Global Journalism Review

Conference highlights

Peter Preston, former editor of the Guardian and now probably London's most prolific freelance, appeared to be praising the Daily Mirror for raising its standards even though this has meant losing ground to the Sun. As Jean Morgan reported in Press Gazette (October 18, before a single word had appeared on the Society's own web site), Mr Preston expressed sorrow when he gave the circulation figures of the two tabloids, while praising the Mirror's editor, Piers Morgan, for embracing more serious journalism.

He certainly gave this observer the impression that he believes Britain would be better served with a small-circulation, public-interest Mirror than the widely-spread manure of the Murdoch moneymaker. Surely his is not a lone voice in the media world, and Trinity Mirror should take heart and back its courageous editor. There were some at the conference who were also saddened, if not surprised, that the Sun's circulation was up, on "a diet of Jade and the most-watched Big Brotherhood," and that the Daily Star was also up, "without furrowing a brow over Northern Afghanistan."

The usual attack on lawyers for daring to question the rights of editors was led by John Battle, "head of compliance" (?) for ITN, and People editor Neil Wallis. But Roy Greenslade, another widely-read media analyst, said in another debate that there should be legislation to ban newspapers from paying witnesses in court cases for their stories. On the Lord Chancellor's plan for such legislation, Mr Greenslade daringly declared to the assembled editors: "There can't be a single person here who thinks it's right to pay a witness."

Batting for the Press Complaints Commission, its director, Guy Black, disagreed. Though many people might find such payments "tasteless, offensive, unpleasant," there was no need to outlaw them. Ian Reeves reported in Press Gazette Mr Black's defence of the present situation: "The Editors' Code of Practice could be made sufficiently rigorous to allow witness payments in the 'very limited circumstances' where they might be in the public interest." He argued that legislation would "undermine self-regulation and impose on the sanctity of it." Mr Greenslade rejoined that editors should realise that "there can never be a reason for a newspaper to offer money to someone who is going to give evidence in a court of law, which could prevent the person in the dock getting a fair trial." (An observer who wished to remain anonymous was heard to say: "Thank heaven for the good guys.")

What to say of the diatribe against the BBC by Charles Moore, editor of the Daily Telegraph ? Neil Fowler, former editor of the Western Mail, said the BBC was becoming too powerful, and had too many resources, allowing it to dominate the commercial sector. This honest exposition of the stance of the profit-makers against those working in public-interest broadcasting was exactly what Mr Moore and his proprietor, Lord Black, love to hear.

As Press Gazette recorded, Mr Moore warned: "the BBC is living on borrowed time. If the BBC is behaving like a commercial player and moving away from its public service duties, people will start to say,'Let's get rid of the licence fee.' I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, but I suspect that in this Parliament it's going to start happening."

What at least one venerable gent among the suited throng described as "an appalling intrusion" was the intervention of a union man - yes, an organiser of the National Union of Journalists, no less - when Tim Bowdler, chief executive of Johnston Press, praised his company's "investment in editorial excellence". Miles Barter, for it was he, friend and advocate of the victims of Northcliffe, who asked why virtually none of Johnston's journalists was paid the average national wage of £24,000, and why (as in Northcliffe) trainees started on salaries as low as £9,000. There were some in the audience who may have recalled their own days of union membership, perhaps one or two who remembered what it was like to stand by their fellow journalists in a good cause. But in this, the Society's third annual lecture, Mr Bowdler indulged in some fancy footwork to uphold the excellence of the Johnston (and by implication the Northcliffe) view of journalists, and of the space they are allowed by their managers to occupy in newspapers.

Copyright 2002 Brennan Publications