Interview: Andrew Neil (Evening Standard)
By David Rowan
Too bad if Andrew Neil thought Matthew d'Ancona's appointment as editor would finally restore The Spectator to calm. The Doughty Street rumour mill has remained in overdrive since d'Ancona's name was confirmed on Monday, after a destabilising two-month search to replace Boris Johnson.
How, it was murmured, would the urbane and cerebral former Sunday Telegraph deputy assert his independence, if only days earlier Neil had imposed upon him two new associate editors? Why, if Neil truly understood the magazine's iconoclasm, hand it to a known avoider of trouble, a man, as one of his new colleagues sees it, "who if he saw an applecart would not just refuse to upset it, but would put another apple on top"?
As the magazine's former media columnist Stephen Glover reflected last month after being "sacked" by him, Neil was "not a Spectator person" and simply wanted "some obliging soul who could be relied on to do his bidding". With the Barclays' Scottish newspapers no longer his to play with, what would prevent him from meddling wherever he could?
If such concerns had reached Neil by yesterday morning, he did not appear too bothered. "Life's too short to worry about anything Mr Glover says," he said dismissively. Nor, despite the "media-village mythology", would he get involved in the day-today running of the magazine. "That's what I pay the editor and the publisher to do. As chief executive, I'm available should they want to talk to me, and every now and then I'll have a tuppence-worth to say. But in terms of who commissions the articles, who decides the cover story or the editorial line - that's the editor's job."
Quentin Letts was not convinced. The Daily Mail's sketchwriter withdrew from the race even after Neil left him believing that he was his preferred choice, d'Ancona, according to insiders, having not initially struck Neil as editor material. Neil denies this. Letts's doubts grew when he understood from Neil that he would have no direct access to the Barclays, and could reach the proprietors only via Neil - again, something the latter denies. He also saw Neil's appointment of Fraser Nelson, from The Scotsman, and Allister Heath, from The Business, as associate editors as evidence of his determination to remain an irritant.
Surely Neil saw that the timing of these appointments would undermine an editor's independence? "Well, the editor is inheriting a staff which includes two of the most accomplished and talented journalists of their generation, and he would be mad to think of getting rid of them," he replied. As for insiders' suggestions that they were Neil's "placemen", that, he suggested, was demeaning. "I know that people like Peter Oborne [political editor] were a bit suspicious, but Peter, having worked with the two, thinks they are huge assets. And so will Matthew. Now I've appointed him, and with Kimberly [Quinn] doing a great job as publisher, I can now step back and let them get on with it."
It is too soon, he said, to spell out his "post-Boris strategy" in detail. Until now his priority has been "getting the magazine's finances dragged into the 21st century". He also intends to boost circulation from around 70,000 in December to 75,000 within a year, and then ideally "over 100,000". As for that "Sextator" reputation, does he have a plan to restrain staff libidos? "That," he said, "is beyond even my agenda. Perhaps bromide in the tea."
Politically, he wants to add more "gravitas" while expanding its base. "One of Boris's strengths was that he broadened its appeal to the centre-Left, going far beyond the card-carrying Tory. I would rather see it as a centre-Right magazine than as a Tory one." Not simply a flag-waver for David Cameron, then? "That," he said, "will be a matter for the editor."
It will be a challenge for d'Ancona to square political gravitas and high sales, but Neil sees "The Spectator's humorous, fun, quirky element" as key. "The appetite is there for serious political commentary, but with excellent book reviews, great arts coverage, interesting, provocative and often funny columns intermixed. If the world didn't want some serious commentary, The Economist wouldn't be selling a million copies."
Won't he risk damaging the magazine's distinct culture by abandoning Doughty Street? Some critics suggested that The Scotsman lost its editorial identity after Neil moved it to new premises. " Bollocks," he replied. "Complete nonsense. The Scotsman moved into a new building because we needed to change the culture. But The Spectator will move into a similar style of house, so it won't change. The current building is a slum, which we can't expand in."
In fact, Neil lost control of The Scotsman and its sister papers last month, when the Barclays sold them to Johnston Press. Nor does he have a managerial role at the Telegraph Group. Doesn't that seriously diminish his role in their empire? "When I joined the Barclays," he said, "they didn't own The Spectator, they didn't own handbag.com, Apollo magazine or The Business. The portfolio goes up and down, and it could grow again." Will he stay if his role contracts further? "Well, they've made it clear they want me to stay, and I want to. But I would remind you that, though the Barclays are my first concern and priority, they are not my sole employer."
