MEDIA STUDIES
The Observer's editor is larger than life but, alas, his paper isn't
STEPHEN GLOVER
Two weeks ago the Observer boasted on its front page that it had sold an average of 480,426 copies in May, 'the highest figure for nearly two years'. Well, I suppose that's almost true. The paper sold 483,499 copies in November 1995, which is only 18 months before May 1997. Let's not be pernickety. Call it nearly two years.
And yet, as I mentioned last week, the Observer's sales have fallen after the post- election boost the paper enjoyed during May. They have returned to around 450,000 and, as readers go on their summer hols, they will probably slip a little further. We have to face facts, I fear. The Observer's circulation has not advanced since Will Hutton, the paper's editor, assumed com- mand a little over a year ago. It is lower than it was two years ago, lower still than three years ago and much lower than four years ago — which is about the time that the Guardian acquired the paper, then seen as something of a 'basket case'.
In view of these rather grim figures, you might think that Mr Hutton would not be in his employer's best books. His two short- lived predecessors, Jonathan Fenby and Andrew Jaspan, were sacked after having produced better sales than Mr Hutton. Yet he seems to be highly regarded by his Guardian bosses. Even though his paper is still losing a great deal of money (estimates vary between £5 million and £10 million a year) he is full of beans. No one speaks yet of asking Mr Hutton to pack his bags.
There are several explanations. In the first place the panjandrums of the Scott Trust, which oversees the Guardian and the Observer, cannot easily admit that their third editor within four years is not bring- ing home the bacon. I am thinking particu- larly of Mr Hugo Young, chairman of the Trust. Their credibility depends in large measure on Mr Hutton's regime being judged a success. It may be they have per- suaded themselves that it is a bigger one than it is.
Then there is Mr Hutton's own flamboy- ance, which tends to inspire confidence in those around him He is a little bit of a star, a slightly larger-than-life figure. Since the election, he has with some chutzpah styled the Observer 'the paper for the new era'. He also had its masthead redesigned. He recently told Press Gazette, 'The shape of our democracy and the culture that goes with it and the way we refract [sic] news and comment is going to change, and I wanted to signal the Observer is going with those currents.' This seems to me Grade A bullshit — and the talk of a showman. The new masthead, as you might expect, is ugly and cramped.
Finally there is the undoubted fact that the paper has improved a bit under Mr Hutton's editorship. Some will disagree with this judgment, I know. It is certainly true that one or two things have dropped off. The ill-designed Review seems still to be aimed at the 11 to 14 age group. Unsur- prisingly, it has lost two of its most distin- guished critics. In a paper once famous for its international coverage, foreign reports are largely of the 'human interest' variety, and simply scattered among domestic news stories. Last Sunday we were treated to pieces about Albanian 'sex slaves', Saddam Hussein's squabbling sons and an Israeli pop singer. But, on the plus side, the Observer has re- discovered a political voice which is slightly to the left of Tony Blair, and will, I suspect, quickly move several miles further left- wards as New Labour begins to disappoint. If we had time we could quibble about the quality of the paper's political pundits, but my point here is that the paper again stands for something. (Is there, though, perhaps too much politics?) There are also several promising young non-political writers, even if some of them seem to know only how to write about themselves.
All this helps to explain why Mr Hutton is riding high in spite of considerable losses and disappointing sales. His employers may well believe that the Observer really is 'the paper for the new era', and that it will rise inexorably. My feeling is that it won't: it's still not good enough and, even if it were, the Guardian doesn't have the money to market it properly. So I am driven back to my old conviction that, for all the hoop-la, the status quo will not last. Either the Guardian will be forced to sell the Observer, `They're bound to be here somewhere, you haven't looked properly.' or the ever elusive merger of the paper with the Independent on Sunday will at last take place.
Shock horror! Editor of the Times is sacked! Editor of the Daily Mail is appoint- ed in his place! This was the rumour that swept through newspaper offices a few days ago. Several journalists told me solemnly that matters had been arranged and the thing would be announced within minutes. But there are no developments yet and I don't think there are going to be.
It was said that Rupert Murdoch, propri- etor of the Times, had dined with Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail. Mr Mur- doch was alleged to be cross with Mr Stothard, the Times's editor, for not sup- porting Labour during the election and then backing Peter Lilley during the Tory leadership contest. He was said to be irri- tated that Mr Stothard had appointed his friend Nicholas Wapshott to inquire into the deficiencies of the Saturday edition of the Times, even though the said Wapshott had edited a magazine that is part of the supposedly unsatisfactory package.
As for Mr Dacre, it was confidently stat- ed that he was browned off with his own proprietor, Lord Rothermere, who had not been fully supportive when interviewed on Radio Four some three weeks ago. Mr D. was reportedly miffed. Mr Murdoch was supposed to have telephoned him shortly after Lord R. let slip his incautious remarks. After all, since Mr Dacre became the Mail's editor nearly five years ago the paper's sales have risen by nearly 450,000. (In my column of 31 May I wrongly said that he had presided over an increase of 300,000.) The following is what I think happened. Mr Murdoch may have telephoned Mr Dacre to say that he was very welcome to climb aboard any time he wanted, but he did not have dinner with him and offer him the editorship of the Times. I don't believe Mr Murdoch is planning to sack Mr Stothard. Nor is there much chance that Mr Dacre will desert Lord Rothermere, who pays him a small fortune and in truth values him a great deal. Mr Dacre may have helped the rumour along by making slightly delphic utterances, while others could see positive advantages in destabilis- ing Mr Stothard. One thing is absolutely certain: Mr Murdoch was in London last week.
Previous page
