The Daily Mail and the First World War

Lord Northcliffe: had warned for years of the threat of Germany
Lord Northcliffe: had warned for years of the threat of Germany

Ahead of the centenary of the First World War, Private Eye has reported how in the Daily Mail did not understand the significance of the events of June and July of 1914 and at the time was more focused on events in Ireland.

There is certainly some truth in this, as the Daily Mail’s Tom Clarke set out in My Northcliffe Diary:

It has always seemed curious to me that the prophets of war who have since described this event [the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand] as the planned and obvious signal failed to recognise it at the time.

Northcliffe [the owner of the Mail] certainly did not recognise it. He, like many others, was wrapped up in the Irish deadlock, and as late as Monday, July 20, only five days before Austria and Serbia started the conflict which was to set Europe aflame, he was preening himself at having secured a personal ‘scoop’ about the King’s decision to summon a conference of the leaders of all parties on the subject of Ulster.

But criticising the Mail for lack of foresight over the War seems a little unfair.

Lord Northcliffe can at least claim to have been ahead of the crowd in identifying Germany as a threat. The Mail had been warning about Germany since its “Germany as She Is” series in 1896 and as early as 1908 he had written to Evelyn Wrench: “I know them [the Germans], they will bide their time, but Der Tag will come. You mark what I say.”

At the end of 1913 he even considered starting a Berlin edition of the Mail, which he apparently reckoned would cost him £200,000 but would be “worth many times that much if we can knock the war mania out of German heads”.

Northcliffe always saw the War as vindication of his years of warnings, but the reality is not quite so clear-cut. The Star newspaper’s claim that “next to the Kaiser, Lord Northcliffe has done more than any other living man to bring about the war” may have been overdoing it, but there is certainly a legitimate debate to be had over the extent to which the Mail’s hostility towards Germany was prescience or xenophobia.

While the answer is probably a bit of both, the fact that Northcliffe spent the last couple of years of his life – he died in 1922 – warning about Japan suggests he had something of a talent for identifing threats to world peace.

What is clear is that Northcliffe and the Daily Mail understood better than most that the impending war would be long and bloody. The Mail was devoid of all glibness about it being over by Christmas; on July 29, for example, it warned its readers that “Europe is face to face with the greatest catastrophe in human history”.

But while Northcliffe’s understanding of the situation was undoubtedly superior to many public figures, his judgement undoubtedly failed him at the outbreak of war and he was only saved by Thomas Marlowe, the Mail’s editor, from launching a ludicrous campaign for no British troops to set foot in Europe.

“Not a single soldier shall leave this country,” he announced to an astonished Mail newsroom. “We have a superb fleet, which shall give all the assistance in its power, but I will not support the sending out of this country of a single British soldier.

“What about invasion? What about our own country? Put that in the leader. Do you hear? Not a single soldier will go with my consent. Say so in the paper tomorrow.”

Northcliffe’s control over the Mail was such that he almost always got his way on matters of editorial policy. But this time, Marlowe disagreed with him and refused to back down.

This led to a tense night, with the printers preparing two very different leader columns for publication – one written by Northcliffe and the other by Marlowe – and Marlowe telling the printers that neither page should go through without his express order.

That day’s edition was three-quarters of an hour late going to press, as the office waited for a final decision. In the end, Northcliffe was persuaded to change his mind and it was Marlowe’s leader that the public read the following morning.

Press Gazette article on journalism in the First World War

Ahead of Monday’s Centenary of Britain’s entry into the First World War, I’ve written a piece for Press Gazette about the role of journalism during the War.

I’ve reproduced it here:

In as much as historians think about them at all, British journalists who covered the First World War tend to be viewed in a less than flattering way.

Seen as unthinking mouthpieces of the army and the government, the accepted version is that these journalists let their readers down by painting an inaccurate picture of the war. The most often cited example is William Beach Thomas, the countryside writer turned war correspondent who some believe inspired the inept main character in Evelyn Waugh’s Scoop.

To be fair, there is some truth in this negative portrayal and, certainly, the fact that Thomas was hosted by the British Army does seem to have compromised his independence. While it is common for war reporters to be “embedded” in this way, Thomas does stand out as exceptional for having presented the first day of the Battle of the Somme – the most disastrous single day in British military history – as a victory. He later came to regret allowing the military to influence his reporting and after the war admitted to being ashamed of some of what he had written.

But there is also another, very different, side to the story of how journalists covered the First World War. It is a story of hardship and heroism and of the kind of bloody-minded refusal to submit to authority that characterises the best of British journalism.

So as well as understanding the cautionary tale of Beach Thomas, we should also make sure we do not forget the stories of the many heroes of British journalism who risked everything to cover the war and challenged the government to an extent that was extraordinary.

