Reasons we believe it is essential that the Scott Trust reject proposals to close the Observer:
A pluralist press is vital for a thriving democracy. It seems ludicrous
that one liberal newspaper would seek to do away with another. The British
press is rightly admired for its diversity of opinion, and The Observer has
an important place at its core. Inhibiting the spectrum of liberal choice
on a Sunday appears at odds with an organisation that aims to turn its
website into 'the world's leading liberal voice'.
Stifling an elegant voice that has kept millions informed and entertained
since the Enlightenment, that has both reported on and helped drive British
cultural life, and which is as relevant now as it was when it took
principled stands on the American civil war, the Suez crisis and South
African apartheid, seems profoundly shortsighted.
It has been reported that the Observer newspaper is responsible for
annual losses of £20m. This is simply untrue. Its losses are significantly
less than half that reported fee, according to GNM management, and
constitute a fraction of the Guardian Media Group's pre-tax losses of
£89.9m in the year to 29 March.
Upon acquiring the Observer in 1993, the late Hugo Young, then chairman
of the Scott Trust and Guardian columnist, said: "The trust safeguards will
be fully extended to the Observer which will be edited independently of the
Guardian and retain its separate character."
While we recognise the fraught economic pressures the media is under it
said this should not be used as an excuse to close a paper which "offers a
unique international perspective".
Even if the GMG spares The Observer, one alternative that may be chosen
by the Scott Trust is a "slimmed down" redesign of the newspaper that will
weaken its editorial integrity and competitiveness. We would hope you
state your opposition to any attempt that would mean The Observer being
weakened in such a manner. The newspaper needs sufficient resource to
maintain its independence and to compete successfully.
