IT is axiomatic that editorial charters designed to preserve the independence of newspapers are “a good thing”. But we cannot help but feel uneasy about the draft charter published by Times Media Limited this week.
The main problem with the charter is its timing. The fact that it is being cha mpioned by white editors at a time when the company faces a black takeover cre ates the impression that it is an attempt to forestall black empowerment.
This perception is perhaps unfair to the editors in question: if the takeover bid was coming from Rupert Murdoch they would no doubt be punting a charter as well. Nevertheless the racial connotations make it particularly important tha
t the charter is seen to be necessary and justifiable on grounds of press free dom.
Like most such charters the TML draft is dressed up with worthy declarations o f commitment to such things as accuracy and objectivity. But the central thrus t is the protection of “editorial independence” from the proprietor by entrenc hing the editor’s post.
The charter goes far down this road: to fire an editor it would be necessary t o gain the agreement of a majority of the directors, members of a proposed boa rd of trustees as well as an elected representative of editorial staff.
If the TML charter merely enunciated the principle of editorial independence w e would have fewer qualms about it. But the vetoes — qualified as they may be — are in danger of interfering with the smooth running of a newspaper, a lso an essential ingredient of an independent press. The tendency, when talkin g of the need for editorial independence, is to envisage circumstances in whic h an edito r is taking a stand against political interference.
But it is possible to envisage circumstances in which the proprietor seeks to fire an editor for sheer incompetence and the editor gains the support of thre e out of the five trustees, or the single staff representative, on ulterior gr ounds. Six months, or even three, is a particularly long time in the life of a newspaper and a stand-off for that sort of period could be destructive.
By over-reaching themselves, TML editors, in current circumstances, are in dan ger of inviting the charge of racism.