The triumph of the free press over Mugabe's regime of terror
STEPHEN GLOVER
Robert Mugabe's greatest mistake may turn out to have been the bombing of the Daily News's printing plant in the early hours of Sunday 24 January. By expertly destroying one press and damaging another, it seemed the saboteurs might have finished off the fledgling independent newspaper. When I last wrote about it on 3 February, the future seemed bleak.
Now the outlook is rosier. The Daily News has not missed one issue since the bombing. By using a variety of contract printers (including one — bizarrely — owned by the Zimbabwean government) it has managed to print between 70,000 and 75,000 copies most evenings. Admittedly the pagination has been reduced, but the management of the Daily News hopes to print up to 85,000 copies of a 48-page edition this Friday.
At the same time, the paper has drawn enormous support. At home it has become, even more than before the bombing, a rallying point for the increasing number of victims of Mugabe's psychopathic regime. They literally turn up by the dozen from the townships at the newspaper's offices in central Harare. The Daily News has also received encouragement from foreign governments and non-governmental organisations. Even President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa has finally been shamed into expressing his 'very serious concern' about what is being done to the press in Zimbabwe, as well as to the judiciary.
It is difficult to think of any newspaper having played such a pivotal role in a oneparty state. Its criticism of Mugabe is relentless but never hysterical, and the paper has on occasion chided the opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai when he has let fly with unconstitutional sentiments. Every day the Daily News is denounced in the governmentowned media. It runs the risk of another attack, though President Mbeki's remarks may afford it some protection.
So the paper is flourishing, but unfortunately it is also losing money because of its reduced sales and smaller advertising revenue. It needs a new press; without one it will sooner or later go out of business. No such presses are available in Zimbabwe, and must be bought abroad with hard currency. Emboldened by the support it has received, the newspaper is thinking of acquiring a bigger and better press than the one that was destroyed. It has set its heart on a new American machine that may cost as much as £3 million. Without financial assistance this is a pipe dream.
If everyone reading this column gave £10, who knows what we might raise? Some could afford a lot more. I honestly can't think of many better causes. The Sunday Times has started an appeal and has already raised nearly £35,000. Readers can send cheques made out to the 'Daily News Appeal' to the following address: 3rd Floor, Midgate House, Midgate, Peterborough PEI. 1TN. Or you could send a cheque cio the editor here.
On Sunday the Observer splashed with a story about Michael Portillo, suggesting that he had not declared all the payments he had received from 'oil exploration giant Kerr McGee'. It seemed a good yarn, but the more one went into it the thinner it became. Unsurprisingly, very few newspapers followed it up. It appears that the story was what is known at Westminster as a `Millbank operation'. Fraser Kemp, a Blairite MP and indefatigable fixer, had co-operated with the Observer's political editor, Kamal Ahmed, supplying the usual juicy quotes. But New Labour soon had a change of mind. In Monday's Tunes one of its spokesmen rowed back smartly: 'We are not saying that he [Michael Portillo] has broken any rules. We are just asking whether it is right that a possible future Chancellor of the Exchequer should be receiving a large wodge of cash from fat cat oil companies.' Notwithstanding that evocative `wodge' and 'fat cat', the government had grasped that this really wasn't much of scandal.
Still, it was deemed good enough to warrant a splash in the Observer. Five weeks earlier the paper had carried its revelations about Peter Mandelson and his involvement in Srichand Hinduja's passport application. Slightly oddly, as I mentioned at the time, this bombshell was buried at the bottom of page one. Now I learn that the paper's editor, Roger Alton, had to be lobbied before agreeing to put it on the front at all. It is to his credit that he allowed himself to be persuaded — and interesting that it should have been necessary.
What is the moral of this story? That it is more tempting to mount an attack against a member of the shadow Cabinet than it is to take on a government minister. And also that Mr Alton may not be quite as fearless in these matters as his predecessor, Will Hutton, who ran a series of damaging pieces
about the then paymaster-general, Geoffrey Robinson. As the election approaches, the pull of tribal loyalties is very strong, even at a newspaper such as the Observer which prides itself on its independence of mind. The same tribal forces were at work when Tuesday's Independent ran a front-page piece headlined 'Six senior Tories linked to oil industry' in which our old friend Fraser Kemp had another walk-on part. This also turned out to be a bit of a non-story. Expect more of them over the coming weeks.
Much has been written about the truce between the Daily Express and the Daily Mail. Last week the Express drew attention to the (actually quite short-lived) Nazi sympathies of the Mail's second proprietor, Viscount Rothermere, and wrote about the wild oats of his great-grandson, the paper's existing owner. This caused consternation at the Mail. A meeting was arranged between Richard Desmond, the new owner of the Express, and Murdoch MacLennan, managing director of Associated Newspapers, publisher of the Mail. It was reportedly agreed that if the Daily Mail ceased calling Desmond a pornographer, and also altered a marketing campaign it is running with newsagents, the Daily Express would stop persecuting the Rothermere family.
Some commentators have seen this as a surprising victory for Mr Desmond and the Express, and one can see their point. But I think that this battle, hurtful as it may have been to its victims, was really a sideshow. (I should mention again my connection with the Mail as columnist.) The key point about Mr Desmond is that he doesn't have very much money. According to last Sunday's Sunday Times, the Daily Express's new proprietor is taking his time settling liabilities with two suppliers amounting to several million pounds. No doubt he will produce the cash sooner or later, but his slowness must tell us something. Don't forget that the circulation slide at the Daily Express since Mr Desmond bought it will affect advertising revenues. The newspaper's profits are slender, and despite cost-cutting may become slenderer still. Mr Desmond may have won a battle but I can't see how he can even survive the war.
By the way, this column will continue to describe him as a pornographer, whatever threats are made against it.
Previous page
