Interview: Roger Alton, editor, The Observer (Evening Standard)
By David Rowan
ROGER Alton is adamant that he is boring. "I've got absolutely nothing to say of any interest," he insists as he bounds, 20 minutes late, into his office. "I really think you should go back now and say, actually, f***, there's nothing there." Alton, who has reversed The Observer's decline over the past six years, must be the most self-deprecating executive in Fleet Street.
"Where anyone else would try to sound cleverer than they are, Roger's constantly declaring how useless he is," grins a senior colleague. It may be an affectation, designed to disarm potential critics, but, along with the relentless expletives and his sometimes dishevelled personal organisation, it has endeared him to the staff like none of his short-lived predecessors.
"He's a great bloke who just manages to motivate you," is a typical refrain. He might lack The Sunday Times's budgets, but, backed by The Guardian's financial weight, he has restored both internal morale and a stable if slowly rising readership.
Today his enthusiasm focuses on that unfashionable cause, Tony Blair. While Alan Rusbridger, four floors below, discusses turning The Guardian firmly against the warravaged premier, Alton, 56, remains a rare voice of barely qualified support. "I think Blair has done a fantastic job," he says, dismissing the growing clamour for an early succession. "This idea from the Labour Left, the romantic antiwar platoon, that Gordon would chug off into a socialist nirvana is absolute cack." It was, Alton acknowledges, "a significant event" when, two weeks ago, Blair invited key Guardian supporters to Chequers to affirm their loyalty (although, asked if he ever visits Chequers, Alton uncomfortably deflects the question).
For his own part, not even failures in Iraq - after a war that The Observer controversially backed - have dented his faith in No 10. "The overall aims were moral and good, and will turn out to be moral and good," he says. Not even reports of prisoner abuse have changed his mind. "I mean, Fallujah might not yet be Maidstone, but from what I hear of Iraq, it is infinitely better than it was - there's a plethora of newspapers, very free markets, a lot of education ... The post-war planning clearly hasn't been good, but don't forget, there are only a small number of British troops there. Yet Blair is regarded in large parts of the media, among the chatterati, as if he's the prime mover."
NOT, Alton adds, that his staff agree with him. "You feel you're the last living Englishman," he shrugs. Most readers, too, have opposed his support for the war - which led The Independent on Sunday to target them mischievously with posters stating: "Observer readers - if you're antiwar, you're reading the wrong newspaper." But did he miss a circulation trick by not taking the more popular antiwar line? "On major issues like that, it would be inconceivable to say one thing because you'd make more money. You decide a leader line according to what you think is right, not on commercial considerations. Besides, there is no real indication that being pro or anti- would have made any difference. It is often claimed that The Observer suffered for its line [attacking the Government] over Suez. But within a year circulation was higher than before."
Bellicosity has its place in Alton's broad interpretation of a "liberal" newspaper's remit. "Don't forget, the editorial line is one small part of package which includes a whole range of voices, from Mary Riddell, who is very opposed, to David Aaronovitch, who was pro and is now more agonised, to expert reporters who will tell you what it's actually like on the ground, however damaging that is to the MoD.
You take issues as they come." Does "liberal" still mean anything? "Absolutely," he replies. "It's being open to things, not having a knee-jerk response to anything. Look, David Beckham is in the National Portrait Gallery, but he's also on the front page of the People. Does that make him upmarket posh or not posh? Things are complex."
But isn't this a notably apolitical view of liberalism? "Well, not ideological," he says. "Though I am very inclined to get behind [Liberal Democrat candidate] Simon Hughes for London mayor. I think Ken is fantastically self-serving. But it would be good if Simon was slightly more charismatic ... "
Alton was at the Liverpool Post until he joined The Guardian in 1974 as a sub-editor. After The Guardian bought The Observer in 1993, circulation plunged towards 400,000 as a series of editors struggled against better resourced rivals and what one editor, Andrew Jaspan, condemned as infighting "brought on by The Guardian's own plotting and destabilisation".
