Do columnists have any influence? And, if they do, what form does it take? These questions are raised in a report written by Julia Hobsbawm and John Lloyd, published this week by Editorial Intelligence.
The authors argue that the "commentariat" does have a great deal of influence, notwithstanding the disavowals of most of the columnists they interviewed. These people are surely being insincere. If there is a group inclined to overestimate its power and importance, which conducts itself with all the swagger and sense of superiority of 18th-century aristocrats, it is the small tribe of which I am a member.
Hobsbawm and Lloyd supply little evidence to sustain their contention. A couple of clapped-out politicians are quoted to the effect that columnists are taken seriously by those in government. One or two Civil Servants concur, and a few commentators say that, come to think of it, they may have written a piece or two that affected the political weather.
How, in any case, do we define influence? The report is confused on this point. It has drawn on the views of what it describes as "a self-selecting, small group of interested people from politics, business, media, public life, academia, and the more general reach of a group on Facebook". How big was this group? We are not told. Who are they, and what exactly do they do? We are not told that either. They sound to me the sort of people one might encounter at The Ivy restaurant in London.
In others words, this is a somewhat incestuous exercise, with like-minded people drawn from a narrow circle, patting one another on the back. Not surprisingly, they think The Guardian's Polly Toynbee is the most influential commentator in Britain – more so than Richard Littlejohn of the Daily Mail, who addresses five or six times as many readers. Possibly she is more influential in Whitehall – though I wonder – but it is difficult to see how she can be out in the boondocks.
The truth is that it is as absurd to try to measure a columnist's influence as it would be a novelist's. It exists but, in the words of Timothy Garton Ash, is too "diffuse and difficult to track". What one can say with some confidence is that the columnist who aspires to influence individual mandarins or Cabinet members is likely to end up writing an unreadable column that will probably be pretty uninfluential as well. A columnist should write to persuade his or her readers, ideally comprising more than a couple of Civil Servants, that something is true, and leave it at that.
We members of the commentariat are already puffed up enough without Hobsbawm and Lloyd further inflating our egos. Their conclusion does not convince me. Last week, the Tories won 44 per cent of the vote. Yet while I can think of many right-wing commentators who have regularly criticised David Cameron, it is difficult to think of any who have consistently supported him.
The Tories still romped to victory. One could say that Mr Cameron has been spared the vitriol of the BBC and some left-wing commentators, and he has obviously benefited from Gordon Brown's unpopularity. Yet the fact remains that he triumphed without the full-hearted support of any newspaper or many columnists. Doesn't that tell us something?
Whoever will Tesco want to sue next?
A few weeks ago, I wrote about the libel case of Tesco Stores Limited vs Guardian News and Media, and rather came down on the supermarket's side. It seemed to me that The Guardian's allegations about Tesco's alleged tax avoidance were confused and exaggerated. Moreover, it turned out that the newspaper's parent company was involved in a tax wheeze strikingly similar to Tesco's.
But now the supermarket chain is behaving in Thailand in a manner that is impossible to defend. It is suing three critics, of whom two are newspaper columnists, who have questioned the manner of its expansion. For example, Kamol Kamoltrakul, a business commentator who is reportedly paid £16 a column, is being sued for £1.6m in damages for suggesting Tesco has sought to minimise its tax liabilities. Nongnart Harnvilai, another columnist, is being sued for the same amount for having suggested that the company does not "love" Thailand.
What is going on? Obviously, I don't understand Thai libel laws, but it would seem that the first case is not very serious and that the second is fair comment. Am I to be sued for millions of pounds by Tesco for suggesting I don't like its pre-wrapped salads, or that its wine selection is not as good as Waitrose's? Will I be taken to the cleaners if I say I will drive miles so as not to shop in a Tesco store?
I do admire Tesco as a business, but perhaps those who say it has got too big for its boots are right after all. If the company persists in suing impecunious foreign journalists who don't appear to have done anything very heinous, it may find that some representatives of Middle England, possibly egged on by the Press, will boycott the supermarket chain and go down the road to Asda.
Another star goes out at 'Telegraph'
To lose three star female columnists in days is a setback. No sooner was The Daily Telegraph's Rachel Sylvester out of the door than Jan Moir followed, on her way to the Daily Mail. Alice Thomson is reportedly leaving for The Times. And the sports desk has given Michael Henderson the heave-ho.
Doubtless Will Lewis, editor of the Telegraph, has everything under control, and those who are replacing these departing columnists will be even more brilliant.
Not all is Nineveh and Tyre. The Telegraph's obituaries of servicemen remain unparalleled. Last week, a notice of Sir Anthony Kershaw, MC, the former Tory MP, told how at the outbreak of the Second World War, he received a postcard from General Sir Hubert de la Poer Gough. "Glad to hear you have joined the Regiment. Ride straight, ride hard, watch your flanks and you will be all right." Only in the Telegraph.
Comments