I.D.D.

LIMBA ENGLEZÅ

REZIDENŢIAT 3

SEMESTRUL II

PRESS IN THE U.K.

1
LECTOR DRD. RAMONA MIHÅILÅ

A SHORT HISTORY OF THE BRITISH PRESS

The invention of printing coincided with the upsurge of religious,

political, and social strife, which accompanied the late medieval period. Medieval
societies were autocratic, in that they dominated by an aristocracy and lead by a
monarchy with absolute power, in cooperation with the institutions of the Church.
These institutions exercised strict control over politics, ideology, and culture, powers
which were claimed to derive from the divine will of God.
The authoritarianism of the late medieval state was reflected in its
control of the media. In the sixteenth-century England the state monopolized
publishing and printing rights. Church and state strictly censored all publications. In
1529 the English crown published its first list of prohibited books
Around the beginning of the fourteenth century the feudal
establishment began to be threatened by the rise of the new social class, whose wealth
and claim to power derived from trade, commerce, and production. This rising
capitalist class or bourgeoisie was, by the time of the invention of printing in the
sixteenth century, becoming an important political influence in England and other
European societies.
The early new media served as an instrument for the rising capitalist
class. This was the context in which the world’s first weekly newspaper in English-
Curanto- was published in Amsterdam in June 1618. In England in 1622 a syndicate
of publishers began to issue regular bulletins of internal and foreign news, known as
newsbooks.
On October 17, 1632, a decree of the Star Chamber in London ( one
of the most important institutions for the suppression of opponents of the status quo )
banned the publication of all newspapers and pamphlets. In 1637 another decree
limited to twenty the number of newspapers allowed to be published in London.
The story of British press as a mass medium began with the
emergence, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, of large urban
populations, descendants of feudal peasants classes who were forced to make their
livings by entering the rapidly developing factory system. To labor efficiently in a
manufacturing, factory environment the members of this new urban proletariat were
required to learn skills of numeracy and literacy. As the masses become more
educated and more literate they developed an appetite for reading material.
In the eighteenth century, newspaper readership had been limited to
a relatively small elite of educated members of bourgeoisie and upper classes, and the
views and interests of these groups predominated in the content of early newspapers.
With the rise of a literate working class, a number of newspapers emerged at the urban
proletariat and which reflected their concerns.
From 1815 a “radical” press developed in Britain, which set out
to shape working class opinion and thereby influence events. By 1817 the foremost
example of this press, William Cobbett’s Political Register, was selling more than
40,000 copies a week. At the same time, trade unions were gaining in strength and
reach, often using the contents of the radical press as material for political education.

2
 From 1818 libel laws began to be used more frequently to prevent
radical publishers from issuing “seditious” material, while in 1819 taxes on
newspapers
- Stamp Duties – were extended to cover the radical press.
As newspapers became cheaper and the market for them expanded,
capital investment, start-up, and running costs increased beyond the capacity of
radical publishers to keep up. Dependence on advertising revenue increased. By the
end of the nineteenth century the radical publications had either been forced out of
existence, moved upmarket and to the right politically, become small specialist
publications with dedicated readerships, or become financially dependent on
institutions as the Labor Party and Trade Union Congress. Replacing them in the
popular newspaper market were publications controlled by a small number of “press
barons” with the capital resources to found titles and build empires.
By 1910 Lords Pearson Cadbury, and Norhtcliffe controlled
between them 67% of national daily circulation, establishing a trend of concentration
of ownership which has persisted in the British newspaper industry ever since, with
the exception of a brief period during and after the Second World War when state
intervention in the newspaper market reduced dependence on advertising and allowed
left-of-centre newspapers to strengthen their positions on the basis of readership
alone.
The late 1960s saw the arrival in the United Kingdom of Rupert
Murdoch and News International. In 1968 he bought the News of the World, and
followed this by taking control of the Sun in 1969. Both were loss-making titles when
taken over by Murdoch, and he was able to acquire them at knock-down prices. In the
course of 1970s they came to dominate the British tabloid market and moved into
profit. They also moved to the right of the political spectrum editorially. In 1981
Murdoch bought the Times and Sunday Times, and in 1987 he took control of the
Today newspaper.
Left-of-centre publications such as the News Chronicle and Daily
Herald were driven out of the market in the 1960s despite relatively healthy seven-
figure circulations. By 1985 the political affiliations of Britain’s national daily
newspapers were as follows: nine fully supported the Conservative Party; one, the
Financial Times, leant heavily in that direction; leaving only the Mirror Group titles
and the Guardian tentatively backing “moderate” elements in the Labor Party. The
Morning Star backed the “hard” left, but its circulation was so small as to be
negligible in terms of political influence.

