Why did the Daily Mail's Ashcroft series start so tentatively?
|
Version 0 of 1. The Daily Mail is clearly enjoying itself with its extracts from the unauthorised biography of the prime minister. It ran another large front page “Cameron Confidential” blurb on the third day of its serialisation and carried six more pages inside. The paper, with due immodesty, announced that its series has “got the world talking.” Not quite. There were signs that the initial interest by rival newspapers (and broadcasters) in the claims made by Lord Ashcroft and Isabel Oakeshott in their book, Call Me Dave, was beginning to wane by Wednesday. Even so, it’s fair to say there were plenty of references elsewhere. The Daily Telegraph found room for a news piece on page 6 and its columnist Allison Pearson laid into Ashcroft, calling him “a peevish billionaire”. She also accused Oakeshott of publishing “fiction” (yes, Allison, I go with that, as my London Evening Standard column later today will reinforce). The Independent carried a news piece and Matthew Norman devoted his column to it. The Times mentioned the book in its diary column. The Daily Express ignored it. The Daily Mirror splashed on Cameron’s light-hearted reaction to it, with the Guardian, Sun and Metro carrying similar articles on inside pages. So, not the whole world perhaps, but - allowing for the hype - a fairish slice of continuing media interest. What was so fascinating, however, was the way in which the Mail began its serialisation on Monday. By its own standards, the paper appeared rather tentative. It seemed to be having its cake and eating it. First, I noted the main front page headline: “Revenge!” Given that the Mail was serialising Ashcroft’s book, it was an odd way to treat the author (who let it be known through his co-writer that revenge was not his motive). Second, the references to drug-taking were played down (and notably played up by other newspapers). Third, there were the two pages about Cameron’s relationship with his disabled son, Ivan, The tragic child who made Dave human, which was wholly sympathetic to the prime minister. Fourth, the leading article that day pleaded for understanding about the prime minister’s “youthful indiscretions”, mitigating the effect of the tittle-tattle about his exotic university behaviour. And fifth, there was the matter of timing. Why was the Mail serialising a blockbusting book so far in advance of both publication and the start of the Tory party conference? Would it not have had maximum impact in two weeks’ time? (Incidentally, I also noticed in that editorial that the Mail said: “We fought off strong competition from rival newspapers, believing Mail readers deserved first sight of what is an important, if controversial, anatomy of modern politics.” In fact, as Media Guardian revealed, the Mail fought no-one: there was no auction because it was offered the book before any other paper got a sniff). All in all, I did wonder on Monday whether the Mail’s editor-in-chief, Paul Dacre, had got cold feet about trashing Cameron. Was he concerned about his proprietor, Viscount Rothermere, not sharing his journalistic passion for causing mischief? By Tuesday, however, I put those thoughts to one side because the Mail’s presentation was not in the least ambivalent. It was altogether more bold, even gung-ho. Dacre knew he had set the agenda and didn’t hang back in the least. Indeed, as I reflected that day, the extracts had provoked some serious questions, not least Cameron’s relationship with the armed services’ chiefs. I am still unsure whether, beyond the pig nonsense, this will have much effect on Cameron. But watching a rightwing newspaper pour ordure over a rightwing prime minister has been wonderfully entertaining anyway. With more than four years of a Conservative government yet to run, and Jeremy Corbyn leading the Labour party, the Mail clearly feels confident that it can do as it likes without causing lasting damage to its party of choice. |