Donald Trelford on the Press

The press is learning to be more honest about itself - within limits

How honestly and reliably do newspapers report each other's affairs? The question is prompted by the recent cases of the News of the World and The Sun, which have been embarrassed by allegations of royal-telephone tapping in the first case and purloined (and out-of-date) royal photographs in the other. Red-top rivals were relatively muted in their coverage - perhaps, it has been wickedly suggested, because such methods of news-gathering are not entirely unknown to them too.

The so-called "qualities" were less inhibited, falling with evident glee on the discomfort of Rupert Murdoch's successful market-leaders. Some gloomy, hand-wringing forecasts were made: Andy Coulson, the much-garlanded News of the World editor, would be sacked; Murdoch's global brand would be tainted; the Press Complaints Commission would take stern action; and the Government would use the occasion to revenge itself on the press by introducing tough new legislation. All, I suspect, are so much piffle.

There is something about stories involving the royals that makes people lose their senses, or at least their sense of proportion. Tapping into the voicemail messages of the royals - and the courts have yet to determine if that happened - is no more serious in law than eavesdropping on the calls of a next-door neighbour. The alleged incidents - and the confirmatory claims by a number of ex-Fleet Street hacks that such things do indeed go on - have certainly raised a serious issue about the security of mobile phones. But that is not just a media-related question: it touches on national security, industrial espionage, the techniques of private investigators, and so on. I suspect that telephone-taping, as opposed to telephone-tapping, has been going on illegally for decades, in newspapers and elsewhere.

In my early years in newspapers the guiding principle for writing about each other was set by Lord Beaverbrook's injunction to fellow proprietors (as reported to me by David Astor): "Gentlemen, we must not bomb each other's headquarters." Under the firm hand of its legendary managing editor, Peter Eastwood, The Daily Telegraph steadfastly refused to credit other papers at all - hence the Private Eye joke about Daily Another Newspaper.

The great scandal of the post-war period was the failure of newspapers to expose the greed and corruption of the print unions that was strangling them all. Astor (and, to its credit, the Financial Times) tried to lift a tiny corner of this blanket of secrecy by reporting on the print unions like other trade unions, but it was a hopeless task because the printers wouldn't set or allow to be published any stories critical of themselves, and managements were too weak to challenge them and risk losing an issue. The result was that newspapers condemned outdated trade union practices in every industry except their own.

Television was better placed to do this, but it had no interest in helping newspapers, which it saw as media rivals. Instead, TV produced programmes like What the Papers Say, which mocked the press and showed it in as shady a light as possible.

My impression is that newspapers' coverage of each other's business has improved greatly in recent years - likewise, newspapers' coverage of the internal politics of broadcasting. When I was at The Observer, I could hardly believe some of the stories that used to appear in other diaries or in Private Eye, quoting supposed internal rows or misconduct or forecasting the paper's, or my own, imminent demise. I used to think: if that is how these papers report on something I know about, are they equally unreliable about everything else?

The introduction of media pages, sections and websites was a recognition by newspapers that they had an obligation to report on their own industry as well as other ones - and while, for commercial and competitive reasons, no paper can afford to be wholly candid about its affairs, there has been a genuine effort, at least on the part of the serious press, to be as objective as possible.

It will never be perfect. The Guardian will always be more comfortable analysing editorial changes at The Daily Telegraph than those on its own back bench. The Times and Sunday Times are unlikely to put the boot into fellow hacks in the Murdoch stable at The Sun or News of the World. The Mail has no vocabulary for praising the Express, or vice-versa. For that matter, it isn't reasonable to expect The Independent to highlight any failings in its Sunday partner. And, of course, no owner could tolerate critical comment from a journalist whose salary he pays.

Given these self-imposed limits, the truth is that more truth about newspapers is being published today than ever before.

I was wrong: newspapers and DVDs make a fine romance

I admit I was sceptical about the value of DVD offers as newspaper promotions. I thought the benefits would be cancelled out as more papers followed suit. It turns out I was wrong. They have worked so well as promotions, giving a healthy lift to circulation every time, that the sheer volume of DVDs given away by newspapers in the first quarter of this year (about 54 million) now equals the number sold through retail outlets.

According to Screen Digest, film companies are divided on the long-term benefits to their industry. Household sales are on the decline, which is hardly surprising when you can pick up a DVD with your morning paper rather than legging it to a local store.

Which films have worked best for which newspapers? Donny Darko was evidently a hit with Times readers and The Return of Martin Guerre for this paper. The Daily Mail does well with children's films, but also had a huge success with its Romance Collection - DVDs by the likes of Jilly Cooper, Catherine Cookson, Danielle Steel and Barbara Cartland. Maybe Paul Dacre should note that the women of Middle England are not yearning to hang and flog immigrants, after all: they yearn for love.

A reporter's vital qualities

When I started a department of journalism studies at Sheffield University a dozen years ago, I was determined to find academics willing to approach the media without political or ideological hang-ups. Even if they ended up criticising the media, I wanted them at least to understand the thing they were writing about.

One of my first recruits was a young lecturer called Jackie Harrison, who has now reached the heights of professorship. Her new book, called simply News (Routledge, £15.99), illustrates exactly what I was seeking: an educated outsider's original perceptions fed by close study of the way the media actually work.

I particularly liked a quote she found about the vital qualities in a news reporter: "curiosity, enthusiasm and passion, courage, radicalism, membership of the awkward squad, teamwork, a rat-like cunning, stamina, humility, a way with words, a flair for story-telling, and a good bladder."

My only quibble is that I'm not so sure about the humility.

Donald Trelford was editor of The Observer, 1975-93.