THE NEWSPAPER REVOLUTION

Fleet Street, it has been argued – the historic centre, physically and
figuratively, of the British newspaper industry – ceased to exist on January 26, 1986,
“the day on which Rupert Murdoch proved that it was possible to produce two mass
circulation newspapers without a single member of his existing print force, without
using the railways and with roughly one-fifth of the numbres that he had been
employing before” (Wintour, P.-“Life at the longest funeral”, Guardian, June 26,
1987).
The newspapers production of News International was moved from
the buildings in the City of London to a custom-built, high-technology ’fortress’ at
Wapping in London’s Docklands.

3
 The “newspapers revolution”, which began in 1983 and culminated
in the Wapping dispute of 1986 was, as in the case of restructuring of broadcast
journalism, closely related to the ascendancy of radical right-wing principles in the
British government. Just as the conservative government in 1979 had begun a
sustained attack on the public services, so too had it identified the trade unions as a
major obstacle to the implementation of the Thatcherite economic project. Due to the
unions locked in bitter industrial dispute with James Callaghan’s Labour Government,
Margaret Thatcher quickly moved to neuter the union’s power by introducing a series
of employment laws. The cumulative effect of legislation introduced in 1980 and
1982 was to make it extremely difficult for unions to organize meaningful industrial
action against determined employers.
The legislation established the conditions in which employers
could, if they dared, engage their employees in disputes over staffing levels and
working practices.
Within the trade unions as a whole, few groups enjoyed terms of employment which
were more advantageous than the printworkers of Fleet Street. In the traditional
manner of labour aristocracies, the print unions – primarily the National Graphical
Association (NGA) and the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades (Sogat) – had
secured relatively high wages for their skilled members, high levels of employment,
tight closed shop agreements, complete control over entry to the printing trade
(women were excluded from the lucrative typesetting positions, for example), and
“Spanish” working practices such as claiming payment for shifts not worked.
Since buying into the British newspaper industry in the 1960s
Rupert Murdoch had been forced, like other Fleet Street proprietors, to accept the
print unions’ reluctance to countenance new technologies, and absorb the consequent
losses. In March 1984, a stoppage at the News International plant in London’s
Bouverie Street cost Murdoch the loss of 23.5 million copies of the Sun, and three
million copies of the News of the World.
In 1978-9 the Times newspapers closed for almost a year, at a cost
in lost production to their owners, Thomson, of 40 million pounds. Between 1976 and
1985 industrial action by Times and Sunday Times printworkers led to the loss of six
million copies. These loses played an important role in persuading the Tomson Group
in 1981 to sell the Times and Sunday Times to Rupert Mundoch. In 1984, with
Rupert Mundoch now in control, the papers lost 11.4 million copies to industrial
action.
The first proprietor to attempt to take advantage of the new
economic environment, after Murdoch himself, was appropriately enough, Eddie
Shah. He made plans for the establishment of two new national titles, Today and
Sunday Today. Shah raised 18 million pounds in the City, and proceeded to establish
a newspaper operation which would utilize direct input and satellite page
transmission, with distribution by road rather than the more expensive and less
reliable rail. It was estimated that today could
break even on a circulation of 330,000 and the paper launched on March 4, 1986, less
than two months after News International’s move to Wapping.
Despite the new technologies and the good relationship with the
unions, Today and Sunday Today failed to give Shah the break into national
newspaper publishing which he desired. Having troubles with the computers used by
journalists and problems with the advanced color and graphic printing equipment led
to missed production deadlines. Distribution was poor and sales dropped quickly after
the launch, and even such basic matters as revenue from newsagents proved difficult

