In the same long-view mode as yesternight, I am intrigued by the idea that if a newspaper takes up an unpopular cause, presumably on principle (since there is no other reason for doing so), its enemies should find vindication in the paper's loss of sales. Going against the tide is hard, and exacts a price. Grown-ups know that.
The Mirror's editor appears to be a grown-up. In the article IP links, Pier Morgan explains his paper's performance:
Do I think our anti-war line is to blame for any of the drop? Possibly a bit among our older readers who think it's unpatriotic to continue criticising the war now it's started. But the overwhelming reaction to our coverage from our readers has been totally supportive... We just won't be hypocrites and change our line that we shouldn't have started it in the first place
One has to admire his "stay," whatever the financials.
Morgan also suggests that the Mirror has been affected by the Sun's price-cutting maneuvers (a situation with which any New Yorker aware of Murdoch's loss-leading Post will be familiar), and has some choice words for blowhard former Sunday Times editor Andrew Neil. All told, Morgan comes off well. Small wonder IP forewent his usual "read the whole thing" sign-off.
No comments:
Post a Comment