Publisher's Synopsis
Building upon the foundations of its highly acclaimed predecessor, yet encompassing its own dramatic story, this book concludes Stephen Koss's two-volume survey of the evolving relationships between journalism and party politics in modern Britain.
With larger investments and usually fewer scruples than their Victorian mentors, twentieth-century political leaders contrived to use newspapers as platforms for their policies, antagonisms, and ambitions. Their techniques were as various and frequently as impudent as the personalities themselves, reflecting successive shifts of electoral allegiance, subtle changes in the moral climate at Westminster, and the deterioration of market conditions in Fleet Street. Among prominent practitioners, Joseph Chamberlain achieved his most tangible success as a protectionist in the sphere of newspaper management, David Lloyd George strove unabashedly to square or squash his journalistic adversaries, Ramsay MacDonald proved remarkably sensitive to editorial opinion, Stanley Baldwin (with the help of Rudyard Kipling) denounced 'the prerogative of the harlot', and Neville Chamberlain vied with Winston Churchill to enlist the support of publicists.
As provincial journals continued their precipitous decline and metropolitan dailies grew fewer and less confident of their ability to exert influence, owners came to eclipse editors. The notorious press lords -- Northcliffe, Beaverbrook, Rothermere, Camrose, Kemsley, and the self-effacing Southwood -- battled for profits and power, paving the way for the multinational conglomerates that eventually took possession of major surviving properties. Public confrontations barely hinted at the underlying struggles, which surfaced during the General Strike and the Two World Wars.
Employing a wide range of manuscript sources, including several collections of private correspondence and diaries never previously consulted, Stephen Koss has investigated these patterns of persuasion and manipulation in order to weigh their effects on controversies within, between, and beyond parliamentary movements. In the process, he has raised important -- and sometimes disquieting -- questions about the nature of public opinion, the ways in which it has been shaped and interpreted, and the heightening interplay between commercial factors and ideological commitment since the turn of the century.