4
to collect. Annual running costs were estimated at 40 million pounds a year that even
a healthy circulation of 500,000 would be insufficient to cover the paper’s costs. Four
months after the launch, in June 1986, Shah sold 35% of Today to Lonrho (owner of
the Observer and the Glasgow Herald and Evening Times). Sunday Today ceased
publication in June 1987, while Today continued to operate on an estimated annual
loss of 28 million pounds, before being sold to News International in July 1087, in
whose hands it has remained.
The success of the Independent, the idea for which was inspired
by Eddie Shah’s experience, has been attributed to the care with which, in contrast to
the Today operation, a realistic business plan was drawn up. Another important
difference between the Independent and Today was the quality of the former’s
personnel. Eddie Shah was suspicious not merely of Fleet Street’s printers, but its
journalists, seeing no reason to pay the inflated salaries which would have been
required to attract a sufficient number of the top names in the journalistic profession
to his title. He hired only well trained editorial staff. From its launch, the editorial
contend of the Independent carried a weight and authority which Today never
achieved. By November 1987, with a total of only 403 (of whom 209 were editorial),
the Independent was well on its way to being profitable, with a circulation of over
300,000. In September 1989 the Independent on Sunday was launched, and both
titles have since become firmly established in their perspective markets.
The other spectacular success of the post-Wapping era was the
Sunday Sport. Launched by pornographic magazine publisher David Sullivan in
September 1986, the Sunday Sport utilized only a handful of editorial staff to
produce a heady downmarket mixture of sex, crime, and sport. While some have
disputed that the Sunday Sport could legitimately be called a newspaper, since many
of its stories are fictional and its content largely soft-core pornography, it differed
from the other tabloids only in the degree to which these predominated its pages. With
its small staff and low running costs the Sunday Sport was able to make a healthy
profit with a circulation, in December 1986, of only 230,000.
One year after its launch circulation had reached 500,000, selling to
a readership mainly of young males, and generating annual profits of 750,000 pounds.
The
financial success of the Sunday Sport enabled David Sullivan in 1987 to buy the
Morning Star’s printworks in London’s Farringdon Road for an estimated 2.5 million
pounds, and to seek 3 million pounds start-up capital for a Daily Sport. The Sport
launched on Wednesday, August 17, 1988, was published initially on only three days a
week, but by October 1991 had become a six-day newspaper, with a profitable
circulation of some 350,000.
In the second half of 1986 plans were announced for the long-
awaited launch of a popular newspaper with a left-wing editorial policy – the first
such to be established since the Daily Worker in 1930. News on Sunday was
launched on April 26, 1987, but failed from the outset to reach its break-even
circulation target. The paper is launched with 6.5 million pounds raised from trade
unions, sympathetic local councils, and business. Despite the optimistic evidence of
the market research, sales of the first issue were only 500,000. Moreover, circulation
declined after the first issue. The final edition was published six weeks later, on June
8. A number of explanations have been advanced for the failure of the News on
Sunday The newspaper was set up by, and intended for “Right Ons”, i.e. the anti-
sexist, anti-racist ‘new left’. This meant that its editorial policy and news agenda

5
would have to be ‘ideologically sound” and politically correct. For example, there
would be no page three girls.
The Sunday Correspondent failed because it launched at a time –
September 1989 – when the second great recession of the Thatcher era was just
beginning to bite. When advertising revenues were falling, as they did in the late
1980s and early 1990s, sales of anything less than 600,000 were insufficient to make a
Sunday newspaper such as the broadsheet Correspondent , standing alone in the
marketplace without the support of a larger parent company, financially viable.
In January 1990 the Independent launched its Sunday sister,
inevitably taking from the Correspondent market. In July 1990 the attempted to
resolve its difficulties by relaunching as a “quality tabloid”, under a new editor more
experienced in the business of popular journalism. This shift in strategy failed to make
the paper profitable, and it closed in September 1990.
For some observers, the fact of these failures, and the continuing
gap in the British newspaper market for popular left-of-centre titles proved that
optimistic hopes of a post-Wapping future in which publications of diverse political
persuasions would flourish were utopian. After the move out of Fleet Street, start-up
costs for newspapers remained high, as did running costs, making it much easier for
establishment proprietors and corporations to launch new titles and buy up existing
ones than it was for new entrants to the business. Even with 30 million pounds Robert
Maxwell’s London Daily News failed. Eddie Shah’s Today lost 22.2 million pounds.
The potential cost-saving benefits of new print technologies, such
as they were, were substantially eroded in any case by the established proprietors’
adoption of strategies specifically designed to increase the cost of production and
discourage new entrants. From the late 1980s onwards, newspapers began to introduce
Saturday supplements, glossy magazines, and ever increasing numbers of Sunday
sections. At the same time, more money was spent on marketing and advertising. In
the face of such developments new, under-resourced titles simply could not compete.
Paul Foot has argued that the News on Sunday did not fail only because of editorial
and management shortcomings, but “also because of the insurmountable difficulties of
advertising, promoting and circulating a new popular paper without any real wealth
behind it” (UK Press Gazette, December 21-28, 1987).
Editorially, it is argued, if the majority of newspapers remain
biased towards the Conservative Party, the extent of the one-sidedness has not become
noticeably more pronounced since 1986. On the Sunday before the general election of
April 9, 1992, four of the national newspapers actively urged readers to vote Labour,
or declined to support the conservatives. In the 1992 campaign the Financial Times
lent its support to Labour.
For many on the left, the lack of a newspaper representative of their
views continues to represent a failure of “press freedom”. With he fourth
Conservative victory of 1992 the possibility of community printing presses,
subsidised newsprint, or other forms of intervention common in other European
countries being introduced into Britain has been reduced to the level of fantasy. In any
case, serious doubts must exist, given the failure of the News of Sunday, about the
ability of the left in Britain, as presently constituted, to produce newspapers which can
sell in appreciable quantities.