His other ventures include a nonexecutive chairmanship of World Media Rights, which hopes to raise up to £100 million to invest in TV rights. Its first deals should be signed by April, including "a big announcement that will knock people's socks off". Neil is also in discussions about chairing an English-language newspaper in Dubai, where he will spend time over Easter - "but I don't wish to raise people's expectations that I may be moving to Dubai". Then there are the reports suggesting that he may be the next Trinity Mirror chairman. "I've seen that, but it seems to be illinformed - as are most of the things I read about myself in media diaries," he said. "I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. I will not be applying."
Yet despite his achievements, Neil has proved unable to make a commercial success of The Business, which he predicted three years ago "will end up selling more than the Independent on Sunday and The Observer". While "it has certainly not failed as far as the journalism is concerned", he admits that approaching breakeven remains "an uphill struggle that we continue to throw all our weight into, and for which we have had no thanks from anybody else in the industry".
He sounds resentful, attacking the wider journalistic profession as "a Madame Lafarge, waiting for the paper to collapse so they can have a party". Will it survive another year? "That is certainly my intention. But it's got to start showing progress. The proprietors are not asking to make a ton of money, they'd just like it to cease to be a cash drain."
At least he has his BBC presenting career to distract him. Is he happy with his TV workload? "No, it's not enough," he said with a chuckle. "I had a spare three hours on Sunday." That would have let him present Jonathan Dimbleby's ITV1 programme ... "Exactly!" There were, in fact, rumours some months ago that he would have liked to take over Dimbleby's slot ... "No, there were rumours that I'd been approached," he corrected. So he said no? "No I didn't. The people doing the approaching were stopped from making the changes they had planned, so it never took off. I would have had some pretty tough conditions to move to ITV anyway. I do five programmes a week for the BBC. You wouldn't want to give that up unless ITV was bringing more to the table."
Not that, at 56, he has lost any of his ambition to apply his talents more widely. But why so driven? "I don't know, Presbyterian Scottish or something ..." Maybe it's time finally to settle down with a good woman? "How do you know I haven't?" he replied, laughing.
Ah, so he had made plans for Valentine's night, then? "Yes I have," he said. "And they will remain secret, ha ha, for reasons I'm sure you'll understand."
(Evening Standard, February 15 2006)
Too bad if Andrew Neil thought Matthew d'Ancona's appointment as editor would finally restore The Spectator to calm. The Doughty Street rumour mill has remained in overdrive since d'Ancona's name was confirmed on Monday, after a destabilising two-month search to replace Boris Johnson.
How, it was murmured, would the urbane and cerebral former Sunday Telegraph deputy assert his independence, if only days earlier Neil had imposed upon him two new associate editors? Why, if Neil truly understood the magazine's iconoclasm, hand it to a known avoider of trouble, a man, as one of his new colleagues sees it, "who if he saw an applecart would not just refuse to upset it, but would put another apple on top"?
As the magazine's former media columnist Stephen Glover reflected last month after being "sacked" by him, Neil was "not a Spectator person" and simply wanted "some obliging soul who could be relied on to do his bidding". With the Barclays' Scottish newspapers no longer his to play with, what would prevent him from meddling wherever he could?
If such concerns had reached Neil by yesterday morning, he did not appear too bothered. "Life's too short to worry about anything Mr Glover says," he said dismissively. Nor, despite the "media-village mythology", would he get involved in the day-today running of the magazine. "That's what I pay the editor and the publisher to do. As chief executive, I'm available should they want to talk to me, and every now and then I'll have a tuppence-worth to say. But in terms of who commissions the articles, who decides the cover story or the editorial line - that's the editor's job."
Quentin Letts was not convinced. The Daily Mail's sketchwriter withdrew from the race even after Neil left him believing that he was his preferred choice, d'Ancona, according to insiders, having not initially struck Neil as editor material. Neil denies this. Letts's doubts grew when he understood from Neil that he would have no direct access to the Barclays, and could reach the proprietors only via Neil - again, something the latter denies. He also saw Neil's appointment of Fraser Nelson, from The Scotsman, and Allister Heath, from The Business, as associate editors as evidence of his determination to remain an irritant.
Surely Neil saw that the timing of these appointments would undermine an editor's independence? "Well, the editor is inheriting a staff which includes two of the most accomplished and talented journalists of their generation, and he would be mad to think of getting rid of them," he replied. As for insiders' suggestions that they were Neil's "placemen", that, he suggested, was demeaning. "I know that people like Peter Oborne [political editor] were a bit suspicious, but Peter, having worked with the two, thinks they are huge assets. And so will Matthew. Now I've appointed him, and with Kimberly [Quinn] doing a great job as publisher, I can now step back and let them get on with it."