The most famous example of this challenging approach is one of the most incendiary leader columns in the history of British newspapers. Written by Lord Northcliffe in the Daily Mail, it argued that Lord Kitchener – then a national hero – had been incompetent in ordering the wrong type of munitions and that this had resulted in the deaths of thousands of British soldiers

The article caused a scandal. Copies of the Mail were burned in the street; a police guard was put at its office near Fleet Street; and there was a huge overnight drop in circulation. But as unpopular as the article was in the short term, it was right and newspaper coverage of the scandal was seen as one of the reasons the Liberal Government was replaced with a coalition.

This willingness to challenge the Government, even during a time of War, was not an isolated incident. Just to take Northcliffe as an example, the following year his newspapers played an important role in removing Asquith as Prime Minister. Then when Lloyd George replaced Asquith, he was so worried about coverage in the Northcliffe press that he tried to placate him by offering him control of the Air Ministry. It did not work. Not only did Northcliffe reject the offer but he embarrassed Lloyd George by doing so publicly in The Times.

But it was not just the truculence of media owners that made British First World War journalism something to be celebrated. Perhaps the most remarkable thing about journalism during the War was the extent to which ordinary reporters were willing to defy the will of the Government.

Kitchener loathed journalists because he held a grudge for something that had been written about him earlier in his career. And so at the start of the war he decided to ban them from the war zone. Instead, newspapers were expected to pick up war news from a Press Bureau in Charing Cross and print reports penned by Sir Ernest Swinton, a kind of official war correspondent whose work one newspaper editor memorably dismissed as “magnificently uninformative”.

It is to the great credit of British journalism that it ignored the ban. From the start of the war until the restriction was eased in 1915, journalists used subterfuge to get to the fighting and endured living under constant fear of arrest as they gathered news for an anxious British public.

Life as a fugitive was difficult and dangerous. The war correspondent Hamilton Fyfe claimed Kitchener “talked wildly about having the reporters shot if they could be caught”, while Philip Gibbs, who later wrote for The Daily Telegraph, was held under arrest for ten days and told he would be put against a wall and shot if he dared to return to France.

Basil Clarke, who was one of these reporters, later recalled how life as what he called a “journalistic outlaw” was “a labour greater and more complex than anything I have ever undertaken”. He found that even the simplest aspects of reporting, from sending articles to London to even finding a light to write by, were suddenly filled with difficulty.

As Clarke wrote in his memoirs, the motivation for taking these risks and enduring such hard conditions was simple. “If Britons and Allies died in their thousands,” he wrote, “their fathers, mothers and sweethearts, and the countries that gave them, were entitled to know some little of the work they did.”

We should remember the defiance of the newspaper industry and the bravery of the journalists who risked their lives to report on the biggest story of their lifetimes. In this post-Leveson world, their example can act as an inspiration to us all.

Bert Gunn’s conversion to public relations

CIPR President Stephen Waddington
CIPR President Stephen Waddington

I really enjoyed reading the transcript today of CIPR President Stephen Waddington’s recent excellent speech to the International History of Public Relations Conference about the history of the CIPR.

One thing that stood out was a quote about public relations from Bert Gunn, who was editor of the Evening Standard between 1945 and 1952.

Gunn said:“[They] are an obstacle to the journalistic profession. I hate them. If I had my way I would do away with the lot.”

Stephen used it to illustrate the point that the kind of hostility shown towards public relations in Robert Peston’s recent high high profile speech has been there pretty much since the beginning.

I’d never heard this quote before, but it’s a good one.

And I found it interesting because of what Gunn did after leaving the Standard. That’s right – he entered public relations, as the managing director of Editorial Services Ltd, the PR agency Basil Clarke founded in 1924.

So who knows, maybe one day we will see Robert Peston join our ranks…



Tim Traverse-Healy on public relations

Tim Traverse-Healy: "paramount concern for public good"
Tim Traverse-Healy: “paramount concern for public good”

After 66 years working in public relations, Tim Traverse-Healy has written a document setting out his professional beliefs and views on the industry.

It is fascinating reading, and Stephen Waddington has posted the whole thing on his blog.

I was most taken with Traverse-Healey’s view that while securing media coverage, communicating and persuading are a big part of what we do, they don’t, on their own, add up to public relations.

Traverse-Healy thinks that for something to be considered public relations, it also has to have three extra ingredients:

  • Truth
  • Paramount concern for the public good
  • Genuine dialogue

I agree with him and think these are things that all of us working in public relations today would do well to remember.

Telling the truth is, I think, a given. And genuine dialogue is something that might not happen all the time, but with the advent of social media it is certainly the way things are going.

But concern for the public good?

This was fundamental to the approach of British public relations pioneers like Basil Clarke and Stephen Tallents. They, like Traverse-Healy, saw themselves as part of a movement that is trying to make society better.

I wonder how many of today’s public relations practioners think of themselves in this way.

That’s why it’s important that we champion this focus on public good and celebrate our industry’s proud history. Above, all, we need to keep making the case that we are more than just a gun for hire. As Traverse-Healy does in his document, “the argument we are like lawyers available to either defend or prosecute is untenable”.

H/T Tom Watson

The Daily Mail and the shells crisis

Those who saw Britain’s Great War on the BBC this week would have seen Jeremy Paxman looking at an old copy of the Daily Mail.

