Stephen Glover on The Press: The Prof should put his sniping to one side and look closer to home

We pundits are sometimes cruel or unfair. I have certainly written things I later regretted. But I wonder whether I have ever sunk as low as my esteemed colleague Professor Roy Campbell-Greenslade did in his media column in the London Evening Standard last week.

The Prof was discussing the revamped Independent, which appeared last Tuesday. On the whole he doesn't like it, and there is nothing wrong with that. I agree with a number of his points. What is objectionable, as well as mystifying, is that Roy's deep-seated hatred of The Independent should lead him almost to wish for its demise.

For example, he banged on, as he always does, about the paper's financial losses without pausing to consider that the two publications for which he writes, the Evening Standard and The Guardian, are both losing very large amounts of money, and have shed significant amounts of circulation over the past year.

The Standard's problems have been greater. It is fighting, rather pluckily I would say, against afternoon freesheets, one of which, London Lite, is published by its own company. Were it not for the considerable profits of its sister paper, the Daily Mail, and the far-sightedness of its proprietor, Lord Rothermere, its immediate future would be in doubt. As for The Guardian, it and its sister paper, The Observer, lost £22m last year, though this figure includes one-off items.

My point is that Roy is pocketing cheques from two newspapers which have financial problems of their own while obsessively dwelling on this title's woes. Nor did he remind his Standard readers that he writes for The Independent's rival, The Guardian. He should have declared an interest. I am sure he cannot be in cahoots with Denis O'Brien, the Irish billionaire, who is stalking this newspaper's highly profitable parent company, and says he will close The Independent if he ever gets his hands on it.

Maybe Roy is not worth all this ink, but he seems an extreme specimen of a small group of people who have always resented The Independent as an upstart, believing it had no right to exist. His dislike is so powerful that he was driven in his piece to expressing the barmy view that the paper "has one or two interesting writers and reporters". I could name 20 or 30. Media pundits should attack proprietors, editors and columnists, but they shouldn't write off newspapers. I don't want the Daily Star or the Daily Express to fold. If The Guardian were threatened, I would happily contribute to a fighting fund to keep it alive, despite having sometimes criticised it over the years. The Independent has many qualities of its own, which is why people go on buying it. Roy's passion to kill it off is as mean-spirited as it is unhinged.

So what do I think of last week's re-vamp, as well as other changes introduced by The Independent's new editor, Roger Alton, over the past few months? This lively all-colour tabloid is certainly very far from the restrained and classic newspaper that first appeared 22 years ago. Times, no doubt, have changed. Mr Alton's transformation is more one of style than substance, though there are more stories about celebrities, and the recent, slightly blush-making part-work about sex would have been unimaginable even five years ago.

In an interview in last week's Guardian, Mr Alton described the Daily Mail "as the best newspaper in Britain". Since I write a column for it, I am not going to take issue with him. I don't think he wishes to copy the Mail's political line, but he admires its virtuoso presentational skills, as well as its élan. Rather amusingly, a new section was described by The Independent last week as "brilliant". Every new columnist the Mail introduces is invariably "brilliant".

Mr Alton pooh-poohed the idea that The Guardian is a close competitor, and instead cited the Mail and The Times as possible sources of new readers. I've always thought that The Independent made a mistake, some years after its launch, of drifting into the centre-left ghetto occupied (and dominated) by The Guardian. If Mr Alton intends to broaden The Independent's political and cultural appeal, he may well attract new readers, though possibly at the risk of upsetting some old ones.

There are dangers, though, in setting one's sights too much on Mail readers. If nothing else, at its new cover price of £1 The Independent costs twice as much as the Mail. One pound is a premium price which implies a premium product. For the first time since its launch, The Independent is arguably slightly downmarket, in style if not in content, of The Guardian and even the (recently more elevated) Times.

Mr Alton had a choice. He could have taken The Independent upmarket, accepting that it would sell fewer copies in the medium term, but hoping that its readers would cheerfully bear a progressively higher cover price in return for undiluted seriousness. I suspect he was not even momentarily tempted by this option. He has taken the other course – lifted the paper's hem an inch or two, and jauntily set his cap at a wider spectrum of readers. It was a spirited decision, and let's hope it works.

scmgox@aol.com

It was not 'The Sun' wot done it

Political commentators continue to wonder when, or if, Rupert Murdoch's Sun will formally ditch Gordon Brown, and endorse young David Cameron. I would suggest the question no longer really matters.

As the Tories have their conference this week in Birmingham, they are between 10 and 25 points ahead of Labour, according to which poll you believe. A rough recent average would be about 20 points, an enormous lead. The extraordinary fact is that Mr Cameron has achieved this without the endorsement of The Sun, and without the spirited support of any right-wing newspaper.

The Daily Mail has never fallen in love with Dave, and even now burns the stub of a crumbling candle for Gordon Brown. The Daily Telegraph, which far more than the Mail is traditionally the in-house newspaper of the Tories, has, if anything, been even more off-hand with Mr Cameron, and harbours in Simon Heffer his most vituperative critic. It is true The Sun has rarely been unpleasant about the Tory leader, but nor has it shown unbridled affection for him. The Times has perhaps been nicer to him, and certainly nastier about Gordon Brown.

And yet he is riding high in the polls. This suggests, at the very least, that great political upheavals can take place without newspapers playing a significant role. Perhaps there are instances when the Press changes hearts and minds, but this is evidently not one of them. One cannot even argue that Mr Cameron has benefitted greatly from these newspapers' vitriol against Mr Brown since, The Times excepted, they have been quite kind to the Prime Minister.

Mr Cameron will doubtless welcome eventual endorsement from The Sun .But when, or if, he becomes Prime Minister he will owe fewer debts to Mr Murdoch, and to any other editor or proprietor, than any of his recent predecessors.