THE PRESS

'A crisis of continuation'

BILL GRUNDY

Just five weeks ago I wrote here that the press looked as though it was about to put an end to the thousand natural shocks its flesh seems unusually heir to. The occasion was, of course, the dispute- between the management of the Daily Mirror and mem- bers of the National Graphical Association working there about the question of differ- entials. The old differentials between the NGA and members of the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades (soca-0 had been eroded, it was alleged, by a series of productivity deals between SOGAT and news- paper managements.

The Newspaper Publishers Association glowered and said that the disputo threat- ened to close the national press down, since they feared that a too generous settle- ment might then result in the unions pick- ing off papers one by one. Divided we fall, united we stand, was the highly original thought which seemed to have occurred to them at last. Well, as we all know. Mr Vic Feather invited them to his good offices, and disaster was averted. But it was a damned close run thing, as Mr Feather pointed out when (using a phrase worthy of Mr Walter Annenberg) he said that a national closure would mean some papers would be facing a crisis of continuation.

Yet here we go again, little over a month later, in the same insane situation. The dispute this time, as everybody knows, despite the fact that they haven't been read- ing anything except the football reports for weeks, past, is over SOGAT'S demand for a 25 per cent increase for its members. The NPA'S feeling about this demand is clearly enough indicated by their counter-offer of 5 per cent. Clinging closely to the ritual, SOGAT have denounced the offer as 'derisory'. The dance continues. It is a stately, grave pavane, and the steps must be stuck to.

As we go to press the dance is coming to an end. Mr Briginshaw, who over the week- end was as invisible as isinglass in water, at last decided to reappear and meet the Nota, whom he had earlier spurned as 'boys on a man's errand'! By joining in Tuesday's Downing Street talks' he seemed also to have gone back on his earlier refusal to get involved in what he called 'a ritual dance', but by then it was too late to stop the strike. Fleet Street's troubles, whatever the immediate outcome, are going to be hard to cure. One hopes they will be, but fears they wont.

But, except to the initiated, rituals are as boring as a Noh play, which indeed they strongly resemble. Much more interesting have been two union interventions in the dispute. On Sunday last, readers of the

Observer were privy to, or deprived of, one

of them. A letter appeared in most editions, signed 'A Newspaper Worker' denying most

of the things a union spokesman had said in a letter published on 24 May, which in its turn denied some of the things which had appeared in an article in the Observer on 3 May, if you're still with me.

The Observer withdrew the letter from the last edition of the paper, as a result

of a visit from a deputation of four union officials. The officials wanted (a) the dis- closure of the name of last week's letter- writer, or (b) the disclosure of his name and address to the unions, or (c) the withdrawal of the letter. For reasons which are laid out at length in a leading article last Sunday,

the Observer chose the third course. It is not a decision to be proud of, as the Observer freely admits. Much more to the point, it could be a very dangerous decision indeed. The Observer is also aware of that:

'two other traditions deserve reinforcement; the principle of editorial independence and that of the right to reply. . . . What cannot be accepted is any suggestion that an editor's freedom to publish or a contribu- tor's right to reply may be challenged and interfered with by the printing unions whenever any criticism of their operations is involved.' You can say that again.

The second example cropped up on the Daily Telegraph on Saturday. SOGAT mem-

bers objected to the reproduction of a letter from the NPA to Mr Briginshaw about pay increases over the last two years. Their

objection was that the letter was inaccurate. The Daily Telegraph insisted that the quote must still be included, but a note of the union's interpretation of what the letter said was added, as a sop.

Now all this is very well in its way. But I don't like this particular way, largely be- cause I don't like the place this particular way leads to.

The Times made it clear that it is well aware of thedanger. In a leading article on

Saturday it revealed how reluctant it is to write about newspaper disputes because editorial opinion must necessarily be re- garded as a party speaking in its own interest. But this need not be so. The Daily Telegraph, for example, is not a Labour or union-orientated paper, to put it mildly, but if you want fair reports of industrial disputes, turn to Mr Blake Bake% their industrial correspondent, who is as good a fellow on the subject as there is in the business.

The important point is the one the Observer made—the point about editorial independence. If this isn't crucial, then I don't know a crux when I see one, if I may deliberately get the words wrong. With- out editorial independence, papers lose their savour in the way salt does. And when that happens, wherewith shall it be salted?

After all that gloom, a little light reading. I always thought that Claud Cockburn's famous headline would never be beaten. You remember the one—'Small earthquake in Chile. Not many dead'. But something in the Financial Times last week runs it pretty close. Their headline read: 'Peru fishmeal not yet hit by earthquake.'