6
YELLOW JOURNALISM

“Yellow” journalism is not a phenomenon peculiar to the

contemporary era. From the very first newsbooks, publishers and readers were
fascinated by stories of murders, scandals, and public executions.
In order to utilize the spare printing capacity at the News of the
World, in 1969 Murdoch’s company purchased the Sun from the then owners of the
Daily Mirror, International Publishing Corporation, and proceeded to transform it
from a left-of-centre broadsheet to a daily equivalent of the News of the World.
Murdoch launched the new tabloid Sun in November 1969. His objective was to turn
the paper from a low circulation loss-maker (sales dropped to 650,000 at one point)
into a competitor to the market-leading Daily Mirror. The “page three girl” was
introduced in November 1970, and News of the World, quickly increased to 1.5
million, achieved not only with the help of the topless models.
In 1971 the downmarket Daily Sketch, owned by Lord
Rothermere, was merged with the Daily Mail, enabling the Sun to pick up the
Sketch’s readers and increase its circulation to 2 million. By 1978 it had overtaken the
Daily Mirror in sales, and by June of that year the 4 million barrier was broken.
Under the editorship of Larry Lamb the Sun had risen to dominate the tabloid market
with a diet of what would become known as “bonk journalism” – as opposed to the
milder “yellow” variety – defined as a mixture of private investigation and
pornography.
The circulation war between the Sun and the Daily Mirror was
complicated by the launch in 1978 of the Daily Star. Coming from Victor Matthews’
Express Newspaper Group, the Star attempted to repeat the Sun”s trick of going
downmarket in order to beat the competition. The Star undertook to beat the Sun at
its own game, by printing even more explicit topless snaps and stories, keeping its
cover price low, and spending vast sums on brash TV advertising.
The main constituent of bonk journalism was, as the phrase
suggests, a focus on sex, preferably with a hint of scandal and involving celebrities.
Closely related to bonk journalism was the category of “yuck
journalism” – graphic coverage of the bizarre, the tragic, and the pathetic, from the
victims of aircrashes and disasters to the grossly obese.
The tabloids also became more political, representing the
Conservative Government as it set about the Thatcherite restructuring of British
society. In the 1980s the intensivity of tabloid competition led to the rise of “cheque
book journalism” – when newspapers paid the relatives of convicted criminals large
sums of money to reveal personal details.
A second feature of the tabloid is the journalist’s acquired habit of
entering people’s homes and gardens without permission, searching in the dustbins for
evidence of sexual deviance, and even “setting up public figures with prostitutes.
Frequent victims of intrusion were Royal Family, most notably the Princess of Wales.
Other targets included rock stars such as Rod Steward, and soap opera actors.
Tabloid newspapers were heading downmarket during the 1980s in
any case, but the speed of the decline increased with the launching of the Sunday
Sport in September 1986. Sun and the Star had pioneered the page three girl, but the
Sunday Sport tended to report only those stories which had either a bonk or a yuck
angle, preferably with photographs. Its advertising space was predominantly occupied
by services offering phone sex or aids lovemaking. It unashamedly printed stories

7
which were obviously incredible, such as Second World War Lancaster bombers
found on the moon or children conceived by aliens.
With a circulation in December 1986 of 230,000 and growing, the
Sunday Sport (and its daily equivalent, the Sport, launched in 1988) posed a
significant threat to the established tabloids.
In the late 1980s a succession of stories, mostly attributable to the
News International titles, changed the public’s mood from one of amused tolerance
towards the tabloids’ excesses, into a genuine distaste. In 1987 the Star made a
damaging mistake when it joined forces with David Sullivan’s Sport. The quantity of
naked breasts featured in the Star increased, while the age of their owners went down.
The event that turned the public opinion against the tabloids was
the coverage of the Hillsborough disaster in April 1989. Some of the papers, notably
the Daily Mirror, reproduced on their front pages photographs of dead and dying
people, sometimes in color. Others showed a similar disregard for the sensitivities of
victims and relatives. The main offender in this respect was, once again, the Sun, with
a story headed
“The Truth”. This alleged that drunken Liverpool fans had harassed the police and
rescue services, and abused the bodies of the victims. In Liverpool, from where most
of the Hillsborough victims had come, the story produced a ferocious reaction, with
copies of the Sun publicly burnt, newsagents refusing to sell it, and boycotts being
organized. Since 1989 the paper’s circulation has dropped by nearly 600,000,
considerably more than its main tabloid competitor, the Daily Mirror.
In 1987 Labour MP Anne Clwyd introduced a private member’s
bill into Parliament, calling for legislation to give victims the press rights of redress.
In 1988 Tory MP Bill Cash introduced a Right of Privacy Bill.
Each of these attempts to impose legal constraints on the press
failed to gain the necessary support in the House of Commons, but the frequency with
which they were made, and the fact that they came from both Labour and Tory MPs,
clearly shows how the content of the British tabloids had become an important
political issue by the late 1980s. These bills failed because of longstanding resistance
in the United Kingdom to anything resembling state intervention in, or censorship of,
the press.
There have always been some legal constraints, of course.
Journalists are not allowed to defame individuals, or they are subject to libel actions
(as many of the tabloids found to their cost in the 1980s).Nor are they allowed to
breach the Official Secrets Act by revealing confidential official information.
Incitement to racial hatred is prohibited under race relations legislation, while there
are some protections against journalistic harassment, such as the Conspiracy and
Protection of Property Act.
On June 7, 1992, accompanied by a torrent of TV advertising,
Rupert Murdoch’s Sunday Times published the first installment of its serialization of
a book by journalist Andrew Morton about Princess Diana. The author’s – and the
Sunday Times’ – unique selling point for the book was its allegations of Diana’s
personal unhappiness,
attempted suicides, eating disorders, and another Royal marriage on the rocks. Other
newspapers ran the story, leading to a period of several weeks in which the private life
of the Prince and Princess of Wales were debated and dissected at great length, and in
the most intimate detail, in the press or television. On Monday, June 8, the press
Complaints Commission (PCC) issued a statement condemning press handling of the

