Indy is flogging a good idea to death

The Independent is so proud of the striking, tabloid-style front pages

Editor Simon Kelner started the process on 5 April with a list of "facts"
in outsized type to underscore the paper's antiwar credentials, which he
thought were good for circulation (more about that in a moment). I may not
have agreed with his take on the war - but at least Kelner was showing some
flair and verve, and striving for impact. Since then, though, he has repeated
the device, several times.

On Monday the paper previewed Gordon Brown's euro-statement later that day
with a portentous running headline which began: "Do not be mistaken: today is
about so much more than the euro," then proceeded to showcase the paper's
euro-enthusiasms. The portentous tone jarred something awful.

Kelner admits to being inspired by Piers Morgan's poster-style, antiwar
Mirror front pages in the run-up to hostilities in Iraq and after - a weird
source of inspiration since they contributed to the Mirror's tumbling
circulation.

But Kelner claims the Independent put on additional sales of 10-15,000 on
the days of its antiwar and asylum-seeker page ones.

Maybe - but it doesn't show up in the official ABC circulation figures.
Indeed, though the paper has recently taken out a series of ads in the trade
press boasting about how its antiwar coverage boosted sales, there is, in
fact, no evidence of a Baghdad bounce. In February the paper's circulation
was 222,000.

In March and April, the months covering the intense run-up to war and the
hostilities, the average sale was 225,000 - hardly an increase to boast
about. By May it was down to 223,000, barely above where it was before the
war. In the past four months, the paper is down a couple of thousand copies
on the same period last year.

So, Kelner's tabloid tricks are having no sustainable effect on the sale.
I'm not surprised. As a device used sparingly (like the asylum-seeker page
one), it can have impact and make a worthwhile point. But it's a turnoff if
used too regularly.

Broadsheet readers do not want their paper's editorial line shoved down
their throats. They particularly don't want propaganda where there should be
news.

No reader wants their paper to think it is omnipotent - or to preach at
them. Independent readers least of all.

Is this the end for the tabloid Peeping Tom?

SARA Cox's landmark legal victory over the People is a milestone in
the creation of a privacy law in this country which will be enforced by the
formidable power of the courts rather than the wrist-slapping,
self-regulatory procedures of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC). It is a
development that I welcome.

Several years ago I would not have written that last sentence. I have
always feared that privacy laws would be used to gag legitimate journalistic
investigation as well as control the nasty and unnecessary invasions of
privacy of the tabloid red-tops. But the Cox case illustrates that, even when
PCC procedures work, their remedy is inadequate in the face of monstrous
offence.

The People published eight intrusive pictures of the Radio 1 DJ and her
husband naked on a beach while on their honeymoon in the Seychelles over
three pages, including the front page.

It was a clear violation of the PCC code, which states that newspapers
must not publish pictures of people in private places without their consent.
Cox was naked in an isolated villa on a private beach on a remote island.

The PCC negotiated a 63-word apology, which was duly published on page
three of the People the following week. Cox decided that was not sanction
enough. Most folk, I suspect, would agree with her: she had done nothing
wrong yet had her privacy invaded and her honeymoon ruined for the sake of
tabloid sensationalism.

She sued the People under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, which confers
a right to privacy on everyone. She won £50,000 in damages and the paper had
to foot £200,000 in legal costs as well. Now the paper was properly suffering
for its sins.

The fact that the People had already lost before the PCC in an
open-and-shut case meant it effectively had no defence in court. The
significance of the Cox case is not that it marks the beginning of the end of
self-regulation but that a privacy law is being constructed from court
rulings based on the PCC code.

That will strike fear into every red-top editor who thought he or she
could invade people's privacy with impunity and without the slightest
public-interest defence. A bill for a quarter of million pounds is a rather
more effective deterrent than a 63-word apology on an inside page.

The new chairman of the PCC, Sir Christopher Meyer (formerly our man in
Washington DC), admits that the Cox case "involved a very serious invasion of
privacy". But he adds that: "It is a pity that Sara Cox never let the PCC's
much swifter justice take its course."

But, having got the People to publish a small apology, what other
sanctions does the PCC have over it or its then editor. I am aware of none.
So what other "swifter justice" did the PCC have available to Cox?

MOREOVER, Neil Wallis, the People editor when the offending pictures were
published, was also a member of the PCC. Despite his own clear breach of the
code he was meant to uphold, Wallis was never asked to resign from the PCC.
If the commission wanted to establish public faith in its procedures it would
have removed Wallis. But he is still a member of the PCC (and now deputy
editor of the News of the World).

Plain folk will regard that as unacceptable. It certainly gives
self-regulation a bad name. But the courts are calling the shots now and all
newspapers must realise that if they fall foul of the PCC code on privacy
they could face legal action costing them hundreds of thousands of pounds.

An era of Peeping Tom journalism could be about to come to an end. Our
newspapers will be the better for it.

The true state of journalism

STATE of Play seems to be one of the few political dramas to have
impressed just about everyone I know. It's the usual mixture of a dead body,
a shifty looking MP, sex with people you didn't oughta be having sex with,
sleazy lobbyists and journalists pursuing the big story.

But the convincing thing about this Sunday night drama is that everyone is
a bit unlikeable, even the journalists (yes, I know that will surprise you).

In Paul Abbott's drama, the journos are magnificently venal, competitive,
gossipy and obsessed with racking up their expenses. Now that's what I call
drama-doc realism.

It's all comment at Europhile FT

THE transformation of the Financial Times from City Bible to Brussels
Gazette continues apace. Gordon Brown's "definite maybe" on the euro was
greeted with derision on the FT's news, as well as its opinion, pages
yesterday. The editorial was headlined "Britain's six wasted years of euro
indecision" and complained that "New Labour has f lunked its biggest test".

The page-one news splash was also infused with frustrated Europhilia,
beginning with the claims that Brown had "set the Government on course for
another nine months of wrangling over the euro" and moaning in the second
paragraph that despite the Treasury's massive euro-study, "the Government
still does not know whether it will recommend joining the euro in the next
couple of years".

When it comes to the euro, it is hard to tell the difference between news
and opinion in the new FT.