the true tradition of the paper, Garvin's or Astor's? Particular fuss has been made over the Observer's handling of African affairs, as though there are 'right' and 'wrong' opinions on the subject, the Observer's being sacrosanct and immutable. But the truth is that the paper has never been quite able to decide whether it is primarily a journal of opinion or a journal of information, and its news columns (not least on Africa) have reflected this confusion. If I want objective information on Africa, the Observer is not the first place I would look for it. Colin Legum has one set of opinions about the place, Rowland another. By what right, and with what authority, does the Government or the Monopolies Commission or any other public body, decide which ought to be placed before the readers? Personally I can do without either and I hope that Rowland will give the lie to his critics by establishing an absolute distinction between news and comment and improving the hard coverage.
The whole episode reflects a disquieting tendency in Britain to give more and more power to people who owe their position neither to the ballot box nor the market lace Last December we had Lady Plowden and her crew handing out quasimonopolies by personal fiat and telling TV companies how to run their business. Thus ATV could not have a chairman who was also a managing director; Yorkshire TV must appoint a director in charge of staff relations and so forth. The excuse in this case, of course, was that the air waves are public property. That does not apply to newspapers. It seems to me a gross usurpation of power for the Monopolies Commission to tell Rowland how to choose his executives. It is bad enough if Parliament leans on the press; far worse if the diktat comes from an unrepresentative body appointed by Ministers in complete secrecy and according to criteria which are never divulged even to MPs, let alone the rest of us. If these quangos are going to start interfering in detail with the workings of TV and the press, then it is time their members, and especially their chairmen, were appointed subject to parliamentary approval, and had their qualifications, interests and views publicly explored, as in the US. Let us, in short, shed a bit of democratic light over this murky business.
Previous page
