-
- guardian.co.uk, Thursday 4 May 2000 13.19 BST
It is curious how media myths grow and spread. In the last two days I have read two separate accounts of the supposed fury, division and recriminations within the Guardian over whether the paper should endorse a mayoral candidate for today's London elections, and, if so, whom?
The fury is alleged to have erupted at a passing remark I made to an interviewer some weeks back that the paper might consider supporting Steve Norris. Deputations are reported to have beaten their way to my desk. The Hard Left were ready to organise and storm the Leader Writers' Citadel. They would take no prisoners. CP Scott was reliably reported by Private Eye to be revolving in his grave.
If he was spinning, it would not be for the first time. He would, on this account, have revolved in October 1951, when the Manchester Guardian advised: "For the next few years a Churchill government is, it seems to us, the lesser evil." And he would apparently have spun once more in 1955 when the paper reluctantly concluded that a Conservative government would be better for the country.
But, of course, Scott would not have spun then or now. Not that he had any need to in May 2000. The Guardian did not endorse Norris. It did not endorse anyone. We gave reasons why people might genuinely wish to support any of the four main candidates - together with reasons why they might wish to withhold their support. But we held back from supporting any candidate ourselves.
That position was arrived at after much discussion, argument and inquiry. All four main candidates - and Glenda Jackson, too - came to lunch at the paper over the past few months. All journalists on the staff had the opportunity to come along, question them and judge for themselves.
We also staged a debate at Church House, chaired by our policy editor, Jonathan Freedland, and had an open internal meeting for anyone on the staff to come along and contribute to the discussion before the final leader was written.
It was apparent that there was no clear consensus among the staff. Few spoke up full-throatedly for Ken Livingstone. Some spoke vehemently against him. There was some sympathy, but little support, for Frank Dobson. There was respect for, but not overwhelming confidence in, Susan Kramer. Norris was admired by some, while others felt that his record on transport while in government was patchy and that his views on such issues as abortion and hanging disqualified him from the support of a progressive paper such as the Guardian. All the discussions we had were calm, grown-up and, I thought, impressive.
In the end it is the editor and the leader writers who set the leader line - though, of course, those discussions among the wider constituency of Guardian journalists do become the mulch out of which the editorials grow. The eventual decision that we did not want to endorse any candidate was arrived at fairly quickly and painlessly.
Other papers seem to have been going through a similar process. The Mirror - traditionally a rock-solid Labour paper - came out for Norris. The Independent was reported to be edging towards an endorsement for Livingstone until the editor asked his staff if any of them would be voting for him. Their leader this morning stops short of an endorsement. Only the Observer actually supported Livingstone - though even its support was hedged with numerous qualifications. Norris picked up such widespread support that I'm sure he can live without the Guardian's endorsement. And CPS can rest quietly in his grave.
