Record of the Barclays bodes well for the Telegraph

THE Barclay brothers’ purchase of the Telegraph has provoked a frenzy of speculation about what might happen next - much of it spectacularly ill-informed from the "bricks-without-straw" school of journalism, and nearly all of it implying an inside knowledge that the media correspondents and commentators who write the stuff simply don’t possess.

Let me begin by revealing that the frenzy in Fleet Street does not exist inside the Barclay empire, where the mood is calm and cautious. The new proprietors don’t even get their hands on the newspapers until the end of July, which is followed by August (at least in my calendar), when those involved in the protracted and gruelling bidding process will want a little rest and recreation.

So calm down, folks. Nothing much is going to happen before September - and even then progress will be measured and evolutionary. It is perfectly possible that no major decisions - on senior personnel or editorial and commercial direction - will be taken before Christmas.

There is, after all, no need to rush: the Barclays have not made a distress purchase. Even with the existing team and approach, the Telegraph group will make trading profits of around £40 million this year; of course it can and will do much better in the years to come under its new owners; but the bottom line is already healthy enough not to require hectic change.

Instead of speculating about matters which are a long way from being resolved, media folk who want to discern the future of the Telegraph should look more closely at what the Barclays have already achieved with their existing titles.

The Scotsman group has combined rigorous (but not Draconian) cost control by a small, efficient management team with substantial investment in the newspapers (including new sections and magazines), their promotion and infrastructure (including brand new offices, a heat-set press and, soon, new state-of-the-art colour presses) to produce a small but successful newspaper group that this year will make a trading profit of around £8.5 million on a turnover of under £60 million - a return on revenues which few London-based papers can match.

In London, an entirely original approach to producing newspapers - involving the outsourcing of almost everything bar the journalism - has kept the Business alive during the worst advertising recession in living memory and reduced its annual losses from more than £10 million a few years ago to only a couple of million this year.

Much of what has been learned in Edinburgh and London will now be applied to the much larger Telegraph canvas. It is the progress the Barclays have made with their existing titles that has given them the confidence to operate on a bigger scale. Expect much innovation, especially on the commercial side, with possible back-office alliances with other newspaper groups.

The Financial Times recently described the Telegraph group as "badly run", which sounds a bit harsh, though there is clearly room for commercial and editorial improvement. The Barclays would not have paid the price they did if they did not think that. They will invest in the journalism, of course; but they will also introduce far more meticulous and professional financial controls.

Exactly how and by whom remain to be decided. There is no blueprint in the Barclay filing cabinet, no secret team waiting to move in and take all the top jobs. Speculation about new editors or executives waiting in the wings is wholly misinformed - the recycling of rumour and tittle-tattle as reporting. Of course there will be editorial and commercial changes to come but not immediately and not all at once.

As for my future (and thanks to all these media commentators for their concern), that too remains to be resolved. The status quo is not exactly unpleasant. The Barclays have indicated they would like my involvement but have yet to decide what it should be. When they do I will consider whatever they propose against what I already do and decide accordingly.

Whatever the outcome, as always in dealing with the Barclays, it will be a civilised and amicable process. Sorry to disappoint.

Caroline's victory threatens free press

HARD on the heels of Naomi Campbell’s victory in the House of Lords, where the law lords ruled that the Mirror had intruded too far into her drug addiction problems, comes a new ruling from the European Court of Human Rights which gives celebrities privacy protection from the media.

The Strasbourg court has ruled unanimously that German magazines which published pictures of Princess Caroline of Monaco going about her normal life breached her family’s privacy - even though they were taken in public places.

Princess Caroline has long tried to stop the publication of paparazzi pictures of her and her family walking in the street, shopping or being on holiday. She has largely succeeded in France, which has the toughest privacy laws in Europe. But Germany’s constitutional court ruled five years ago that, as a public figure, it was legitimate to take pictures of her in public places.

That has now been overruled by the European Court, which concluded that, under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention, such pictures amounted to "harassment" and were a breach of her right to respect for her private and family life. The judges decided that publication contributed nothing to the public interest (as opposed to the interest of the public) and so was an unwarranted intrusion.

This has enormous implications for the British media. The code of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has long forbidden papers from publishing pictures of celebrities where they had a reasonable right to expect privacy; but that doesn’t cover obviously public places such as shops or beaches.

The Strasbourg ruling means the PCC will probably have to amend its code: henceforth even pictures taken in public places might require a public interest defence.

This landmark case takes Britain further down the road to tougher privacy laws. Step by step, the British media is being cribbed and confined by judge-made privacy rulings. Princess Caroline’s victory in Strasbourg is a further tightening of the noose.

One immediate consequence is that the Mirror’s plan to appeal the Campbell case in the European Court looks doomed to defeat.

Come out, Robert

WORD reaches me from Wapping, where the cull of Times journalists has now reached the 20 (and rising) predicted on this page several weeks ago, that Times editor Robert Thomson is retreating further into his office, no longer faces outwards from his desk and has positioned the blinds on the glass partition so that nobody can see him.

I’m sure there’s the usual hyperbole from journalistic malcontents in this description of editorial isolation, but my more bleakly inclined sources see it as symbolic of Thomson’s growing distance from his staff. I wouldn’t be so sure: maybe he just wants some privacy and time to think about where he should go next with his part-broadsheet/part-tabloid paper.

All editors aver that their doors are always open; in practice so much crowds on to an editor’s desk every day that you can’t simply leave your door open to all and sundry. But editors need to be accessible: the best way to do this is to patrol the newsroom regularly to take the temperature of the troops. Those who want a more intimate chat can always make an appointment.

Mandy's off

SO, farewell Peter Mandelson. Rumour has it that he flounced off the board of Independent Newspapers because of the Indy’s increasing critical line against his pal Tony Blair. Others suggest they were glad to see the back of him and that he may even have been pushed. All publisher Ivan Fallon will say, inscrutably, is that Peter is no longer on the supervisory board. But active politicians should not be on newspaper boards anyway - they serve no purpose and create the suspicion of unhealthy political influence; so whatever the reason for his departure, it’s a healthy development.

Reality TV bites

GOOD to see Bruce Forsyth shares this page’s view of reality TV shows: he hates them too. Perhaps he would agree an exemption should be made for Wife Swap, which began a new series on Tuesday and is compelling television. I’m sure he’d also agree, however, that the new spate of reality parenting shows are even worse than the property and gardening shows they seem to be replacing. Bring back entertainment, I say.