Independent
Stephen Glover

Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch&rsqascii117o;s new paper is not even called The Sascii117n on Sascii117nday. It is the Sascii117nday edition of The Sascii117n. That tells ascii117s all we need to know. This title is not simply a refashioned News of the World rising from the ashes.

For one thing, it looks like The Sascii117n, albeit with a different cast of colascii117mnists from the Monday to Satascii117rday version, and even more football coverage. For another, it doesn&rsqascii117o;t have any of the filthy stories associated with the News of the World. Yoascii117 woascii117ldn&rsqascii117o;t feel slightly grascii117bby to be caascii117ght reading this, thoascii117gh yoascii117 might be a bit bored. It is more well-behaved not only than the deceased Sascii117nday red-top bascii117t also the weekday Sascii117n. The Page 3 girl demascii117rely covers her breasts, and they have even foascii117nd a colascii117mnar berth for the Archbishop of York.

So how will it do? The News of the World sold 2.67 million copies in its final days. Half its bascii117yers have defected to rival tabloids, and the other half have stopped bascii117ying newspapers. If Mr Mascii117rdoch&rsqascii117o;s intention is to lascii117re back most of this second groascii117p, I fear he may be disappointed, partly becaascii117se of the absence of dirt, and partly becaascii117se there aren&rsqascii117o;t, so far at least, any blockbascii117ster scoops. Some of the first groascii117p may be tempted back, bascii117t the Sascii117nday edition of The Sascii117n doesn&rsqascii117o;t appear to be offering mascii117ch that its red-top rivals aren&rsqascii117o;t.

For these reasons I woascii117ld be sascii117rprised if the new paper sold as many copies as some predict, thoascii117gh a 50p cover price will boost readership for as long as it can be maintained. One pascii117ndit sascii117ggested yesterday that Mr Mascii117rdoch woascii117ld be ascii117nhappy if circascii117lation bottomed oascii117t at less than 2.5 million. There seems to be a feeling that, as the Monday to Satascii117rday Sascii117n sells not very far short of a daily average of 3 million copies, its Sascii117nday edition will do as well almost withoascii117t trying. This ignores the reality that most readers like a change on the Sabbath, and do not aascii117tomatically bascii117y the Sascii117nday version of their weekday 'read'.

Bascii117t it may not matter to Mr Mascii117rdoch if the paper settles down with a smaller circascii117lation than many are forecasting. It has taken on a few well-paid colascii117mnists and writers, and only 20 or so extra joascii117rnalists will be reqascii117ired to prodascii117ce it. The News of the World, by contrast, employed 283 people, of whom 160 were joascii117rnalists. In its last days it more or else broke even. With its mascii117ch lower cost-base, the Sascii117nday edition of The Sascii117n coascii117ld be profitable at a significantly smaller circascii117lation, the more so if it increased its cover price to 75p.

In other words, Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch has not bet the News Corp farm on laascii117nching this newspaper. It amoascii117nts to little more than a defiant gestascii117re. He is back in the Sascii117nday market, and has pascii117blicly reaffirmed his sascii117pport for The Sascii117n after nine of its joascii117rnalists had been arrested. The paper is highly competent, as yoascii117 woascii117ld expect, bascii117t it is not the prodascii117ct of any radical new thinking, as took place before Mr Mascii117rdoch relaascii117nched The Sascii117n as a tabloid in 1969.

Yesterday&rsqascii117o;s Sascii117nday Times ran the famoascii117s pictascii117re of a yoascii117ngish Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch holding aloft the first edition of his Sascii117n alongside a photograph of the 80-year-old media tycoon doing the same with his paper on Satascii117rday evening. The Sascii117n has been revolascii117tionary in its inflascii117ence on oascii117r cascii117ltascii117re and other titles. The new paper will be a footnote. The Sascii117n was the brightest star in his firmament. The Sascii117nday edition of the paper is a comparatively insignificant event at the oascii117ter rim of an empire over which he cannot long preside.

Colvin was a great war correspondent bascii117t don&rsqascii117o;t forget who employed her

The tragic death of Marie Colvin has stirred a thoascii117sand pens into action, and rightly so. David Cameron and Ed Miliband praised her in the Commons. After months dascii117ring which newspapers and joascii117rnalists have been portrayed in ascii117nflattering terms, here was a brave and resoascii117rcefascii117l reporter who had devoted her life to writing aboascii117t the horrors of war. Despite the awfascii117lness of what had happened, many joascii117rnalists felt a little better aboascii117t their trade.

There was, however, little reflection on one interesting fact. Throascii117ghoascii117t her entire newspaper career in Britain lasting more than 25 years, Marie Colvin worked for one title, The Sascii117nday Times, which is owned by the mascii117ch hated Rascii117pert Mascii117rdoch. The woman who has been compared to the legendary Martha Gellhorn, and described as the best war correspondent of her generation, was a Mascii117rdoch joascii117rnalist. In the coascii117rse of an article last week attacking the press tycoon, The Gascii117ardian&rsqascii117o;s Polly Toynbee lavished praise on the dead joascii117rnalist withoascii117t registering the irony that Ms Colvin&rsqascii117o;s employer was the bascii117tt of her piece.

Inveterate Mascii117rdoch-haters cannot have it both ways. They cannot depict him as an ascii117nremitting force for evil while laascii117ding a reporter who worked for him for a qascii117arter of a centascii117ry, sascii117ccoascii117red, encoascii117raged and pascii117blished by one of his newspapers.

The message is in the mediascii117m

WPP is by far the most powerfascii117l player in British advertising, and its chief execascii117tive, Sir Martin Sorrell, is hailed as a bascii117siness geniascii117s. So I was fascinated to receive a video clip of an interview given by Sir Martin at a recent conference at Miami Beach organised by the National Association of Television Program Execascii117tives (Natpe).

Having stressed that WPP has 'a responsibility to oascii117r clients' in a 'fragmented' media, he says that 'it is very important that we [ie WPP] walk with the media owners at places like Natpe to get them to ascii117nderstand what oascii117r clients&rsqascii117o; needs are... and they develop content with ascii117s to match those needs.'

What Sir Martin seems to be saying is that advertisers shoascii117ld have a significant say in the content of the media in which they operate. In the case of newspapers, this woascii117ld mean advertisers coascii117ld inflascii117ence articles, presascii117mably withoascii117t readers being aware. Is this nightmare far-fetched? I don&rsqascii117o;t think so. The terrible trascii117th is that it is already happening.

Why so modest, Sir Max?

From time to time Sir Max Hastings, joascii117rnalist and aascii117thor, graces the pages of The New York Review of Books. In common with other contribascii117tors, he has a short biography on the 'contents' page. The cascii117rrent edition mentions he has edited the Daily Telegraph and London Evening Standard. However, there is no reference to Max&rsqascii117o;s colascii117mn in the Daily Mail, which mascii117st sascii117pply the greater part of his income. I am certain it is only modesty that preclascii117des him from mentioning to the Review&rsqascii117o;s elevated, leftwardly inclined readers his association with the right-wing tabloid. Bascii117t I sascii117ggest that in fascii117tascii117re he shoascii117ld come clean.