THE PRESS
Titoists at the 'Guardian'
DONALD MeLACHLAN
I suppose it is true to say that a journalist who owned shares in the newspaper he worked with would be opposed to chapel meetings that took up most of the working hours, would disapprove of go-slow tactics by production staff, and would be worried about any action that lost it—as the Daily Mail lost recently-100,000 copies in a night. One cannot be sure, for rational individuals involved in the collective processes of trade unionism often become irrational; but cer- tainly the average reporter and sub-editor would be more impressed than he is now by the management's figures of rising costs and falling profits if he were expecting a dividend. Shareholding would seem at first sight a good, conservative measure, likely to pro- mote peace and caution in the chapels.
It might also be expected to give more sense of reality to that militant section of the National Union of Journalists which has been proposing 'participation in newspaper offices', without any clear idea of where it would lead and how it would work. Their claim, as I understand it, is made in the name of democracy: journalism, which claims to play a part in democratic govern- ment, should be itself democratically run. Leaders in other spheres of public life are elected and rejected by vote: why not also editors and managers, and particularly those senior men, with whom there is the closest contact—the night editor and the chief sub- editor and the staff manager? If they are not actually to be elected, at least their appoint- ment might be stibject to veto.
Why should newspapers be allowed to ruin themselves, change owners, transform char- acter and policy without consultation? Communications media'—how I detest this phrase, devised by academics to obliterate all distinctions between press, television and radio and to make them easier subjects for sociological generalisation—must not be under the tyranny of circulation-minded editors and policy-pushing owners. I hope that I have represented their point of view fairly, even without the example of Le Monde, which is unique, and of news- papers in Yugoslavia, where the predomin- ance of the Party in the office solves most problems in a tidy way. If the staff of the Guardian, for example, were recruited en- tirely from a Socialist-Labour-Radical party —I'll call it the Manchester party—with its secretary at the editor's shoulder and every- one ultimately responsible to the wcl party committee, most of the difficulties of 'partici- pation' would fade away. But one would not expect to find either the editor or the trustees of the Guardian accepting such a state of affairs. Indeed, does anyone in the participa- tion movement want it either?
I single out the Guardian because its editor, Mr Alastair Hetherington, might be expected to be initially more open-minded than most to the apostles of the new creed. During the last few weeks they—and the trustees and directors of the paper—have been digesting the five pages of foolscap, dated 14 July 1970, with which he replied to a resolution of the London chapel. Soon they will be meeting to discuss it. The crucial item was the suggestion that 'appointments to senior positions' would be a 'subject for consultation with editorial staff. Management will seek the views of staff before making such appointments. Staff reserve the right to veto appointments'. To this Mr Hetherington patiently replied that the position of editors and managers would be untenable if, in their talks with candidates for a job, everything was made conditional on a staff ballot. And how could, say, a chief sub-editor who was a candidate for a higher post stay on in his job if his staff vetoed his appointment? 'Have you ever heard', the editor asked, 'of any successful organisation where such a system works?' Nor is it clear whether some appointments would need the approval of the production staff as well as of the editorial. Indeed, 'participation' raises this awkward question: if 'the men' take part with the edi- torial staff in running things, their members will regularly swamp those who believe that it is they who create a newspaper—as of course they do.
In the further idea of a 'full meeting between editorial staff and editorial manage- ment twice a year', to review progress and difficulties, Mr Hetherington sees no diffi- culty. It could be dealt with by systematis- ing the meetings he already has with them in Manchester and London. With everyone present, there is no problem of how repre- sentatives are to be chosen and to whom they are to be accountable. But when it comes to the demand that `two elected staff mem- bers, accountable to those who elect them', should sit on the parent board this problem does arise. A board has to take decisions and argue in confidence. Its members are chosen for capacity to advise and decide, not as delegates. It is, the editor has pointed out, like a cabinet, members of which do not con- sult their constituency associations about decisions taken. How then can the editorial men be at the same time genuine board members and genuine representatives? They arrange these things better, it appears, in Yugoslavia.
Then there are the trustees who protect the independence of the Guardian and have kept it going. These public-spirited men behave—bless them—in a thoroughly olig- archic way. To submit them to democratic progress would kill the whole idea of the trust as conceived by the Scott family. What is more, an editorial representative on the
Trust would have to be elected for life—or the Trust would have to be reconstituted.
Mr Hetherington then comes to a crucial and topical question: how much informa- tion can a board safely give to its staff? By present indications I should say not much. Most of the rumour and allegation about newspaper prospects that flies around Fleet Street has its source in indiscreet or actively disloyal journalists. Competing newspapers use it to harm one another and to shake the nerve of advertisers. If staff representatives were to be fully informed of problems and plans, they would have to keep much of their knowledge to themselves. Would they in fact do this? And if they did %%mild they long remain representatives for their more milit- ant colleagues? My impression of 'participa- tion' thinking is that it has not worked out the difference between delegates and repre- sentatives—which is fundamental in democ- racy—and that in other respects, as in this, it is half-baked. It will be interesting to see what progress is made by its advocates at the Guardian now that they have been given such a reasonable and elaborate answer by their editor. And perhaps Panorama might confront Mr Hetherington on the screen with one of those fabulous Yugoslav editor. managers.
Previous page