8
complaining that “the most intrusion and speculative treatment by sections of the
Press of the marriage of the Prince and the Princess of Wales is an odious exhibition
of journalists dabbling their fingers in the stuff of other people’s souls in a manner
which adds nothing to legitimate public interest in the situation of heir of the
throne…” (reported in the UK Press Gazette, June 15, 1992 )
Journalists divided into two camps on the issue: those who agreed
with the PCC, and those who supported the right of the press to expose the private
problems of Royalty in the public interest. The latter, spearheaded by the Sunday
Times itself, argued that since the marriage in question was that of the future King and
Queen of the United Kingdom, the story raised important constitutional issues. The
Sunday Times was ensuring that no such secrecy would be permitted in the 1990s.
More pragmatically, a number of editors accused the PCC of an
overhasty reaction, arguing that since the story was based on a book, and appeared to
be authenticated by close friends of Princess Diana, there were no legitimate grounds
for censoring it.

NATIONAL NEWSPAPER OWNERSHIP

Ownership of the British national press is concentrated in the hands
of ten publishing organisations. The largest, News Newspapers account for 31% and
36% of total circulation respectively.
The Mirror Group, formerly owned by the late Robert Maxwell and
now administrated by a consortium of banks and other financial institutions, accounts
for a further 25% and 30% of daily and Sunday circulation respectively. In November
1992 Mirror Group Newspapers announced the appointment as chief executive of
former Today and News of the World editor David Montgomery. This appointment
heralded
major changes in employees’ working practices. The objective of the changes was to
improve the Mirror Group’s profits in preparation for its eventual sale.
Other major owners include United Newspapers plc (the Daily and
Sunday Telegraph), Associated Newspapers (the Mail and Mail on Sunday), David
Sullivan’s Apollo Ltd. Sullivan’s reputation and fortune were built upon the
production of pornographic magazines and sex aids, but he now owns two national
newspapers: the Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport. By September 1992 he had also
launched a regional
Newspaper, the Sunday News and Echo.
The Guardian and the Independent are both “independent” in so
far as they are not owned by any of the mentioned corporations, but by shareholders
organized in such a way as to guarantee the editorial integrity of the papers .
The Morning Star (formerly the paper of the Communist Party of
Great Britain) struggles on in the post-communist world, owned by its readers and
relying upon them for funds to sustain its print run of about 10,000 copies.

THE REGIONAL PRESS

In addition to the freesheets, there are hundreds of paid-for
newspapers being produced outside London, ranging from the large circulation
Scottish titles such as the Daily Record and Sunday Mail, the Herald and the
Scotsman, to smaller circulation titles targeted on small towns and rural communities.
To the Scots, of course, these newspapers are not “regional” but “national”, as is
Wales on Sunday to the Welsh, and the Belfast Telegraph to the Northern Irish.

