X Close

The Lord of the Daily Mail 'The Chief' by Andrew Roberts describes a newsman with an eerie anticipation of modern media

Welcome to Hell (Sahm Doherty/Getty Images)


August 5, 2022   6 mins

Lord Northcliffe — founder of the Daily Mail, inventor of tabloid journalism, the most significant media innovator of the early 20th century — ended up in Hell. At least this was where Ezra Pound put him in his Cantos, “broken/ his head shot like a cannon-ball” alongside various other “news owners”. This has long been the highbrow take on Northcliffe: to condemn a piratical tycoon who taught the Victorian press to swim in the gutter, and who abused his monopoly on the public square to coarsen popular discourse and assert his own interests.

Shovelling information and entertainment was Northcliffe’s business model. His conjuror’s trick was simple: give as many people as possible what they want, and attention and dumb human curiosity can be transformed into merchandise. Nationalism, revolution, Enlightenment — all the forces of modernity sprung up under the transformative systems of print communication and capitalism. Northcliffe was the first to spot the potential of simply merging the two. And where’s the problem with that? Only that, as Pound felt, we don’t seem to like it when the dignity of human communication depends upon the whims of mercurial businessmen.

Northcliffe became the first in the line of suspicious personalities who have owned and administered our media: an evolutionary chart from frock-coated newspaperman to geeky social networker. And it is the megalomaniac perception of Northcliffe that Andrew Roberts seeks to rebut in a new and sympathetic biography. As ever, Roberts has been drawn to a well-fed “great man” of appetite and ambition (his previous subjects include Churchill, Napoleon, and George III). His approach to biography is traditionalist, using the lives of his characters to narrate a broader social and political period. The bulk of this book is therefore concerned with Northcliffe’s role in the political manoeuvres of the Edwardian era.

Throughout, Roberts serves as Northcliffe’s minder as much as his biographer, fending off the slights which have accumulated in the century since his death. (Briefly: Roberts concedes Northcliffe’s paranoid anti-Semitism and occasional brutality, while slapping down accusations of dictatorialism with convincing if over-defensive force.) Northcliffe’s attackers are snobs, he concludes. This man was a self-made genius who spoke for the people. If you don’t like him, comes the implication, perhaps it’s his readers you really don’t like.

Amid all the reputation-management, though, Northcliffe’s most interesting legacy from a 21st-century vantage is neglected. He was the first global tech-media mogul and, like Rupert Murdoch and Mark Zuckerberg, his genius lay in his instinctive understanding of how humanity wished to communicate with itself. As Roberts suggests, more than a “great journalist”, Northcliffe was a “great psychologist”. Press barons of the hands-on variety, now evolved into multiplatform world-emperors, have to be more than men. They are cultural hegemons, portraits of their age, “the way we live now”. Much as digital media now moulds our psychologies, in the time of Northcliffe, as he put it, “Our tons of ink make millions think”.

The British media was, until the 1890s, a staid affair, dominated at a national level by boring newspapers reporting court circulars and parliamentary speeches. It was revolutionised by a demand for something more exciting from a newly-literate office class, and the arrival of men like Northcliffe willing to supply it. Born in 1865 to a respectable family of genteel, Micawberish size and poverty, the young Northcliffe had access to the Establishment, but was outsider enough to scale its walls with the hunger of a parvenu. From his middle-class context, he spotted what every media entrepreneur has since exploited: that people would rather consume something banal than anything important.

His first great hit came in 1888 with Answers, a magazine to which readers could write with questions, which his journalists would answer. This formula launched a thousand inanities (“Can Monkeys Smoke?”; “How Madmen Write”; “What the Queen Eats”) published alongside now very recognisable tabloid featurettes: “Mysteries of a Hashish House”; “Horseflesh as Food”; “Narrow Escapes from Burial Alive”. Answers’s contemporary, doom-scrolling analogues are all too obvious. But the model was only preparation for the launch of Northcliffe’s real triumph in 1896, the Daily Mail, which served up a full Edwardian breakfast of aspirational snobbery, sex scandals and imperial jingoism. The Daily Mail rapidly cornered the market, selling a million copies a day by 1900 and becoming the world’s biggest daily paper.

Nothing dates an era more than its cutting edge, and Northcliffe’s use of electrophone, linotype, rotary presses, ticker-tape and motor vehicles sounds inherently antiquated. But they were the motherboards and algorithms of his day, revolutionising the speed at which his papers could be printed and dispersed. Northcliffe’s technological enthusiasm was also personal. A motorsport enthusiast, in 1909, he was pictured pulling the Wright brothers’ new aeroplane into position, the super-wealthy plaything of its day, much as commercial space travel is ours.

