Recently I was lucky enough to sit down on a Zoom call with John Witherow, a journalist and newspaper editor with a career spanning over 45 years. Over the course of our half hour chat I hoped to gain an insight into his time running a national newspaper and his knowledge of the potential difficulties involved in political reporting. Witherow started out at Reuters News Agency, where he worked briefly before joining The Times three years later in 1980. The publication is one of Britain’s longest standing national newspapers, having been founded by John Walter in 1785. In the 1980s, Witherow covered the Iran-Iraq war in his first role at The Times, as a war reporter. When asked if he had always intended to become a war reporter and had a particular passion for the role, Witherow replied that despite thoroughly enjoying it, it was more something he fell into. He later covered the Falklands war, going on to write Battle for the Falklands: A Winter War using his first hand knowledge of the conditions of the warzone to write a book that centred on the experiences of those fighting the war in the trenches. Recently, Witherow made the decision to resign as editor of The Times newspaper, stating that it was time for someone with more energy to take over.
When I stated in my very first question that The Times was ‘one of Britain’s most respected newspapers’ Witherow was quick to correct me with a smile, asserting that he was sure I had meant ‘The most respected newspaper in Britain’. This small but pertinent comment swiftly set the tone for the next thirty minutes, in which it became increasingly apparent that Witherow was extremely proud to have been a part of shaping the direction of The Times newspaper. I could immediately see that he strongly believed that the news they were providing people with, which he described as being ‘analytical’ and ‘not just headlines’, was of a quality worthy of this pride.
I was eager to hear from Witherow about his experience directing the newspaper during Brexit, a time when political reporting had a huge role to play in the national discussion and the rhetoric being spread around the country. I particularly wanted to understand how The Times came to the decision that they would take the side of supporting and promoting the Remain campaign. Witherow was very clear in telling me that it was in fact very simple and that personal stances didn’t much come into it; that the majority of their readership supported remain and whilst they might be a creative business, newspapers are a business. The editorial line, therefore, had to be whatever would ensure their readers kept on buying newspapers. He also noted however, that almost all of the senior editorial team believed personally that to remain was the right option for the UK, which made their brief discussions on the issue even simpler. I was interested to know whether it was difficult to keep an editorial line with so many journalists of differing opinions - particularly in a time of such political turbulence, when so many people felt strongly one way or another. Witherow replied half jokingly that what one had to understand is that ‘newspapers are not a democracy!’. Once he had decided the stance the paper would take in their reporting, it was not of much relevance whether the reporters agreed with this decision or not. Despite this, almost all of the paper’s journalists who would be reporting on Brexit or related matters were personally inclined towards Remain, which meant that this never much culminated as an issue for The Times.
Staying in the realm of political reporting, I wanted to garner Witherow’s point of view on a topic frequently debated and discussed: the relationship between lobby journalists and MPs. Having spent many years overseeing the reporting of The Times’ Westminster team, I believed he could provide some insight on this issue. He replied that it was a claim he had often heard but he was not sure how much weight it actually held. It was, in his view, less of a problem than people might think. In the world of reporting, and particularly political reporting, he told me he believed that everyone knew that they each had a job to do and there was therefore an understanding that stories might not always be flattering towards politicians, even those the journalist interacts with regularly.
We then went on to discuss how far Witherow had considered the role of the newspaper to be to influence, as opposed to inform, his readers – particularly during times of strong political polarisation such as Brexit. He was confident in his assertion that The Times had managed to strike a very good balance between the two, his pride in the paper again shining through. He explained that he believed the paper had always been successful in presenting their readers with facts and information as well as particular viewpoints but admitted that the balance may have shifted slightly in the run up to Brexit, when influencing people to vote remain was a key aim of their reporting on the subject. However, Witherow made sure to remind me that most readers will have been well aware that they were buying a newspaper with a bias towards the Remain campaign and that often they are more choosing to confirm their own bias as opposed to being actively influenced one way or another by the articles they are reading.
When I brought up claims that the Boris Johnson, Partygate and Trump era has left some areas of political reporting too focused on scandal, spectacle and shock headlines and asked Witherow for his stance on this, I felt quite sure he didn’t much agree with any such claims and perhaps considered them lazy analysis from those outside the world of political reporting. He again reiterated that newspapers have to sell and that the average reader doesn’t necessarily want to read dry analysis of policy detail. In short: headlines are what sell. He did state however, that he felt that The Times, at least, had managed to find a happy medium between reporting on the scandal and drama of today's politics whilst also providing insightful analysis, thus aiding their readers in their understanding of the story and its implications. This was an idea he reiterated more than once throughout our interview.
Whilst on the topic of political scandal, I was eager to know how Witherow felt about The Times having missed out on breaking the Partygate story of 2021, a story he admitted ‘just went right by them’. He told me that whilst it was frustrating, it was certainly not his biggest career regret and that in the world of journalism sometimes that's just the way it goes – you don’t get to break the big story. His many years of experience in the reporting world were evident in his relaxed attitude towards this truth, and his acceptance that sometimes there will be stories you regret publishing or not publishing but that there is little benefit in dwelling on this. I again noted this when I asked Witherow if, with hindsight, there was any story he regretted publishing. He told me that he was sure there were numerous such stories but that truly no specific example came to mind, a testament to his ability to not get caught up in the often extremely intense world of high profile journalism.
Having previously read an article on a speech Witherow delivered in 2019 in which he talked about The Times’ decision to introduce an online paywall early on, when other newspapers making the transition to online news were unwilling to do so. I was keen to discuss this and interested to know whether he believed that this decision had significantly limited the newspaper's influence or whether, with now more than 300,000 online subscribers, this was not something that concerned him. Interestingly, his immediate reply to me was ‘Yes, I’m sure it has [limited the newspaper’s influence]’, acknowledging that their influence had been limited in comparison to newspapers such as The Guardian who had decided against an online paywall. Witherow did not, however, seem particularly concerned about this fact. He made it clear to me in his response that The Times had understood from the beginning that introducing an online paywall would limit the number of people they would be able to reach, but that he had believed that producing high quality journalism with properly funded reporting was the more important issue. He felt that The Times’ readers understood why the fee was there – something he appears to have been vindicated on. This statement also perhaps provides some further insight into Witherow’s opinion of my earlier question on influence versus information posed to him earlier, with information appearing to come out on top.
I had many more questions I would have liked to ask, but before long thirty minutes was up and our conversation came to a close. With notes filling several pages of my notebook, it was a privilege to have had the opportunity to speak to someone with such vast knowledge and experience in the world of print and online journalism and I am extremely grateful that John Witherow took the time to share this with me.
