MEDIA STUDIES
The Independent has many virtues but independence is not one of them
STEPHEN GLOVE R 171most everyone agrees that the Inde- pendent is much improved since Simon Kel- ner took over as editor in May 1998. Extra resources have enabled him to hire more reporters and, as a consequence, the news pages look much more convincing than they did. The second, or comment, section is bulging with columns, 'think pieces' and enough obituaries to paper your bathroom. Occasionally there are some splendid longer articles which would be difficult to find else- where. Timothy Garton Ash's recent series about the tenth anniversary of the velvet rev- olution is a case in point. In many ways Mr Kelner has delivered the goods. His reputation among journalists stands high, and many of them seem to assume that readership has soared under his watch. Actually this is not true. Last month the Independent sold 222,350 copies and averaged 224,391, with not a few dis- counted copies, in the six months July to December. In the month before he became editor the paper sold 215,797 copies and averaged 225,413 in the preceding six months. One could certainly argue that sales were beginning to flag somewhat alarmingly before Mr Kelner gripped the tiller, but with the most ingenious will in the world it is difficult to point to much of an improvement in circulation. This must be very disheartening. Why should a paper which seems so much better be finding extra readers so thin on the ground? One answer is that the Independent is still suffering from the effect of the Times's price cutting. Rupert Murdoch's organ still undersells the Indy by 10p. Remember that before he slashed his paper's cover price in September 1993, the Independent was selling more than 330,000 copies. It suffered much more than any other broadsheet from the effects of the price war, no doubt partly because it was editorially weaker. But now that it is so much stronger one is tempted to speculate that it would benefit more than its rivals should Mr Murdoch ever decide to call the whole thing off. Yet there is more to the Independent's problems than that. Flicking through its com- ment pages, and really enjoying myself quite a lot, my perennial thought is that the one thing that can no longer be said about the paper is that it is independent. The other day I came across this sentence, not untypical in its sentiments, in a leader: 'Labour oppo- nents of [electoral] reform should ask them- selves whether they really want to see the Conservatives back in power one day, reac- tionary in instinct, ready to dismantle rather than reform the welfare state.' Setting aside arguments about electoral reform, the phrase is either naive or ignorant or wilfully partisan. The latter, I fear. Everybody knows that the Tories always increase welfare spending, and that there is no earthly chance of them tearing Britain out of Europe should they be returned to power. These ideas are in fact standard Blairite smears.
I hate to say it, but more than any other paper save the Mirror, the Independent has become Blairite in tone. Its leaders preserve the Blairite flame and its columnists are overwhelmingly Blairite, though in fairness I gather that Mr Kelner has tried to recruit two right-wing pundits who didn't bite. I don't know whether most of his columnists are boring because they are Blairite, or whether they are simply naturally boring. They may be well-informed but one longs for a different tune delivered with more vigour — for a Polly Toynbee laying into some pour soul or even for a William Rees- Mogg (invented as a columnist by the Inde- pendent) dusting off his crystal ball. The Independent, which championed Thatcherite economics long before they became fashion- able on the Left — I recall one brilliant, crazy leader in praise of ticket touts — now presents a flat and uniform landscape. Any fool can berate the Tories.
Some people might say that when much of the country is Blairite it is sensible for a newspaper to follow suit. This must be wrong. The Independent can support New Labour for all I care but it becomes a New Labour song-sheet at its peril. The paper occupies almost exactly the same territory as the Guardian with this difference — that the Guardian remains a freer spirit, prepared to attack the Blairites from the Left. 'Labour's troubles pile up' was the Guardian's front- page headline on Wednesday; it is difficult to imagine the Independent saying that. It is no wonder that the Indy has lost its Tory readers — from about 33 per cent in 1987 to 16 per cent at the last election, a much steeper fall than the Conservatives have experienced at the polls. A paper which is supposed to breathe the values of indepen- dence is in danger of festering in an intellec- tual ghetto. It must widen its appeal. If the Independent didn't exist, now would be the perfect time to invent it. Several months ago (28 August) I wrote about the efforts of two Financial Times jour- nalists, Robert Peston and William Lewis, to launch Britain's first totally on-line daily national newspaper. Their idea was to pro- vide financial commentary and reporting throughout the day, largely for the benefit of investors. Unfortunately, their prospective shareholders got cold feet about advertising revenue, and the plan was shelved. However, I suggested that if Peston and Lewis did not revive it, someone else would.
Lo and behold, they have. Oddly enough, Hugo Dixon and Jonathan Ford also hail from the FT, and were working on their idea at the same time as Peston and Lewis. Breakingviews.com will provide commentary for financial folk and the growing number of on-line investors. Dixon and Ford have raised a million dollars, which doesn't seem very much, and hope to be handing out advice and tips within a few months. They will need to raise more money, and poten- tial investors, as well as job seekers, can visit their website.
I am not qualified to judge whether the venture will succeed but it is cheering to see the staid old FT producing so many entrepreneurs. Yet for some reason Mr Dixon and Mr Ford are in bad odour there. You would have thought that the chaps who run the pink paper would be overjoyed that their young lads are showing so much verve, but they are reportedly rather grumpy. I hope Mr Dixon and Mr Ford one day become rich enough to buy the FT or set up a better newspaper of their own.
Peter Oborne's entertaining piece in this magazine last week about New Labour toadies in Fleet Street has drawn blood. The Mirror, for one, has attacked him. But the paper has also suddenly gone out of its way to demonstrate its indepen- dence. It gave the government a hard time over Lord Winston and the NHS, and on Tuesday announced on its front page that Tony Blair's personal rating had plum- meted by 25 per cent. No one likes being depicted as a toady. On the other hand, an afternoon without a call from Alastair Campbell can be a lonely one. On Wednesday the paper ran a leader-page article about the NHS, reminding us that `Tony has not lied . . . He never promised miracles.' Old habits die hard.
Previous page