9
 Like the national press, ownership and control of the regional
newspaper industry in Britain is concentrated in the hands of a small number of
companies, predominant among them Thompson Regional Newspapers (TRN), Reed
Regional Newspapers (RRN), the Yellow Advertiser Group, East Midlands Allied
Press (EMAP), and Westminster Press.
In the hierarchy of print journalism the press outside London have
traditionally been regarded as low status, second class newspapers by those who work
on the major nationals. The regional journalists are relatively low paid, on average:
their work is by definition parochial and it is generally assumed that the more
successful among them will automatically graduate to the big London titles.
The regional press, however, occupies a distinctive and important
role in the British journalism industry, supplying local communities with news and
information in a way which no other medium can. Regional titles have the inherent
advantage of being first and arguably best in their reportage of local stories. They can
also boast a high degree of reader loyalty, as the Sunday Scott in 1991. The value of
the services they provide – local news and information – guarantees readers and
attracts advertisers. Indeed, it is often the information contained in classified
advertisements on theatres openings, second-hand cars for sale, and so on, which
gives the local newspaper its competitive advantage over the national titles. The
regional press is of course vulnerable, like other sectors of the journalism industry, to
booms in the wider economy in the 1960s and1970s, for example, regional
newspapers were generally profitable, while in the recessionary 1980s and 1990s
times have been more difficult.
By 1989 TRN chairman Bill Heeps could state that “the enemy of
the regional press is no longer the predatory free newspaper but increasingly
competitors for the advertising pound-local TV, local radio, local editions of national
newspapers, and new electronic media”. (Lawrence, C. “Frees for all”, UK Press
Gazette, September 15, 1989).
After the Wapping revolution, the proprietors of the national
newspapers quickly introduced new printing technologies into their production
processes. These enabled them not only to cut costs and increase profitability, but also
made it much easier for them to “editionise” their production – to produce multiple
editions of a national title, shaped on the particular characteristics of populations in
different parts of the country. From his plant in Glasgow Rupert Murdoch adopted an
aggressive strategy of editionising the Sunday Times and Sun titles, in a bid to break
into the Scottish market. The practical results of the policy were seen when, in the
period before the 1992 general election, the Sun’s Scottish edition ran with a headline
“Rise and be a Nation Again”, in contrast to the pro-unionist, pro-Conservative
editorial line adopted by News International titles in England.
In response to the national’s challenge, regional newspapers
adopted a number of competitive strategies. Firstly, like the nationals, they have
turned the new technologies to their advantage. Regional publishers were in the
vanguard of the newspaper revolution, and were thus well placed to reap its benefits at
the end of the
1980s and into the new decade. In Glasgow, Tiny Rowland’s Lornho invested heavily
in new color presses for its Herald and Evening Times titles, before selling them to a
management-led consortium in 1992.
Such investment enabled the regionals to improve their design and
color printed techniques. It also enabled them to editionise to a greater extent that had
been possible before. The Glasgow Evening Times, for example, would produce three

10
editions between early afternoon and evening. As of July 1992 the Aberdeeen Press
and Journal had nine editions in circulation each targeted at specific geographical
areas in northern Scotland, such as the Highlands, Shetland, Kincardine and Deeside
and Aberdeen City.
Because of new technologies, a greater share of resources could be
invested in editorial quality, i.e. journalism. By paying higher salaries regional
newspapers could retain more and better journalists, thus slowing down the brain
drain to London. Traditionally, Fleet Street journalists earned on average double the
salaries of their colleagues in the provinces, leading inevitably to a one-way flow of
talent heading south. In Scotland, where journalists’ earnings have always been higher
than in the English provinces, more people read local papers (62,5% of adults read a
paid-for weekly in Scotland, as opposed to 48,7% in the UK as a whole) two facts
which are probably connected.

THE PERIODICAL PRESS

Since 1988 the periodicals market has increased by 9%, attributed
by industry analysts to a sharp rise in number of titles being published. Between 1988
and 1992 the number of periodical titles in Britain increased by 18%, from 2,021 to
2,394, the majority of new entrants coming from small independent companies
working in the specialist consumer, leisure, and business sectors. While some sections
of the periodical press are doing less well than others – magazine for teenage girls, for
example, and the “traditional” women’s magazine market – others, such as the “new
woman” titles (Cosmopolitan, Company) and computer magazines have in recent
years shown significant increases.
Some periodicals, like Private Eye and the Economist have a
clearly journalistic emphasis. The satirical Private Eye, in particular, has investigated
and uncovered many political and business scandals in its relatively brief life. The
Economist provides background, analysis, and commentary on the domestic and
international economic situation.
The great majorities of periodicals, however, operate in what the
Audit Bureau of Circulation calls the “specialist consumer and business markets”.
This includes such titles as Exchange and Mart and What Car?, dedicated
providing practical information for buyers and sellers of goods and services;
magazines such as House and Garden and Good Housekeeping, containing ideas
for home decoration enthusiasts; the Face and I-D, which cover style in clothes,
music, and popular culture; listening and review magazines, like Radio Times and
Sight and Sound; Cosmopolitan and Woman’s Own, addressing the female
audience; the Management Today, which attempts to keep professional managers
informed of issues relevant to them.
Ownership of the periodicals is concentrated, like that of national
and regional newspapers, in large companies such as Argus, EMAP, and Reed but the
sector is one in which many relatively small, independent companies are thriving.
Some, like Pressdram, which publishes Private Eye, are well established. Others,
such as those in the rapidly expanding computer magazines market (Future
Publishing, for example) are recent entrants who have exploited the changing
technology and economics of publishing ushered the “Wapping revolution”.

