Stephen Glover on the press

There was a time when to be editor of The Times was to be almost divine. Abraham Lincoln famously said of the paper that it was "one of the greatest powers in the world – in fact, I don't know anything which has more power, except perhaps the Mississippi."

Robert Thomson, the present editor of The Times, nonetheless seems quite likely to exchange his once great office for a job on The Wall Street Journal. This depends on Rupert Murdoch acquiring the American business title, which seems highly probable. While he has been attempting to persuade the Bancroft family to sell its controlling stake in the WSJ, Mr Murdoch has called on the advice of Mr Thomson, a former Financial Times executive who has worked in America.

Mr Thomson's denial that he is leaving The Times, and his expressions of devotion for London, are widely discounted as spin. He is more likely to become The Wall Street Journal's publisher than its editor. Many Murdoch editors have yearned to escape the yoke of editing for the less taxing responsibilities of senior management.

When an editor seems quite likely to depart, names of possible successors crop up in the press as candidates signal their interest to a proprietor. Since Mr Murdoch is usually on the other side of the Atlantic, Les Hinton, the executive chairman of News International, will also be an important figure.

Incidentally, Mr Hinton's partner Kath Raymond has just been hired by Gordon Brown to advise him on crime and social affairs, areas in which the ex-Iron Chancellor may not be entirely at home. Ms Raymond is a former special adviser to David Blunkett. So the partner of the chairman of News International is now working in No 10.

Patience Wheatcroft, editor of The Sunday Telegraph and a former City editor of The Times, is one candidate for the editorship. So is her successor at The Times, James Harding. Gerald Baker, the paper's United States editor and a columnist, is mentioned by some. He also has a background in financial journalism. However, he has limited executive experience. One candidate with lots of that commodity is Ben Preston, the paper's deputy editor, but he may be regarded as too close to the engine room.

In what state is the paper the new editor will inherit? Last week, Mr Thomson made a startling claim. He told the House of Lords select committee on communications that his paper would start making money in the first six months of next year. Yet in the year to the end of June 2006, Times Newspapers, which includes The Times and The Sunday Times, lost £80.7m. Admittedly, this included a £31.3m charge for new presses. On the other hand, The Sunday Times is known to be profitable, so The Times must have made a substantial contribution to these losses.

Mr Thomson says the paper has got more revenue from an increased cover price, foreign syndication and more business advertising. Would they account for such a dramatic turnaround? There are also savings from 30 editorial redundancies, yet these are not going to account for more than a few million pounds a year, even if one of those taking redundancy is the well-paid columnist Mary Ann Sieghart, who is leaving The Times after 19 years.

Some authorities suggest that the losses of Times Newspapers have been exaggerated in the past, and perhaps a new form of creative accountancy is being deployed. Nonetheless, it does seem surprising. If Mr Thomson does go to America – and we can still not be certain that he will – we will remember his claim that The Times will soon start making money for the first time in its modern history.

The powerful wizard from Oz

Most newspapers have not made much of the disclosure that Rupert Murdoch telephoned Tony Blair three times in the 10 days before the Iraq War, the last time being a day before the hostilities began. We owe this discovery to the diligence of the Liberal Democrat peer Lord Avebury, who has been pestering the Cabinet Office.

Maybe the press is so used to the idea that Mr Murdoch runs the country that it has become blasé. Personally, I find it amazing that in those critical days, when Mr Blair was still trying to persuade his party of the need for war, he should have had time to chew the cud with Mr Murdoch on three occasions. Of course, we do not know what they discussed, but we may be sure they weren't social calls, and that as an ardent proponent of the war against Iraq, Mr Murdoch was not counselling restraint.

I would like to know whether in those 10 days Mr Blair had any conversations with any other press proprietor. Did Lord Rothermere pick up the telephone? Or the Barclays? Or Sir Anthony O'Reilly? Or anyone else of that ilk? I am prepared to bet they did not.

If I am right, this provides further proof of the extraordinary role Mr Murdoch and his newspapers have played since 1997. Is there any parallel in British history? I would not mind so much if Mr Murdoch were not an American citizen sitting on the other side of the Atlantic championing the interests of a foreign power. At least Beaverbrook, the proprietor of the Daily Express and Minister of Supply during the Second World War, was a British citizen who lived here.

Final question: do any of us seriously imagine that Tony Blair's memoirs – or Mr Murdoch's, if he writes any – will include a full account of these conversations?

Sibling rivalry?

It is not often you read an attack in one newspaper on another such as appeared in The Guardian last Wednesday. The oddity here is that the venom of the article's author, Ben Goldacre, was directed at The Guardian's sister paper, The Observer. Mr Goldacre was angry about a front-page piece in The Observer suggesting a possible link between the MMR jab and autism. According to Mr Goldacre, The Observer had wilfully misrepresented research at Cambridge University. His piece was quite persuasive, though I dare say The Observer's case is stronger than he made out. Some may say it is grown-up for one newspaper to be able to attack another in the same group. No doubt it is. Yet, one cannot help wondering whether the publication of this piece in unexpurgated form did not reflect irritation on the part of The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, at The Observer's distinct populist identity.