The controversy between the editor of The Observer, London, and its proprietor has been settled. The proprietor, Mr. Tiny Rowland, has expressed confidence in the editor, Mr. Trelford; he has not only ended the threat to withdraw advertisements of his companies from the paper but promised to step up financial support to it. This sudden change of heart on the part of an entrepreneur who is known for his ruthlessness and lack of concern for such fine principles as editorial independence is too extraordinary a development to be taken at its face value. So unless Mr. Trelford begins to show greater deference to Mr. Rowland’s wider commercial interests in Africa than he did in his recent report on Matabeleland in Zimbabwe which provoked the conflict between the two, it can be only a matter of time before the editor quits or is forced to quit. The five independent directors have stood by him this time. But they cannot protect him in the long run even if Mr. Rowland does not sack them as he has threatened to do. The issue is simple. The Observer loses a lot of money which the independent directors cannot produce. And as it happens, the only credible buyer is Mr. Maxwell who has such a bad reputation that almost everyone in Britain is convinced that The Observer journalists would be well advised to hold on to Mr. Rowland.
It is difficult to say whether the editorial in The Times, London, on this issue (April 26) has been influenced by these specific facts about The Observer. It would not be surprising if it has been. For The Times has been in a similar plight. It too loses a lot of money and is, therefore, dependent for its very survival on handouts from Mr. Murdoch who enjoys as unsavoury a reputation as Mr. Rowland if not Mr. Maxwell. Even so, some of the observations in the editorial are noteworthy for all those who are interested in the subject and continue to believe, in our view mistakenly, that western editors enjoy greater freedom than their counterparts in similar establishments in this country. At the very start, the editorial points out that the editor and his staff have to take decisions “in the light of many different circumstances and in reaction to many different influences” working on them. It then argues that “so long as the ultimate response to those influences is made by journalists the concept of editorial independence remains intact”. Those influences may, of course, include the proprietor and his interests. This is in a sense a realistic definition though it might shock those of us who idolise the British Press, especially The Times. An editor does not work in a vacuum. His freedom is contingent on the proprietor’s confidence, the existence or non-existence of which is determined by a variety of factors, including the personalities of the two actors in this strange drama. It is important that they share a common outlook, broadly speaking, and that they respect each other. If they do, minor differences can be easily ironed out or glossed over. If they do not, a conflict is unavoidable. In that eventuality, the editor has to go. He should be willing to quit gracefully. The concept of editorial independence cannot override an even more fundamental concept which is the right of the owner to manage or mismanage his enterprise.
However, The Times is unable to call a spade a spade. So it beats, about the bush. “A newspaper is a business like any other. It produces something for sale. Its contents must be of primary importance, of course, but the cost of production and the selling price of the product also determine the success or failure of the enterprise. It is not possible for journalists to ignore these facts … therefore editorial independence is not an absolute indulgence to be exercised in defiance or ignorance of normal commercial considerations….” But was that the issue in The Observer case? Surely not. And how is an editor to “give an account of his decision to his company” unless the decision relates to expenditure. And what happens to “autonomous areas of jurisdiction” in the “continuous dialogue between editorial and commercial” when a big advertiser threatens to penalise a newspaper because it is pursuing a particular policy? In India the biggest advertiser is, of course, the government through public sector undertakings controlled by it. It is a dangerous minefield which is not easy to negotiate. Like other freedoms, editorial independence prospers in certain climes and it has to be won and justified – not every day but quite often. Populist rhetoric of the kind that prospers in our country distorts the issue and therefore the debate. Facts as always are at once more complex and prosaic.