ALTON was brought in to restore stability in 1998. By last month, circulation was 450,119 (422,361 excluding giveaways) - nowhere near The Sunday Times's 1.4 million, but more than double that of The Independent on Sunday.
The rise will continue, Alton asserts: "The initial target is a steady 475,000, then 500,000 to hold. I think we can." He also plays down reports that the paper loses up to £10 million a year, claiming that "internal breakeven", through which overheads are shared with The Guardian, is "not far away".
His strategy, he says, is down to "a very high standard of journalism - from Tim Adams, one of the best writers I've ever read, to Andrew Rawnsley on politics, they alone make the paper worth £1.40." But surely it is the expensive monthly food, sport and music colour magazines that have been the real circulation boosters? "They've taken the spikes out of our sales, driving circulation and advertising," he responds. "But they're all washing their faces.
We're very pleased with them." It remains "a struggle", he admits, competing in a weekend market where free CDs and a multitude of sections enable some papers to offer "£15 worth of stuff for a quid". There will, he says, inevitably be casualties.
"Common sense says that something will have to give. People only have a finite amount of time." One option, he suggests, is for papers to slim down again. "Maybe it's time to move away from the great Andrew Neil 'supermarket' [Neil's strategy when editing the multisection Sunday Times]. But you try to take a couple of sections away - it's commercial folly." Reformatting The Observer is a more likely option. Although Alton says that "officially" he is not tied to The Guardian's preferred format of an elongated continental-style tabloid, he does favour this " European" format. But nothing, he says, will happen in the next year. "You just can't do it in that time."
There are internal discussions about a fourth monthly magazine, but Alton is still searching for the right idea. Meanwhile, he is hoping soon to add a new sports columnist to his roster: "I texted Piers [ Morgan] on Saturday and asked if he'd like to interview Arsene Wenger for our sports mag. Wouldn't it be great to have two of the most famous people in the world chatting together?"
(Evening Standard, May 19 2004)
ROGER Alton is adamant that he is boring. "I've got absolutely nothing to say of any interest," he insists as he bounds, 20 minutes late, into his office. "I really think you should go back now and say, actually, f***, there's nothing there." Alton, who has reversed The Observer's decline over the past six years, must be the most self-deprecating executive in Fleet Street.
"Where anyone else would try to sound cleverer than they are, Roger's constantly declaring how useless he is," grins a senior colleague. It may be an affectation, designed to disarm potential critics, but, along with the relentless expletives and his sometimes dishevelled personal organisation, it has endeared him to the staff like none of his short-lived predecessors.
"He's a great bloke who just manages to motivate you," is a typical refrain. He might lack The Sunday Times's budgets, but, backed by The Guardian's financial weight, he has restored both internal morale and a stable if slowly rising readership.
Today his enthusiasm focuses on that unfashionable cause, Tony Blair. While Alan Rusbridger, four floors below, discusses turning The Guardian firmly against the warravaged premier, Alton, 56, remains a rare voice of barely qualified support. "I think Blair has done a fantastic job," he says, dismissing the growing clamour for an early succession. "This idea from the Labour Left, the romantic antiwar platoon, that Gordon would chug off into a socialist nirvana is absolute cack." It was, Alton acknowledges, "a significant event" when, two weeks ago, Blair invited key Guardian supporters to Chequers to affirm their loyalty (although, asked if he ever visits Chequers, Alton uncomfortably deflects the question).
For his own part, not even failures in Iraq - after a war that The Observer controversially backed - have dented his faith in No 10. "The overall aims were moral and good, and will turn out to be moral and good," he says. Not even reports of prisoner abuse have changed his mind. "I mean, Fallujah might not yet be Maidstone, but from what I hear of Iraq, it is infinitely better than it was - there's a plethora of newspapers, very free markets, a lot of education ... The post-war planning clearly hasn't been good, but don't forget, there are only a small number of British troops there. Yet Blair is regarded in large parts of the media, among the chatterati, as if he's the prime mover."
