James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
The recent article of Brandon Lewis on this site supporting the sale of The Daily Telegraph to a company linked to the UAE, a country without a free press, was extraordinary. He effectively argued the Telegraph couldn’t change its reporting and editorial line because it would lose popularity. The free market would essentially keep the newspaper where it currently is.
How can anyone – let alone a senior Conservative politician – possibly think the Telegraph is purely a creature of the free market? And ultimately that its positioning on politics and other matters is driven by a raw judgment of its potential popularity?
The Telegraph, has been supportive of the embarrassment the Conservative Party has become in recent times – even as its popularity has gone off a cliff, and as conservatives have deserted the Party. If the Telegraph was purely driven by popularity, it would have looked to pivot to practically any political alternative you can think of.
And just think about all the other positions the Telegraph has taken in the last few decades, which have hardly endeared it to prospective or indeed existing readers.
Under Charles Moore, its Ulster obsession was out of touch with most English conservatives. Under Charles Moore again, and then his various successors, it was far more Eurosceptic than most of the public and more than most Conservative voters.
Furthermore, the Telegraph backed a series of Conservative leaders who were flagging in the polls – from William Hague, to Iain Duncan Smith, to Liz Truss, to Rishi Sunak.
My point is not that they were wrong to do so. On the contrary. My point is that the Telegraph stands for something; it has values; it stands for what it thinks is right, regardless of short-term popularity or, in this new age, what will secure the most clicks.
If the Telegraph started, even subtly, to change its position on, say, foreign affairs, or tax, the world would look very different for the Conservative Party and the wider conservative movement. This isn’t to say this would definitely happen under the prospective new owners; rather, it is to say that the free market isn’t going to protect the paper’s editorial stance.
Sir Brandon Lewis has been a Conservative politician for some time. He has been in the Cabinet. He has seen the Conservative Party in a terrible state many, many times during this time. It is in a terrible state now.
How can he – and indeed other Conservatives supporting the sale – not see that the Telegraph, in its current form, is absolutely, utterly integral to the conservative movement? The Telegraph has often been the only defender – not just the only serious defender, the only defender – of particular conservative causes.
Even if it changes just a little bit, we will all come to regret it.
James Frayne is Director of Public First and author of Meet the People, a guide to moving public opinion.
The recent article of Brandon Lewis on this site supporting the sale of The Daily Telegraph to a company linked to the UAE, a country without a free press, was extraordinary. He effectively argued the Telegraph couldn’t change its reporting and editorial line because it would lose popularity. The free market would essentially keep the newspaper where it currently is.
How can anyone – let alone a senior Conservative politician – possibly think the Telegraph is purely a creature of the free market? And ultimately that its positioning on politics and other matters is driven by a raw judgment of its potential popularity?
The Telegraph, has been supportive of the embarrassment the Conservative Party has become in recent times – even as its popularity has gone off a cliff, and as conservatives have deserted the Party. If the Telegraph was purely driven by popularity, it would have looked to pivot to practically any political alternative you can think of.
And just think about all the other positions the Telegraph has taken in the last few decades, which have hardly endeared it to prospective or indeed existing readers.
Under Charles Moore, its Ulster obsession was out of touch with most English conservatives. Under Charles Moore again, and then his various successors, it was far more Eurosceptic than most of the public and more than most Conservative voters.
Furthermore, the Telegraph backed a series of Conservative leaders who were flagging in the polls – from William Hague, to Iain Duncan Smith, to Liz Truss, to Rishi Sunak.
My point is not that they were wrong to do so. On the contrary. My point is that the Telegraph stands for something; it has values; it stands for what it thinks is right, regardless of short-term popularity or, in this new age, what will secure the most clicks.
If the Telegraph started, even subtly, to change its position on, say, foreign affairs, or tax, the world would look very different for the Conservative Party and the wider conservative movement. This isn’t to say this would definitely happen under the prospective new owners; rather, it is to say that the free market isn’t going to protect the paper’s editorial stance.
Sir Brandon Lewis has been a Conservative politician for some time. He has been in the Cabinet. He has seen the Conservative Party in a terrible state many, many times during this time. It is in a terrible state now.
How can he – and indeed other Conservatives supporting the sale – not see that the Telegraph, in its current form, is absolutely, utterly integral to the conservative movement? The Telegraph has often been the only defender – not just the only serious defender, the only defender – of particular conservative causes.
Even if it changes just a little bit, we will all come to regret it.