LORD THOMSON AND “THE TIMES” MONOPOLIES COMMISSION ON MERGERS OF TWO “TIMES”

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31257, 2 January 1967, Page 6

LORD THOMSON AND “THE TIMES” MONOPOLIES COMMISSION ON MERGERS OF TWO “TIMES”

( T. h .' s re . p ° rt °f (he British Monopolies Commission was written by PHILIP RAWSTORNE for the "‘Guardian,’* Manchester, and is reprinted bu arrangement.)

The Monopolies Commission in Britain stated in its report published recently that the common ownership of “The Times” and the “Sunday Times” (owned by Lord Thomson’s group) “may be expected not to operate against the public interest.” But it adds that apprehensions about the move are not groundless.

The future independence of “The Times” could not be regarded as certain and it had to be recognised that if it came under the control of the Thomson Organisation, commercial considerations would play a greater part than they had in the past. But in view of assurances given by the Thomson Organisation, the Commission says: “We think that there is every prospect that the survival of ‘The Times’ would be assured, that the public would continue to be offered a good, and in some respects an improved, newspaper, and, moreover, that in matters of editorial opinion there is reasonable assurance that it would continue to speak with a separate voice. “It would no longer be the same voice or the same ‘Times’ as in the past, and it is important that it should be recognised, both at home and abroad, that it would have no claim to any special role or status—but we do not regard that as contrary to the public interest.”

The combination of the two newspapers, backed by the commercial strength of the Thomson Organisation, would present formidable competition to the other quality newspapers, says the report. “But we think that neither this increase in competitive strength nor the increase in concentration of newspaper ownership which would result from the proposed transfer is, of itself, cause for concern.” In a note of dissent, Mr Brian Davidson, a member of the Commission, recommends that the personal assurances given about the preservation of the separate identities of the two newspapers and the independence of their editors should be reinforced by a formal undertaking to the Board of Trade. “I cannot avoid the conclusion that the proposed transfer, which immediately has much to commend it, might operate against the public interest,” he adds. Three Questions The Commission, in considering the effect of the transfer on the public interest, dealt with three questions.

(1) Whether the transfer would cause an excessive concentration of newspaper power:

The report notes that the Thomson group owns the “Scotsman,” about 100 magazines and provincial newspapers, and had “various in-

terests outside the newspaper industry.” It concludes, however, that the proposal would not lead to an undue concentration of newspaper power since Thomson did not own an English national daily newspaper; that its other interests did not give it much influence over public opinion; and that its avowed approach was to leave editors free to decide editorial policy.

“Although there can be no guarantee that the Thomson Organisation or its successors will always abide by this policy, the transfer of ‘The Times’ to a company with such a policy involves little risk. It certainly involves less risk of stifling variety or of the misuse of power to influence opinion than would the transfer of ‘The Times’ to a proprietor who regarded newspapers as vehicles for his own views.” (2) Whether there would be a threat to the survival of other newspapers:

The Commission recognised that both the “Guardian” and the “Observer” would be in a vulnerable position, but they considered that the question of renegotiation of their printing contracts with the Thomson Organisation must be left for settlement between the parties. It did not think it would be appropriate to suggest any special safeguards (the “Guardian” had suggested that it should have an option to renew the printing contract for a period up to 15 years from 1976). The Commission recognised that a more commercially successful “Times” could add to the difficulties of other quality newspapers, but considered that the consequences of the transfer would not, themselves, suffice to kill any newspaper which would otherwise have survived.

(3) Whether changes in the nature of “The Times” would be likely that would rob it of the qualities which made its preservation a matter of pub-

lic interest: Assurances were given that no changes were intended in the nature of “The Times” as a newspaper of record and the editor-in-chief designate promised that the editor and staff would have his complete protection in honestly reporting events even if they affected other Thomson interests. The Commission accepted that there were real grounds for anxiety about the editorial independence of “The Times,” and in particular was concerned about the danger of the editorial link between the two newspapers through the editor-in-chief. He would allocate editorial budget, make senior staff appointments, recommend the appointment of the two editors and organise joint projects, services, and cross-posting of staff.

Both Sir William Haley, chairman of the new company, and Mr Hamilton, editor-in-chief designate, had given assurances that the editors would be given independent authority and this satisfied the Commission.

The report adds: “There can in the nature of things be no guarantee of this (independence) in the long term. Much would depend on the persons occupying the editorial posts. But it might be in the new company’s commercial interests to convince readers that the two papers still had separate identities and spoke with separate voices. Moreover, if a tradition of separate editorial responsibility were firmly established in the early years, it might reasonably be expected to persist.” Although the Commission was told that publication of “The Times” would not continue without some outside assistance, it considered suggestions that the death of the newspaper was imminent might be an exaggeration. It did accept that there were grounds for concern about future prospects and that the essence of the problem was a static circulation. More Capital Some witnesses had said that “The Times” could have avoided its present difficulties if the problem of increasing the circulation had been tackled energetically some years ago: “We see no recxm to disagree. Indeed we find it surprising that the company found it urgently necessary to look for rescue by a change of ownership at this particular stage.” The Commission considered it plain that the Times Publishing Company no longer had confidence in its own ability to carry on successfully. There was, too, a need for substantial capital and good management skilled in marketing to make a determined effort to raise the circulation. Lord Thomson and his son told the Commission that if it proved necessary to keep “The Times” in being, they would be willing to put at its disposal the whole of their personal fortunes in this country for the next 21 years. Noting the outstanding reputation of the Thomson management, the Commission says: “In the light of the evidence, we have no hesitation in concluding that if, as the Times Publishing Company believes, outside help in the form of finance and management skills is needed to rescue ‘The Times,’ then the proposed link with the ‘Sunday Times’ offers a good prospect of keeping The Times’ in being. “It does not follow that ‘The Times’ could not be preserved by other means, but there is no alternative in sight at present offering as firm grounds for confidence as this proposal.”