Other innovations were more purely journalistic. A.J.P. Taylor called Northcliffe’s use of the short, punchy paragraph, “the greatest advance in communication since the abandonment of Latin for English” — a judgement which seems excessive, until you recall how the civilisational importance of 280-character communiques has been chewed-over for the past 10 years. And Northcliffe did have an eerie apprehension of the accelerationism that modern media would create. In a 1901 article titled “The Simultaneous Newspapers of the Future”, he laid out a vision for a duopoly of two global papers, providing synchronous news thanks to the telegraph and telephone. It was a remarkable foresight for such a Gutenberg-brained individual.

The Mail became the first colony in an empire. Several of our most famous titles were launched or at some point owned by Northcliffe: the Daily Mirror, the Observer and, in Northcliffe’s greatest coup over the Establishment, The Times. By 1914 Northcliffe controlled just under half of daily newspaper circulation and with popular appeal came political power. Northcliffe was raised to the House of Lords in 1905 but kept his political interventions backstage. His headlines helped destroy governments, but even more breath-taking was his reach. When Northcliffe published an editorial on his vision for peace after the Great War, he was read across the Empire, the United States, Europe and Japan. His dream of a global newspaper seemed almost a reality.

After Northcliffe’s death in 1922 he was succeeded in the role of press baron and political Machiavel by Lord Beaverbrook (Daily Express, Evening Standard) and Northcliffe’s little brother Lord Rothermere, who had to sell The Times to cover the death duties on Northcliffe’s vast estate, but retained much of the rest, including the Mail. (It would be considerably harder to write such a defensive biography of Rothermere, who was on personal terms with Hitler and praised his “great and superhuman” work.) But Northcliffe’s spiritual successor in ambition and ingenuity was, of course, Rupert Murdoch. As Roberts covers (with a respectful nod to Rupert in his acknowledgements), Northcliffe had even been a personal mentor to Rupert’s father Keith, who some nicknamed Lord Southcliffe.

It was Murdoch fils who seemed to inherit Northcliffe’s feline charm and instinctive media nous. He took Northcliffe’s principles and dialled them up (for instance: bypassing Edwardian sexual priggery with Page 3 models). And unlike Northcliffe, Murdoch had the historical luck to apply two-dimensional tabloid energy to the three-dimensions of multimedia and broadcasting. With satellites and cable television as its printing presses, the Northcliffe formula survived the multimedia shift intact.

But the digital media innovation of the past 25 years has been, simply put, to de-editorialise. To merge private and public communications so they all occur in the same place. Northcliffe and Murdoch were lumbered with the assumption that they at least had to produce material for people to enjoy. But a new generation saw that by building and owning the means of communication they could remove this middleman. Murdoch isn’t at home in the 21st century — the foul-mouthed, burly Logan Roy outgamed by his gawky, slimy Silicon Valley replacements. Simply create the right host platform, and there’s no need to churn out those stories about rapist boxers, bulimic royals and online paedos.

People would generate their own tabloid press, pouring their personal lives onto the new media platforms, soon to be joined by the legacy media outlets who can’t afford not to be there. To put it in terms Northcliffe would understand: the Royal Mail and Post Office, The Times and the Mail, intimate diaries and international news reports, all jostling in the same terrifying ecosystem. As Richard Seymour has described it, now “we are all scripturient”, all responsible for turning in the copy we then go onto consume.

Does it do humanity any good to talk to itself so much, to know itself so well? Mark Zuckerberg thinks so, believing that it will foster understanding and empathy. All while building a business that has stoked the lowest human instincts, titillating and piquing our anger, tribalism, lechery and self-loathing, and indulging these atavisms simply because they keep us scrolling and watching and reading. Understanding Lord Northcliffe lets us see the longevity of this dynamic, a modern and very human struggle between what is important, and what is footling and ephemeral, but captivating.

Matthew Arnold, the great Victorian technophobe, set the tone for the snooty attitude of some towards the twittering machine when he saw the telegraph as “that great rope, with a Philistine at each end of it talking inutilities!” But much as we might condemn those who preside over our deracinated media landscape — or even wish them in Hell — the savage irony is the same one Northcliffe spotted over a century ago: they’re only giving us what we want.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

18 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
1 year ago

Interesting essay. I must admit, until I read this essay I never thought of social media as the latest iteration of the tabloids except this time the readers are providing their own copy–but I suppose that’s what it is.
Surely we are, at long last, truly scraping the bottom of the publishing barrel if we view social media as a “publication”. Is there anywhere to go but up?

