MEDIA STUDIES
Mr Hague has lost the Times, but he could still win the hearts and minds of other right-wing papers
STEPHEN GLOVER
Iwas indisposed last week, so unable to say anything about the changes at the Times. Readers may dimly recall the char- acter of Michael Gove, who almost exactly a year ago wrote a eulogy to his proprietor, Rupert Murdoch. 'Capt. Gove positions himself as Gen. Stothard is allowed one last push against the Telegraph' was .the head- line on my piece at the time. Well, now Gen. Stothard — that is Peter Stothard, editor of the Times — has moved Capt. Gove from command of the comment pages — very much a staff job — to a front- line position in charge of the newsroom.
Some may say, indeed Mr Gove's friends are saying it, that this represents promo- tion. One might easily think that, but it is not so. Though being news editor is, of course, a tremendously important job, in the world of the Times it is less prized than being comment editor. My own reading is that Mr Stothard, still hoping for that 'one last push against the Telegraph', wanted to give Mr Murdoch the impression of mean- ingful activity — hence the transfer of Mr Gove and other changes. He also knows that a news editor is chained to his desk and unable to plot over long lunches. The promotion to the deputy editorship of Ben Preston shows where Mr Stothard's prefer- ences really lie.
There is one further interesting explana- tion of Mr Gove's apparent demotion: that it rids the comment page of one of its last few remaining loyal Tories. Sages dispute whether Mr Gove is a follower of Michael Portillo or William Hague. He wrote a biog- raphy of the former but let his unhappiness be known when Mr Stothard recently pub- lished a rude leader about the latter. Perhaps he burns a candle for them both. The point is that he is a party man who regards journal- ism as a continuation of politics by other means. Whether it was intended or not, the effect of his removal will be that the Tory cause — which at the moment must largely mean the Hagueite cause — will get an even less sympathetic airing than it has on the comment and leader pages of the Times.
Consider this extraordinary fact: in the past year Mr Stothard has had no formal meetings with Mr Hague. The editor of the Times does not believe that the leader of Her Majesty's Opposition is worthy of his time. Just why my old friend should hold Mr Hague in such low esteem is unclear. Per- haps he does not like small, bald men. Mr
Hague's defence of Michael Ashcroft, who vowed to wipe Mr Stothard from the face of the earth in a libel dispute, cannot have helped. Mr Stothard misses few opportuni- ties to run stories on the front page which illustrate the Tory leader's supposed short- comings, and the paper's editorials are almost invariably hostile. My old friend, by contrast, has a soft spot for Michael Por- tillo, whose elevation to the shadow chan- cellorship was greeted with relief mixed with anxieties that he might have been 'handed a chalice laced with poison'.
Despite the best efforts of his glamorous new spin doctor, Amanda Platell, Mr Hague is still not beloved of any right-wing newspa- per, though individual columnists have a weakness for him. A love-match with David Yelland, editor of the Sun, briefly blossomed, perhaps helped by both men being bald Yorkshiremen of about the same age who detest the euro, but I detect a certain cooling of the infatuation on Mr Yelland's part. Lit- tle headway has been made with Paul Dacre, editor of the Daio) Mail, The Telegraph news- papers, instinctively more loyal to the Tory party and whomever its leader happens to be, are more supportive, especially the Sun- day Telegraph. Rather touchingly, its editor, Dominic Lawson, last year had William and Ffion to stay at his house in Sussex, and often hands out friendly advice to the Tory leader in his column. A couple of weeks ago he described Mr Hague as 'that great Yorkshire apostle of common sense'.
Two factors prevent editors of right-wing titles from embracing Mr Hague. One has to do with power. No one is keen to push the boat out for a man who sits so low in the esteem of readers and seems so very far from office. The other is to do with principle. For, however unpopular Mr Hague might seem to be, some editors would clasp him to their bosoms if he championed some of the causes closest to their hearts. Here I exclude Mr Stothard, who is not very right-wing, nor even very political at all. But Mr Dacre at the Daily Mail and Mr Yelland at the Sun and Charles Moore, editor of the Daily Telegraph, would jettison many of their misgivings if Mr Hague spoke up, especially on social issues. After the Mail had chided him last week for his near silence over Section 28, the Tory leader wrote an article for the paper making clear why he opposed getting rid of it. If Mr Hague were a little braver more often — rather than waiting first for the latest focus-
group results — he would discover many more friends in the Tory press.
Ihave written before about the extraordi- nary coincidence of opinion on many impor- tant subjects between Roy Greenslade of the Guardian and Alastair Campbell, the Prime Minister's press secretary. But until last Monday we had never experienced the two old friends writing almost exactly the same article in different newspapers on the same day.
Under the headline 'Sony, but don't papers spin too?', Roy Campbell-Greenslade in the Guardian complained that 'much of what the press says about the state of Blair's mind is bunkum'. The Prime Minister finds our newspapers 'almost entirely irrelevant' because of their propensity to spin, and therefore has to rely on Alastair Campbell `to tell him what is happening in the outside world'. Cripes! Unfortunately, after Roy's latest briefing from the said Mr Campbell on the state of Tony Blair's mind, his old friend had forgotten to mention that he was going to set pen to paper on the same subject for the Times. In a remarkably similar piece, Mr Campbell complained that `more and more of my time goes in dealing with the journal- ist-spin-doctor'.
One always enjoys the thoughts of Mr Campbell-Greenslade, but surely it is time for this pantomime horse to agree among itself to respect the old tradition that you should not simultaneously publish the same article in rival newspapers.
Readers may be interested to learn that Lord Gavron has fallen — or been pushed — on his sword. Last Thursday's Guardian announced that he is being replaced as chair- man of the Guardian Media Group by a Mr Paul Myners. No reason was given for his 'retirement' after only three years in the job, but readers may remember the controversy surrounding Lord Gavron's gift of £500,000 to the Labour party in June and, as revealed in this column, his telephoning the editor of the Observer (the Guardian's sister paper) to discuss an editorial matter. Whether this was also considered improper by the tutelary gods who oversee the Guardian Media Trust (aka Hugo Young) I do not know. But the Guardian did not express a word of thanks to mark Lord G.'s departure.
Previous page
