• AND ANOTHER THING
Field-Marshal Murdoch should call off his Battle of Passchendaele
PAUL JOHNSON
This week I want to address a plea to Rupert Murdoch: please call off your price war. It is true I have done this before, to no avail. The last time I put it under the head- line 'Stop behaving like a Serb, Rupert!' The only result was that I had a large num- ber of letters, all abusive and some threat- ening, from indignant Serbs, who bitterly resented being compared to the Dirty Dig- ger. However, I will persevere. The price war, for which Murdoch is solely responsi- ble, is doing great and, I fear, lasting dam- age to the British national newspaper industry. The only purpose it serves is to make Murdoch's point that cutting cover prices does raise sales, and that has already been emphatically established. All the other consequences, material and, still More, human, are bad and are becoming progressively more dire.
Now no one can accuse me of being anti- Murdoch. Over many years I have repeat- edly defended and praised him in these pages. I like the man. I admire his splendid mother, Dame Elizabeth. Murdoch is a true newspaper man, as well as a tycoon with a touch of genius. Like Lord Beaver- brook, newspapers to him are more than machines for making money. He loves the smell of printer's ink, the whispers of El Vino's gossip, the whiff of risk and excite- ment which clings to what Hugh Cudlipp called 'the Dangerous Estate'. Unlike many media bosses, he is not cynical about titles. He has never willingly killed one. On the contrary, he is a brilliant newspaper doctor, who has rescued many from death's door. He turned the moribund Sun, which even the great Cudlipp despaired of, into one of the great success stories in the history of print. He is, on the whole, a creator not a destroyer. Moreover, we must remember that by Planning, fighting and winning the Siege of Wapping Murdoch scored a great victory for newspapers, for journalists, for readers and for the freedom of the press. It is true he was not the only hero in the struggle to break the tyranny of the old print unions. Eddie Shah started the fight. Even the dreadful Maxwell played a significant role. But without Murdoch's determination and resources, his Napoleonic sense of strategy and tactics and, not least, his courage, the war could not have been won. Victory transformed the industry. It became immensely profitable. For the first time since before the war, editors and manage- ments were able to set about systematically improving the quality and size of their product. Foreign coverage was stepped up, after decades of decline. All the innova- tions of new technology, including high- quality colour, were put to use. Journalists' salaries rose. Freelances were better paid. Managers were able, at last, to manage. The industry suddenly became attractive again to clever young men and women. Its influence and power — for good and evil — markedly increased.
This brief golden age has been brought to an abrupt end by Murdoch's solitary decision to fight a one-man price war. Now I am not saying that he is quite without defenders. Peter Stothard, the editor of the Times, backs the price-war strategy with skilful and robust arguments. Obviously he is pleased to be running a paper whose cir- culation has risen by well over 50 per cent, and perhaps there is also an element of altruism in his support for his boss. Howev- er, I know very few people in newspapers who agree with him. Most deplore this war of attrition which, like the battles of the Somme and Passchendaele, will bring no one outright victory and is landing every- one with huge casualty lists.
The cost of slashing cover prices, already immense, has been compounded by an unforeseen rise in newsprint, which has totally undermined the logic of Murdoch's strategy. As a result, everything as well as cover prices has been cut. The richest group, Associated Newspapers, has been only marginally affected: the Daily Mail keeps its cover price to 32p and has actually gained readers — on Saturdays, indeed, it
meanwhile the bastard who sold me the endowment policy is living in a gateau in the Black Forest!' now sells over 2,500,000 copies. But most of the rest are desperate to save money. Salaries have been frozen. Staff have been fired or not replaced. Freelances are get- ting an increasingly raw deal. Foreign trips are curtailed. New features have been delayed or cancelled. Coverage even of important stories has been given a lower priority.
In the frantic search for readers, news standards have been vulgarised, particularly in the quality ,press. The downmarket tabloids now play the sex card so constantly that it is covered in greasy thumbprints. Ethical rules of every kind have been relaxed. Morale has sunk to pre-Wapping levels. Decent journalists are ashamed to work for cut-price papers which they know are substandard. 'It cannot be right,' as one of them put it to me, 'for a distinguished quality to be giving its readers a second- class service for 20p when a mid-market tabloid sells for more than 50 per cent more. I feel literally degraded.'
The best of the qualities, like the Sunday Telegraph, have kept their editorial nerve despite the financial pressures. But most of the others look lacklustre, drained, anorex- ic. I believe the two Independents are safe for the time being, but neither is much of a read since they simply cannot afford to cover stories properly and hire or keep first-class writers. This is particularly tragic for the daily, which began its life with such a splendid roll-call of talent.
The Observer, which in its peak years under David Astor had the best writers of any British national, now has only three of real quality, and will be lucky to hang on to any of them. Even keeping the phantom of the Observer's former self going is imposing a heavy burden on the Guardian, which in other respects is breasting the price war well. (I use that term deliberately: the amount of sex, in the guise of sociology, the Guardian now carries is astounding.) And all for what? With three market leaders (Sun, News of the World, Sunday Times) Murdoch was irritated that his fourth title, the Times, lagged third in its class. He has now made it a handsome sec- ond but the cost has been disproportionate, and there is not a hope in hell of it beating the Daily Telegraph into first place. So why doesn't he call it a day and let everyone who really loves newspapers gtt on with the job of producing the best possible quality at the lowest realistic price?
Previous page