It is too soon, he said, to spell out his "post-Boris strategy" in detail. Until now his priority has been "getting the magazine's finances dragged into the 21st century". He also intends to boost circulation from around 70,000 in December to 75,000 within a year, and then ideally "over 100,000". As for that "Sextator" reputation, does he have a plan to restrain staff libidos? "That," he said, "is beyond even my agenda. Perhaps bromide in the tea."
Politically, he wants to add more "gravitas" while expanding its base. "One of Boris's strengths was that he broadened its appeal to the centre-Left, going far beyond the card-carrying Tory. I would rather see it as a centre-Right magazine than as a Tory one." Not simply a flag-waver for David Cameron, then? "That," he said, "will be a matter for the editor."
It will be a challenge for d'Ancona to square political gravitas and high sales, but Neil sees "The Spectator's humorous, fun, quirky element" as key. "The appetite is there for serious political commentary, but with excellent book reviews, great arts coverage, interesting, provocative and often funny columns intermixed. If the world didn't want some serious commentary, The Economist wouldn't be selling a million copies."
Won't he risk damaging the magazine's distinct culture by abandoning Doughty Street? Some critics suggested that The Scotsman lost its editorial identity after Neil moved it to new premises. " Bollocks," he replied. "Complete nonsense. The Scotsman moved into a new building because we needed to change the culture. But The Spectator will move into a similar style of house, so it won't change. The current building is a slum, which we can't expand in."
In fact, Neil lost control of The Scotsman and its sister papers last month, when the Barclays sold them to Johnston Press. Nor does he have a managerial role at the Telegraph Group. Doesn't that seriously diminish his role in their empire? "When I joined the Barclays," he said, "they didn't own The Spectator, they didn't own handbag.com, Apollo magazine or The Business. The portfolio goes up and down, and it could grow again." Will he stay if his role contracts further? "Well, they've made it clear they want me to stay, and I want to. But I would remind you that, though the Barclays are my first concern and priority, they are not my sole employer."
His other ventures include a nonexecutive chairmanship of World Media Rights, which hopes to raise up to £100 million to invest in TV rights. Its first deals should be signed by April, including "a big announcement that will knock people's socks off". Neil is also in discussions about chairing an English-language newspaper in Dubai, where he will spend time over Easter - "but I don't wish to raise people's expectations that I may be moving to Dubai". Then there are the reports suggesting that he may be the next Trinity Mirror chairman. "I've seen that, but it seems to be illinformed - as are most of the things I read about myself in media diaries," he said. "I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. I will not be applying."
Yet despite his achievements, Neil has proved unable to make a commercial success of The Business, which he predicted three years ago "will end up selling more than the Independent on Sunday and The Observer". While "it has certainly not failed as far as the journalism is concerned", he admits that approaching breakeven remains "an uphill struggle that we continue to throw all our weight into, and for which we have had no thanks from anybody else in the industry".
He sounds resentful, attacking the wider journalistic profession as "a Madame Lafarge, waiting for the paper to collapse so they can have a party". Will it survive another year? "That is certainly my intention. But it's got to start showing progress. The proprietors are not asking to make a ton of money, they'd just like it to cease to be a cash drain."
At least he has his BBC presenting career to distract him. Is he happy with his TV workload? "No, it's not enough," he said with a chuckle. "I had a spare three hours on Sunday." That would have let him present Jonathan Dimbleby's ITV1 programme ... "Exactly!" There were, in fact, rumours some months ago that he would have liked to take over Dimbleby's slot ... "No, there were rumours that I'd been approached," he corrected. So he said no? "No I didn't. The people doing the approaching were stopped from making the changes they had planned, so it never took off. I would have had some pretty tough conditions to move to ITV anyway. I do five programmes a week for the BBC. You wouldn't want to give that up unless ITV was bringing more to the table."
Not that, at 56, he has lost any of his ambition to apply his talents more widely. But why so driven? "I don't know, Presbyterian Scottish or something ..." Maybe it's time finally to settle down with a good woman? "How do you know I haven't?" he replied, laughing.
Ah, so he had made plans for Valentine's night, then? "Yes I have," he said. "And they will remain secret, ha ha, for reasons I'm sure you'll understand."
(Evening Standard, February 15 2006)
<< Home