The media today has become a target for our dissatisfaction about the
way things are and how they don’t work. We have forgotten that it is nothing
new and historically is just another bunch who have London and its politics in
their grip and under their influence.
It was Stanley Baldwin who used the wonderful line of Kipling’s, his
cousin, about media control, “Power without responsibility, the prerogative of
the harlot throughout the ages” in 1931. He was attacking the press barons,
Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Rothermere and the extent of the influence they
enjoyed.
The Harmsworth (Rothermere) family and their adjuncts are still around
and have the Daily Mail, whose online success is owed to its free access and
extensive celebrity sensation and other scare stories. Its print sales are
helped by a series of promotions designed to appeal to the poorer end of Middle
England.
The first Harmsworth, Alfred, from the 1890’s to the 1920’s was said to
have a major influence on politicians and who finally went mad before he died
relatively young. Whether this streak of megalomania is genetic or
environmental is open to debate.
Max Aitken, later Lord Beaverbrook made a sudden decision to try his
luck and money in England in 1910 after a scandal in Canada to do with cement
and bought his way into influence very quickly. Spotting the main chance he
took on the Express newspapers and developed them into a popular and strident
sheet.
The Beaver became a Minister of the Crown in both World Wars and is
credited with helping to deal with munitions crises. He was certainly close to
Churchill who relied on him for good company, cigars and trenchant advice about
the capabilities of other politicians. His judgement went badly wrong in the
1950’s with Eden whose health was not up to the job of succeeding Churchill.
The elections of 1945 were something of a blow to his reliability and
this may be because they had not seen the Daily Mirror coming up on the rails.
This paper had captured a good many of the working class and began to wield
influence in its turn. By the 1960’s it was a force to be reckoned with.
At the helm was Cecil Harmsworth King (yes, his father married a
Harmsworth) and it was him in 1968 who was alleged to have tried to organise a
putsch in 1968 to rid the UK of Harold Wilson and a crew of Westminster
politicians who lacked credibility with the people.
We can go back a long way with this. In the 17th Century there were the leading pamphlet writers most of whose identities are not known, many pieces form the Thomason Collection at the British Library. In the 18th Century there was already a formidable press with many contributors.
We can go back a long way with this. In the 17th Century there were the leading pamphlet writers most of whose identities are not known, many pieces form the Thomason Collection at the British Library. In the 18th Century there was already a formidable press with many contributors.
One in the Public Advertiser, under the name “Junius” (see Wikipedia)
had special influence because he clearly had full access to those who held
power. Current opinion suggests that he was Sir Philip Francis but I suspect
that others were involved. Looking at the connections it may be that Jeremy
Sneyd was a source.
By the middle of the 19th Century The Times had moved to
centre stage and was known at “The Thunderer”, but it was still part of an
extensive press that could move votes and therefore politicians. A high point
was the Crimean War when The Times was right about the treatment of the troops.
In 1884-1885 the General Gordon fiasco in Egypt and The Sudan arose
because a government with a lot on its plate allowed itself to be pushed into
action by a lynch mob media against the better judgement of many of those
responsible.
How many of the imperial ventures and how much of the effort involved
could be attributed to a gung ho media urged on by City speculators and other
interests in the name of glory and circulation is a good matter to debate.
This culminated in the summer of 1914 when The Times under Wickham Steed
urged the Empire to make war against the German Empire along with other press
support. This was at the height of the “Summer Season” with all its
engagements. In London, the politicians bungled until war became the
default option.
In retrospect had the dilettante Premier Asquith, along with Grey and perhaps even the King made a rapid journey to Berlin with full scale Foreign Office action designed to halt the mobilisation of the Armies of Europe might war might have been avoided?
In retrospect had the dilettante Premier Asquith, along with Grey and perhaps even the King made a rapid journey to Berlin with full scale Foreign Office action designed to halt the mobilisation of the Armies of Europe might war might have been avoided?
But they did not and became involved in a war of incredible destruction
of men, material and Empires. By 1918
the world had changed, arguably much of it for the worse. But at least the
newspaper circulation and advertising had held up.
The real question is just how much influence it has had in the military
and financial ventures of recent years that have done so much damage.
For those of us on the outside it is impossible to separate the sway exerted by the media from the sway exerted by social circles within and on the fringes of government.
ReplyDeleteYet overall there is a sense that a gung ho approach is not quite as common as it was. Until we find out otherwise I suppose.