The Observer has chosen war

The contrast between the peacenik Guardian and the more pragmatic Observer could not be more clear-cut. While The Guardian regularly opens its columns to every kind of anti-war, anti-American loony-tune - leavened only by a few serious commentators - and opines ponderously almost daily in its editorial column on behalf of the peace party, its Sunday sister, while still clearly on the same centre-Left, takes an altogether more considered view of the looming confrontation with Iraq.

Its columnists have been more balanced - with sensible pros and antis getting a fair showing - but the biggest difference with The Guardian has been its editorial line. For sometime-editor Roger Alton has skilfully straddled the line between the war and peace parties. Last Sunday, however, he brought his paper down pretty firmly (there were a few caveats) in favour of the war party.

In a massive editorial entitled "Iraq: why force may be needed" the paper bravely argues that "Military intervention in the Middle East holds many dangers. But if we want a lasting peace it may be the only option."

I say "bravely" because this almost certainly cannot be the view of his largely liberal-Left readership - indeed it isn't even the view (so far) of the country as a whole, which is a few notches to the right of The Observer.

Some Fleet Street pundits with long memories have suggested that Alton is less keen to follow The Guardian's anti-war line because the paper's last famous anti-war stance - when The Observer opposed British military intervention during the Suez crisis in 1956 - cost the newspaper tens of thousands of readers. Indeed some trace the decline of The Observer as the biggestselling Sunday broadsheet and the rise of The Sunday Times to the former's anti-Suez position. But what public support there was for Suez quickly evaporated as the crisis turned into a debacle: the 1956 Observer was speaking for a large part of the country and its readership.

Alton's Observer has gone out on a limb with its largely pro-war stance which flies in the face of his readers and the country - though I expect public opinion to change if and when hostilities begin.

I believe The Observer has taken the position it has because it comes from consideration of the facts, regardless of public opinion. Alton's paper has generally taken. A more mature, considered centre-Left view of major issues compared with the kneejerk Leftism of Alan Rusbridger's Guardian - and not just on the op-ed pages.

Since 11 September The Observer has done the most detailed and revelatory reporting of the war against terrorism and the confrontation with Iraq in British Sunday journalism.

The substantial reconstructions of superb "diggers" like David Rose, Peter Beaumont, Kamal Ahmed and Ed Vulliamy have become Sunday must-reads for those who want to discover what is really happening.

Long before the Government published its dossier about Saddam's weapons of mass destruction, The Observer revealed Saddam's secret international network to procure chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. And it exposed links between Baghdad and Islamic terrorist groups, including their training and financing by Saddam's secret police.

Throughout, The Observer has given more attention to establishing facts and letting the opinions follow. It could never happen at The Guardian.

Something has been bothering me about The Independent's coverage of the paedophilia scandals. The paper seems to have decided that it is far too clever and aloof to be shocked by the issue. A number of columns - among them the usually admirable Deborah Orr - have been infected by a kind of knowing libertarianism about paedophilia that tries to be quirky and ends up striking a false tone.

And it's a poor debut for the paper's new columnist Johann Hari, a young man who puts the je in jejune and a thoroughly inadequate replacement for the very readable David Aaronovitch.

Under the headline "Remember paedophiles are people too", Hari argues that it is all the fault of the rest of us for driving paedophiles underground - and ventures that the problem could be alleviated by television adverts asking paedophiles to call in for help if they feel sexually attracted to kids.

This is callow stuff and no ornament to The Independent.

I'm afraid I was one of the two million lost viewers who tuned in eagerly to the first episode of Steven Spielberg's alien abduction drama Taken on BBC2 but never bothered to switch on for episode two last Saturday night.

Almost five million watched the premiere of this 10-part series, which was quite a coup for BBC2; but part two managed only 2.8 million viewers (and there are still eight episodes to come).

I'm not surprised. I'm a Spielberg fan but this was a turgid mixture of far-fetched sci-fi and sub-standard soap opera, in which the bare bones of fact were infuriatingly mixed with a fantasy land of fiction.

Maybe it'll be a slow burner: Spielberg's eventually successful Band of Brothers took a few episodes to find its feet. But even if Taken does improve, there might not be much of an audience left to watch it - which only goes to show that even maestros can sometimes make the odd turkey.

This is a big mistake. Remember when Rosie Boycott did the same at The Independent? It started enjoyably enough but the cameras soon brought staff tensions to the boil and the paper's reputation to its knees. And where is Rosie now?

Then there was Jeremy Isaacs at the Royal Opera House to be filmed. Over six excruciating episodes he was shown to preside, less than efficiently, over a hotbed of intrigue and extravagance (at taxpayers' expense). His reputation never recovered either. I once made the mistake of allowing a BBC crew to follow me around my work in New York and London.

The result was a half-hour of seething resentment against a Scot who had the temerity to seek success in foreign lands.

Think again, Alex. Your sales are solid at around 200,000, so you don't need the publicity. And part of the allure of Vogue is that it should be slightly mysterious - which is why it was a pity you ran the Gucci ad that caused such a fuss.

Believe me, the fallout from fly-on-the-wall exposure will be much worse.