Michael Keating
Michael Keating
1 year ago

I fancy myself a writer. I read the DM regularly because it highlights the dramatic, the absurd and the outrageous…the nuts and bolts of literature. I can do without the Royals, the Kardashians, and the constant barrage of nearly there bikini shots which have made the female derriere almost banal. Would I pay for it? Never. Have I ever clicked on an ad? Never. Would I ever send a link to a DM story to a friend? Never, because they would think I was a complete idiot. So yes, the DM is a pleasure to read, but a secret one. I am grateful for its presence but wouldn’t miss its absence. There’s always the NY Post which is also free.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

As the current Lord Rothermere said to an investment banker at a deal signing luncheon a few years back, The Daily Mail attracts advertisers , and revenues, as it attracts readers in their droves who want to read what they think that they believe: this was in response to said banker who confessed that he did not read, and could not stand the Daily Mail…” That” said Lord Rothermere allegedly ” Is why you are here, and we you want us as your client”… touche ?!!! Said banker was managing a DMGT investment in then North Sea oil.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

… and the incredibly dim Prince Harry should remember the old Fleet Street adage, again allegedly a quote from a silk who had just demolished an entity that had the temerity to take on the newspaper giants in The High Court.. ” One takes on the Harmsworth empire at one’s peril”…..

Tom Cooling
Tom Cooling
1 year ago

This is total cobblers. What you gain from such a pathetic lie i have no idea. Rothermere doesn’t see himself or his family or the business in such cynical terms.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Tom Cooling

Because the investment banker at the lunch was my father….He headed up Citi non US debt, and it was a big loan syndication deal… but clearly you know better!! Engage brain and research before you make a fool of yourself in public, but I thank you, as it had provided me with a tad of entertainment on an otherwise dull day!

Sophy T
Sophy T
1 year ago

‘Is why you are here, and we you want us as your client”’
I don’t understand this sentence.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago
Reply to  Sophy T

go back to primary school

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

That was a comment. It would have been better ,and certainly more polite, to have just elucidated on the sentence so that Sophy T could understand it.

Chris Anstee
Chris Anstee
1 year ago

The accusative form is increasingly under threat nowadays, it seems. In this case the problem clearly goes all the way back to primary school.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

I have heard so many American journalists referring to the Daily Mail over the last year that it seems to me it is now taking over the US.

Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor
1 year ago

I intend to send a letter to the Twitters demanding to know what Northcliff’s actual name was. Or I could just look it up on Google.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Reply to  Tony Taylor

Alfred Harmsworth.

Tony Taylor
Tony Taylor
1 year ago

Thanks, Dougie.

Roger Inkpen
Roger Inkpen
1 year ago

Intriguingly the Wikipedia article says he was married and had 4 children (illegitimate). Which suggests all the latter day Harmsworths are not direct descendants.

Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Roger Inkpen

They are direct descendants, just “bar sinister” descendants.

Geoffrey Hicking
Geoffrey Hicking
1 year ago

“Northcliffe’s attackers are snobs, he concludes. This man was a self-made genius who spoke for the people. If you don’t like him, comes the implication, perhaps it’s his readers you really don’t like.”

Didn’t Heffer think differently? Would Roberts call him a snob?

I hate it when conservatives target their guns on the left, and then fail to address the disagreement within their own ranks. We can agree with one conservative, but get told we’re left-wing snobs by another.

Most people don’t like giving artifacts “back” to colonial societies, but Tombs praised an imperialist that did just that- something which is either a betrayal or hypocrisy (or makes the “never give anything “back” crowd” wrong to a degree).
“One small episode is intriguing in today’s context. As reforming governor of poverty-stricken British Honduras (now Belize) in the 1930s, Burns got the British Museum to return Mayan relics that had been recently discovered by a British doctor and sent to London. His plan was to set up a local museum to foster Mayan self-respect: “We see that the people have their bread but too often forget to let them have some butter with it”.” (Tombs- “In Defence of Defending Empire”- Unherd, 19th November, 2021.)

No criticism of him “returning” those artifacts at all. How can we toe the patriotic line when conservative commentators flout it themselves?

Someone please get conservatives to have it out and agree some sort of “approved version” so us people caught in the middle aren’t tarred with socialism. Sick of this.

Last edited 1 year ago by Geoffrey Hicking
Linda Hutchinson
Linda Hutchinson
1 year ago

they’re only giving us what we want
Perhaps what some people want. I know it will sound nannyish, but, to reference The Stones, perhaps we shouldn’t always get what we want, but what we need, and what we don’t need is Twitter or the Daily Mail.