Stephen Glover on The Press

Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay, owners of the Telegraph Media Group, have been quietly building up a significant stake in the world's largest hotel company. On 22 January, they declared a five per cent holding in InterContinental Hotels Group. The Daily Telegraph did not report this at the time, though other serious papers did.

On 5 March, the brothers announced that they had raised their stake in InterContinental Hotels to 7.1 per cent. This was briefly mentioned by the Telegraph, which three weeks previously had retrospectively reported the earlier acquisition. It can be fairly said that the paper has, so far, not shown much interest in the Barclays' new investment, which has cost them about £330m.

Others may find the purchase of shares more fascinating. Why should the Barclays be buying into InterContinental? It is a company in a state of flux, having sold off a number of hotels. Its chief executive Andy Cosslett has indicated that it may flog off some or all of its remaining "flagship" hotels over the coming years.

The Barclays, of course, already own the Ritz Hotel in London, and have owned other hotels at various times. Possibly they think that developments at InterContinental will add value to their shareholding. Or maybe they are contemplating a bid, either by themselves or with others. If so, it would be a large one, since the company is worth nearly £4.5bn, about seven times the amount they paid for the Telegraph Media Group in 2004.

The questions we need to consider are these. If the Barclays bought InterContinental, might they sell off the Telegraph Media Group to help them fund the acquisition? And are they anyway less enamoured of their publishing interests than they were?

The brothers plainly do not enjoy the publicity that proprietorship of a national newspaper group has brought them. In fact, they loathe it. Perhaps they thought that owning a powerful paper might offer them more protection against the prying and nosiness of journalists on other titles, but, of course, the opposite has proved to be the case. If David Cameron makes a flying visit to their Channel Island home of Brecghou, awful people like me write about it.

It is also true that, largely because of unfavourable trading conditions, the Telegraph Media Group is making less money than the Barclays may have reasonably expected when they bought it. This is a company that produced profits of £69.7m in 2000, and was forecast at the time of the sale to make £47.9m in 2004. I should be surprised if it is running at much more than £30m at the moment.

Of course, one can think of lots of reasons for the Barclays wishing to retain the Telegraph Media Group. They may hate the publicity, but they must like the power. They have spent an awful lot of money on "restructuring" - ie redundancies, and moving the papers from Canary Wharf to Victoria - and after all those upheavals and tribulations, they may feel that they want to enjoy the calm after the storm.

Still, it is enough for the possibility of a sale to exist for all kinds of people to prick up their ears. We can be sure that the Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT), which withdrew from the bidding war in 2004, is watching the situation closely. Readers may recall my theory that the reason the Mail titles scarcely, if ever, criticise the Telegraph Media Group is that DMGT nurtures hopes of one day being asked by the Barclays to step in to help out. Might that day be approaching rather sooner than we thought? We can also be sure, should a sale arise, that private equity groups will be queuing up three deep.

I should just declare a purely personal preference - that the Barclays do not sell the Telegraph titles. Over recent months, I have come to realise that my former criticisms, however mild, of Murdoch MacLennan, chief executive of the Telegraph Media Group, were as egregious as they were misplaced. He may have mislaid several very good journalists, and he may not yet have succeeded in piloting The Daily Telegraph back to safer waters, but he has been through the firestorm and emerged the other side. From his eyrie in the new Telegraph offices in Victoria, he looks down on the working journalists beneath him. It would be a great cruelty if an empire forged in blood were to be ripped away.

Meanwhile, how heartening it is to learn that Sarah Sands, the former editor of The Sunday Telegraph, whom Murdoch displaced with perhaps precipitate haste, is working on an affectionate roman à clef in which Murdoch is portrayed, as of course he should be, as a kindly and perspicacious father figure who lasts forever and forever.

Criticise the cynics all you like - if you can find them

Do we have a feral Press with nihilistic columnists whose greatest joy is to attack the political class? The question occurred to me as I listened to a discussion on the Today programme last week between Steve Richards of The Independent and Peter Oborne of the Daily Mail.

Richards said many columnists had "slipped from criticism into cynicism". A suggestion that a politician has lied will propel a column on to the front page. Contrary to the assumption of many columnists, politics was, he said, "a noble profession".

Oborne accused Richards of being "an apologist for the political class". He evidently believes that some New Labour ministers tell more than their fair share of whoppers, and thinks it not unreasonable for columnists to point this out.

What Richards says echoes the well-publicised views of John Lloyd, formerly of the FT. No doubt they have a point, yet there are heaps of columnists in the calm and analytic mould, typified by Richards and Lloyd, who are generally favourable to New Labour.

The Guardian has Martin Kettle (a cerebral Blairite) and Polly Toynbee (more of a firecracker). The Independent titles have Richards and John Rentoul. The Times boasts Alice Miles, David Aaronovitch, Mary Ann Sieghart and Peter Riddell. The Observer has Andrew Rawnsley. The FT offers, among others, Philip Stephens, who occupies the upper reaches of Mount Olympus once tilled by The Guardian's Hugo Young.

Where are the cynicism-inducing rabble-rousers? I can identify one or two at the Telegraph, and some at the Mail, though Oborne is not of their number. Two or three on the red-tops, and that's about it.

Even in the dog-days of Blairism, much political commentary remains respectful to the point of reverence.

scmgox@aol.com