For many years I subscribed guiltily to the New Internationalist and studied its clearly laid-out charts and graphs showing how the West was hogging seven-eighths of the world’s guilt and how we really ought to share more of our guilt with developing countries. Left-wing publications are the political equivalent of Slimming Magazine. By buying them you are not really doing anything to tackle the problem, but at least you’ve acknowledged that something ought to be done.That is an inherent problem with articles that challenge the way we live. Flicking through magazines is something we do for pleasure, yet reading about the victims of the bombing of Belgrade makes you feel terrible. There is an inherent “feel-bad factor” that you just don’t get when you read Elle Decoration. This is particularly true of publications of the far left, where the editorial line is to be opposed to everything. There are still many writers on the left who are instinctively “oppositionalist”, railing against anything that is perceived as mainstream or popular, thereby condemning themselves and their papers to the margins.
When I flick through the pages of Socialist Worker I still feel as if I am being shouted at, five minutes after I’ve bought the paper.At least with magazines such as Red Pepper, New Internationalist, Tribune and New Statesman you cannot always predict what the line will be. On the board of Red Pepper, for example, there were people for and against the military action against Serbia, which means you are witness to a debate rather than a lecture. And considering that they cannot afford to pay proper rates for the articles, they still manage to attract contributions from impressively high-profile writers. Perhaps these journalists are prepared to take a pay cut because they understand it is not just how many people are reading your stuff that matters; it’s also who is reading it. By their very nature these magazines are read by people who are at the centre of decision-making. Now that there are more than 400 Labour MPs in the House of Commons, a well-argued piece in New Statesman or Tribune can be far more influential than their modest circulations may suggest. They have a direct line to the people in power, much as the editorials of What Caravan did when John Major was Prime Minister.But it is still depressing that we live in a society where there are more magazines devoted to steam trains than there are to politics.
Most political debate in this country takes place within a narrow range; we are given the impression that there is nothing to the left of Tony Blair and nothing to the right of – well, Tony Blair. That’s why it is important to read and support publications that broaden the discussion, even if you think you may not agree with much of what they say. So go out and buy a copy of Red Pepper or New Statesman or Renewal or Tribune or New Internationalist, and at least have a look at Socialist Worker to see what other people have to say. Because it’s healthy to have our presumptions challenged, interesting to read about issues not given prominence in the mainstream press, and vital that the voice of the radical left continues to be heard.
And anyway, you’ve got to hide your copy of Hello! in something.John O’Farrell is the author of `Things Can Only Get Better’ (Black Swan, pounds 6.99)The Left Line-upNew StatesmanEditor: Peter WilbyCirculation: 24,000High: Made it to 86th year of publication last week.Low: Staff member bugging editorial board meeting.TribuneEditor: Mark SeddonCiculation: 10,000High: Editor and MP Chris Mullin’s work on the Birmingham SixLow: Robin Cook addressing the once excessively radical Tribune rallyNew InternationalistEditor: David RansonCirculation: 47,000 (UK)High: 1989 circulation peaked 50 000.Low: Endless junkmail subscription drives.Red PepperEditor: Hilary WainwrightCirculation: 11,000High: John Smith’s advisor used Red Pepper to voice firm criticism of Gordon Brown.Low: 1995 financial crisis cost them their editor.. AS ASSOCIATED Newspapers prepared, earlier this year, to launch Metro, a free daily tabloid for Tube-travelling Londoners, there were distinct rumblings in the industry. Commentators wondered whether the UK’s last old-style national newspaper fiefdom wasn’t about to shoot itself in the foot. Surely the new paper would steal precious advertising and sales revenue from its established big sister, London’s Evening Standard?
What is more, plans for another London freebie, this time from News International, were known to be afoot. And then Forward Publishing, too, was hoping to enter the fray. Was another bloody circulation battle about to ensue? Industry confidence was not boosted when just a month before its launch Paul Dacre, Associated’s editor-in-chief, apparently unhappy with the dummy paper, decided to replace the Metro’s editor Kim Chapman, a former editor of the Reading Evening Post, with an Associated steady hand, Ian McGregor.More than two months after launch, some of the question marks over the title have disappeared.
News International seems to have gone quiet over its contender for this captive market. And Forward, a minnow in the publishing sea, has been forced to shelve its plans.But new question marks have replaced the old ones. There are suggestions – although it’s too early to draw conclusions – that the Mail may indeed be suffering. The latest circulation figures show the Mail’s May circulation down 0.23 per cent on April’s sales. April figures, too, showed a minor month-on-month dip.Laura James, press director of the media buyers New PHD, said: “This could suggest there’s an element of cannibalisation going on. If this is a short-term effect, then I don’t think we’d be overly concerned. If it is a longer-term effect, then we would be worried.”Steve Goodman, press director of MediaCom TMB, also thought Metro could affect the Mail, but added: “I really can’t believe [Associated] hasn’t considered what the effects would be on its own stable.”Associated is facing unexpected problems on the distribution front.