NOT, Alton adds, that his staff agree with him. "You feel you're the last living Englishman," he shrugs. Most readers, too, have opposed his support for the war - which led The Independent on Sunday to target them mischievously with posters stating: "Observer readers - if you're antiwar, you're reading the wrong newspaper." But did he miss a circulation trick by not taking the more popular antiwar line? "On major issues like that, it would be inconceivable to say one thing because you'd make more money. You decide a leader line according to what you think is right, not on commercial considerations. Besides, there is no real indication that being pro or anti- would have made any difference. It is often claimed that The Observer suffered for its line [attacking the Government] over Suez. But within a year circulation was higher than before."
Bellicosity has its place in Alton's broad interpretation of a "liberal" newspaper's remit. "Don't forget, the editorial line is one small part of package which includes a whole range of voices, from Mary Riddell, who is very opposed, to David Aaronovitch, who was pro and is now more agonised, to expert reporters who will tell you what it's actually like on the ground, however damaging that is to the MoD.
You take issues as they come." Does "liberal" still mean anything? "Absolutely," he replies. "It's being open to things, not having a knee-jerk response to anything. Look, David Beckham is in the National Portrait Gallery, but he's also on the front page of the People. Does that make him upmarket posh or not posh? Things are complex."
But isn't this a notably apolitical view of liberalism? "Well, not ideological," he says. "Though I am very inclined to get behind [Liberal Democrat candidate] Simon Hughes for London mayor. I think Ken is fantastically self-serving. But it would be good if Simon was slightly more charismatic ... "
Alton was at the Liverpool Post until he joined The Guardian in 1974 as a sub-editor. After The Guardian bought The Observer in 1993, circulation plunged towards 400,000 as a series of editors struggled against better resourced rivals and what one editor, Andrew Jaspan, condemned as infighting "brought on by The Guardian's own plotting and destabilisation".
ALTON was brought in to restore stability in 1998. By last month, circulation was 450,119 (422,361 excluding giveaways) - nowhere near The Sunday Times's 1.4 million, but more than double that of The Independent on Sunday.
The rise will continue, Alton asserts: "The initial target is a steady 475,000, then 500,000 to hold. I think we can." He also plays down reports that the paper loses up to £10 million a year, claiming that "internal breakeven", through which overheads are shared with The Guardian, is "not far away".
His strategy, he says, is down to "a very high standard of journalism - from Tim Adams, one of the best writers I've ever read, to Andrew Rawnsley on politics, they alone make the paper worth £1.40." But surely it is the expensive monthly food, sport and music colour magazines that have been the real circulation boosters? "They've taken the spikes out of our sales, driving circulation and advertising," he responds. "But they're all washing their faces.
We're very pleased with them." It remains "a struggle", he admits, competing in a weekend market where free CDs and a multitude of sections enable some papers to offer "£15 worth of stuff for a quid". There will, he says, inevitably be casualties.
"Common sense says that something will have to give. People only have a finite amount of time." One option, he suggests, is for papers to slim down again. "Maybe it's time to move away from the great Andrew Neil 'supermarket' [Neil's strategy when editing the multisection Sunday Times]. But you try to take a couple of sections away - it's commercial folly." Reformatting The Observer is a more likely option. Although Alton says that "officially" he is not tied to The Guardian's preferred format of an elongated continental-style tabloid, he does favour this " European" format. But nothing, he says, will happen in the next year. "You just can't do it in that time."
There are internal discussions about a fourth monthly magazine, but Alton is still searching for the right idea. Meanwhile, he is hoping soon to add a new sports columnist to his roster: "I texted Piers [ Morgan] on Saturday and asked if he'd like to interview Arsene Wenger for our sports mag. Wouldn't it be great to have two of the most famous people in the world chatting together?"
(Evening Standard, May 19 2004)
<< Home