11
IF
- uncertain events and situation: things which may or may not happen which may or
may not be true

If I talk to him I will let you know. (I may or I may not talk to him)

- an if clause often refers to a condition – something which must happen first, so

that
something else can happen

If they get there before half past eleven, we can catch the last bus.

- there are sometimes sentences constructed with if…then to emphasize that one
thing
depends on another

If they go to the press conference, then we’ll ask them to write about it.

- if meaning “if it is true that” or “if it is the case that”

If you were in town, why didn’t you attend the conference?

- an if-clause can come at the beginning or end of a sentence. When an if-clause

comes
first, it is often separated by a comma:

If the press conference starts at 2 o’clock, it will end about 3.

The press conference will end about 3 if it starts at 2 o’clock.

- in a formal style, subject + be is sometimes left out after if

If in doubt, ask for help. (If you are in doubt…)

- after if, there can be used so and not instead of repeating or negating a clause that
comes before

Are busy this evening? If so, we will stay indoors.

She might go to the theatre tonight. If not, she’ll visit us.

- an if-clause can be used when somebody admits a fact and gives a reason for it.

If I’m tired, it’s because I was at a party last night.

- if-clauses are often used to explain the purpose of the remark – to suggest “I am
saying in this case…”
I’ve got some photos at home, if you want to illustrate your story.

- 13 -

12
 First Conditional Main Clause

present future

If the show begins at 8 o’clock, the guests will come about 7.

Second Conditional Main Clause

past present conditional

( would + verb – infinitive)

If the show began at 8 o’clock, the guests would come about 7.

Third Conditional Main Clause

past perfect past conditional

(would + verb – past participle)

If the show had begun at 8 o’clock, the guests would have come about 7.

- when we don’t want to suggest that a situation is unreal or imaginary, we use

ordinary
tenses with if- the same tenses as with other conjunctions. Present tenses are used
to
refer to the present, past tenses to the past, and so on.

If you want to take part in contest, you have to send three photographs.
If that was John, why didn’t he stop and say hello?

- present tense with future meaning:

I will meet them if I have time.

- if…will is used when we are talking about later results rather than conditions
(when
if means “if it is true that”

They will pay him if he will get a good article.

- if…will/would – used in polite requests. In this case, will is not a future auxiliary;
it means ‘are willing to’

If you will write about this, we’ll be very touched.

If you would write about this, we’ll be very touched. (would – can be used to
make a
request even more polite)

- would, should and ‘d

13
- after I and we, should can be used in British English with the same meaning as
would

If I read the news, I should tell you.

- if I were is used instead of was after if. This is common both formal and informal
styles. In a formal style it is much more common than was, and many people
consider it more correct, especially American English. The grammatical name for
this use of were is ‘subjunctive’

If I were an editor, I wouldn’t let that piece of news to be published.

! Note that were is not normally used instead of would be in polite requests:

We should be very grateful if you would be so kind to give us more details about
this. (not…if you were so kind…)

- could and might = in unreal conditional sentences, could means ‘would be able
to’ and might to mean ‘would perhaps’ or ‘would possibly’

If I graduated that university, I could work as a foreign news reporter.

If you told me earlier, I might help you.

- if it was/were not for = this structure is used to say that one particular event or
situation changes everything:

If it wasn’t his position for the former job, he’d never be an editor.

- if is sometimes left out at the beginning of a sentence in a conversational style,

especially when the speaker is making conditions and threats.

Were he my boss (= If he were my boss), I’d tell him about this thing.

- parallel structures: would…would = conditional would is sometimes used in both

clauses of an if-sentences. This is very informal, and is not usually written. It is
common in spoken American English.

How would you feel if this would happen to you?

- parallel structures: ‘d have…’d have = in informal spoken English, if-clauses

referring to the past are sometimes constructed with ‘d have. This is frequently
considered incorrect, but happens quite often in educated people’s speech. It is not
normally written.

If I’d have known, I’d have told you.

- if any = the common rather formal use of if before non-assertive words like any,
anything, ever and not. Non-assertive words are used in questions and negative
sentences, in if-clauses, in comparisons, and together with adverbs, verbs,
prepositions, adjectives and determiners that have a negative kind of meaning.

14
 Let me know if you have any trouble.

- if meaning ‘although’ = in a formal style, if can be used with a similar meaning to

although. This is common in the structure if + adjective (with no verb). If is not as
definite as although; it can suggest that what is being talked about is a matter of
opinion, or not very important

Your composition, if short, is very good.

