Newspapers

I was delighted, not to say honoured, when Stephen Pollard approached me to become the political editor of The Jewish Chronicle. It is a great publication with a long tradition of campaigning for the Jewish community in this country. But above all it is good old-fashioned newspaper with all that this entails, including, of course, having an eye to the future. I was pleased to discover that the paper has an active NUJ chapel, which is welcomed by the management. All very progressive – as indeeed is the decision to appoint a non-Jew as political editor. I am really looking forward to working with the fine team of journalists in the JC newsroom and, from time to time, finding my

This Reuters piece on hostility towards immigrants in Northern Ireland contains the, well, oddest paragraph I’ve read today: Historically, it was economic migrants from the largely Catholic Republic of Ireland who stirred up sectarian trouble in Protestant commmunities. The south, a “Celtic Tiger” until the credit crunch kicked in, is now the euro zone’s weakest link. Mind-boggling, dizzying stuff, you’ll agree. The Pleasures of Underachievement puts it nicely: “I was wondering where all those economic migrants from the Republic were going all those years from 1922 on. Looks like it was one long border raid.”

Nadine Dorries is at the end of her tether: Does the DT [Daily Telegraph] have an agenda other than the desire to perform a public service? Why would they expose this fiasco at the start of an election campaign if the priority was not to destabilise the main political parties and to drive votes towards the minority parties? Really, this presumes that newspapers are vastly more cunning than tends to be the case. The Telegraph is motivated by something rather quaintly old-fashioned: a story. Like anything else in the paper this is designed to serve two ideas: make money and b) inform the public. Just occasionally (oh, happy day!), it’s

Amidst the public riot over parliamentarians’ expenses, the story of Hazel Blears remains oddly fascinating. And story is the operative word, given that she appears to be the sole cabinet minister singled out for opprobrium despite the fact that several of her colleagues have enjoyed equally shady and profitable dealings with the Fees Office. Since she’s had the gall to criticise the Prime Minister you can see why Downing Street is Chipmunk Hunting, making it clear that her actions were “unacceptable” and all the rest of it. But if Blears is guilty – or guilty enough to be forced out of the cabinet – then surely Alastair Darling and Geoff

The problem with being a newspaper columnist is that you have to keep finding new stuff to say. New is more important than better, you understand. So when everyone is outraged (and, hell, justifiably so for once!) by the spectacle of MPs’ outrageous abuse of the spirit, and often the letter, of their expense arrangements then, sure as eggs is eggs, you know some columnist is going to take the contrary view and argue that it’s all a lot of fuss over not very much. David Aaronovitch has nobly decided that this is his role this week, inviting us to cool our passions and admire his sagacity as he scolds

Christopher Caldwell’s* diary in the latest edition of the print magazine is good fun and I look forward to reading his new book. This part was especially entertaining: For many years, the ingenuity of the British press in exploiting the Brown-Blair rivalry story amazed me. What a gift the papers had for conveying that, this time, it was really about to blow. It was good to see last week that this old journalistic warhorse can still be saddled up, with the help of Hazel Blears’s remarks about the Prime Minister’s ‘lamentable’ failure to communicate. To an American audience, Blears’s insistence that she was 100 per cent behind the prime minister

Actually, Tuesdays are now the best day for the NYT’s op-ed page since in addition to Ross there’s David Brooks. His column today is a good one, making the point that the response to the swine flu outbreak offers a fresh example of the debate Brooks frames as: Do we build centralized global institutions that are strong enough to respond to transnational threats? Or do we rely on diverse and decentralized communities and nation-states? Gordon Brown is, you will be shocked to discover, in the former camp. Brooks, sensibly, puts himself in the latter. This is not, you’ll appreciate, merely a question of how best to deal with an infectios