- ‘if only’ = it is used when we would like things to be different. It means the same
as I wish…, but is more emphatic. The clause with if only often stands alone,
without a main clause. We use the same tenses after If only…! as after I wish

- past to talk about the present:

If only I knew more people!

- Were is used instead was. This is considered more correct in a formal style.
If only he were more attentive!

- would + infinitive to refer to the future:

If only it would stop snowing.

- past perfect to refer to the past:

If only they had been at the airport!

- unless = has a similar meaning to if not, in the sense of ‘except if’

I’ll take the job unless the pay is too low.

(= if the pay isn’t too low / except if the pay is too low)

- extra negative = an extra not is sometimes put into if-clauses after expressions
suggesting doubt or uncertainty

They wouldn’t be surprised if their daughter didn’t accept that job.

HOMEWORK
I. Put the verbs in brackets into the correct tenses:

1. The police (arrest) him if they catch him.

2. If you (not go) away I’ll sent for the police.
3. More tourists (come) to this country if it had a better climate.
4. I (buy) shares in that company if I had some money.
5. If you (not belong) to a union you couldn’t get a job.
6. What you (do) if you found a burglar in your house?
7. If we had more rain our crops (grow) faster.
8. If they (ban) the sale of the alcohol at football matches there might be less
violence.
9. Unless he (sell) more he won’t get much commission.
10. They’ll have to move upstairs if the river (rise) any higher.

15
11. If the house (burn) down we can claim compensation.
12. If he had known that the river was dangerous he (not try) to swim across it.
13. You (not get) into trouble if you had obeyed my instructions.
14. He would have been arrested if he (try) to leave the country.
15. No one bathes here. The water is heavily polluted. If (bathe) in it they (be) ill for a
fortnight.

II. Finish the following sentences:

1. If he lived in the country……………………………………………………………

….
2. They were completely lost and didn’t know which way to turn; but for the dog…
……
3. If he took a course in computer programming ……………………………………
……
4. They have another puncture ………………………………………………………
……
5. The hijackers threatened to kill the pilot unless he ………………………………
…….
6. If the buses and trains were free ……………………………………………………
….
7. If the children were allowed to do exactly as they liked in school…………………
…..
8. If the price of the petrol goes up……………………………………………………
…..
9. Unless you isolate people with infectious diseases…………………………………
…..
10. If the gates are locked………………………………………………………………
…..
11. Her life might have been saved if…………………………………………………
……
12. If the volcano starts erupting………………………………………………………
……
13. If the storm becomes worse…………………………………………………………
….
14. If the fire had been noticed earlier…………………………………………………
…...
15. The manager should have ordered more coal if……………………………………
…...

Translate into English:

1. Ar fi terminat mai repede campania anti drog dacå ar fi ajutat-o ¿i ceilal¡i.
2. Nu s-ar fi înrolat în armatå dacå ar fi ¿tiut cå este atât de greu.
3. Teroristul ar fi ales altå ¡intå dacå ar fi fost ¿eful bandei.
4. Procurorul ar fi acordat mandat de perchezi¡ie dacå poli¡ia ar fi cerut asta.
5. Acuzatul ar fi pledat “nevinovat” dacå avocatul l-ar fi sfåtuit så o facå.
6. Armata filipinezå ar fi intervenit dacå ar fi ¿tiut cå are acordul americanilor.
7. Partidul comunist uzbec ar cre¿te cotiza¡iile dacå ar avea mai mul¡i simpatizan¡i.

16
8. Bush ar ataca Irakul dacå nu ar întâmpina opozi¡ia Na¡iunilor Unite.
9. Martorul ocular ar da o declara¡ie dacå ar primi o recompenså.
10. Strategia Pentagonului s-ar schimba dacå Arabia Sauditå ar fi de acord cu
propunerile Casei Albe.
11. Tony Blair ar avea mai pu¡ine probleme dacå nu i-ar sprijini necondi¡ionat pe
americani.
12. China ar incerca så intimideze din nou Taiwanul, dacå guvernul de la Taipei s-ar
înarma cu ultimul tip de rachete.
13. Senatorul democrat ar fi scåpat de excluderea din Congres dacå n-ar fi luat mitå.
14. El va fi eliberat dacå poli¡ia nu va avea destule probe.
15. Alegerile din Germania n-ar fi fost atât de strânse dacå bavarezii n-ar fi participat
în numår mare la vot.
16. Naufragia¡ii ar fi murit dacå nu ar fi intervenit rapid echipele de salvare.
17. Va ie¿i din închisoare dacå îi vor plåti cau¡iunea.
18. Solda¡ii ar påråsi imediat baza dacå ar primi ordin de atac.

17