Jeremy Paxman looks at the Daily Mail's shells article
Jeremy Paxman looks at the Daily Mail’s shells article

As Paxman suggested, it is difficult to reconcile the unassuming look of the news page with the impact the article had. It was perhaps the single most important article published during the First World War and one of the most incendiary leader columns in the history of British newspapers.

I thought it would be useful to set out the story behind it. And, like many stories about the newspaper industry, its origins lie in the fear of being outdone by the competition.

On May 20, 1915, with speculation rife about changes in government, Lord Northcliffe was in a foul mood. He was angry that the Mail was getting what he called a “good hiding” on the emerging story from rival newspapers such as the Daily Express and the Daily News.

But as well as being a newspaper proprietor who was feared for the great influence he wielded, Northcliffe was one the greatest journalists of his age and so he decided to take responsibility for the newsgathering himself.

Lord Northcliffe: one of the greatest journalists of his age
Lord Northcliffe: one of the greatest journalists of his age

“It is a very big crisis,” he announced, “and we haven’t got a man to get the news. I will go out tonight and get this thing myself.”

He was not, in fact, successful in managing to get the inside track on any planned government changes. Instead, he returned with something different: a leader column criticising the type of shells the British were using and laying the blame at the door of Lord Kitchener, the War Secretary.

There was nothing exceptional about this. As Northcliffe’s biographer, Paul Ferris, has pointed out, the article contained neither new news nor fresh opinion, as The Times and the Manchester Guardian had already raised the issue of the shells and the Guardian had even called for Kitchener to go.

But what was different about Northcliffe’s article was its force. Given that Kitchener was a national hero at a time of struggle for national survival, the bluntness with which Northcliffe accused him of having caused the deaths of thousands of British soldiers was extraordinary:

“The admitted fact is that Lord Kitchener ordered the wrong kind of shells – the same kind of shell which he used against the Boers in 1900. He persisted in sending shrapnel – a useless weapon in trench warfare. He was warned repeatedly that the kind of shell required was a violently explosive bomb which would dynamite its way through the German trenches and entanglements and enable our brave men to advance safely. The kind of shell our poor soldiers have has caused the death of thousands of them.”

The staff at the Mail fully realised the impact this article was likely to have. As they were preparing to go to press, Andrew Caird, the paper’s managing director, approached his colleague, Tom Clarke. “Have you read the leader?” he asked. “We are going to break some windows tomorrow.”

Kitchener: "caused the death of thousands"
Kitchener: “caused the death of thousands”

And break some windows they did. Tom Clarke later wrote that the article “fell like a bombshell on amazed England” and the public responded with outrage that the Mail had dared to condemn Kitchener so directly.

That morning, it quickly became clear that the public mood was turning against the Mail, but that Northcliffe himself seemed relaxed about the storm he had provoked. He even joked with journalists that “the verbose author of the leading article looked like getting the paper into trouble”.

But as the day went on, Daily Mail journalists became increasingly worried by the reaction to the shells article. All day, the phone lines were jammed with people calling to complain and hundreds of angry letters and telegrams arrived. Copies of that day’s paper were burned in the street and at the London Stock Exchange and an “Allies of the Hun” sign was hung at the Daily Mail’s office. The situation became so tense that a police guard was put on the gate in case public anger boiled over.

“The view of people in the office is that the Chief did not realise last night the size of the gun he was firing,” Tom Clarke recorded in his diary. Clarke even seemed to think the article so provocative that the Government might order Northcliffe to be arrested. There is no evidence  this was the case, but the fact that Clarke thought it was a possibility shows just how serious the situation seemed.

But when Northcliffe arrived at the office at 5pm that evening, he was in ebullient mood. Wearing a blue suit with a spotted tie and a green hat and chewing a big cigar, he dropped into an easy chair and told the staff he had written another article for the following day’s paper. “I have thrown off another string of pearls for you,” he announced.

Not even being shown the scathing criticism of him in that evening’s newspapers seemed bother him. “That shows they don’t know the truth,” he said dismissively.

In fact, Northcliffe was so adamant that he had done the right thing that he grandly declared that “the circulation of the Daily Mail may go down to two and the Times [which he also owned] to one – I don’t care”.

And as unpopular as his article might have been, the substance of it was correct. As time went on, it became clear that there was, indeed, a serious problem and, while Kitchener kept his place in government, responsibility for munitions was passed to David Lloyd George.

So from an unpromising start, the Mail emerged from the shells crisis as the clear victor and, unsurprising, it did not let people forget it. When it would take contentious positions later in the War, which it  did on a number of occasions, it would  offer the shells crisis as proof that it could be trusted even if its position was an unpopular one.

The shells crisis seemed to confirm the independent-minded nature of the British press in general, and  the Northcliffe press in particular, and some people have even argued that the fact the press was relatively free to criticise the conduct of the War was one of the reasons the Allies ended up winning it.

But while a proud episode in the history of the British press, the journalist Hamilton Fyfe has argued that, paradoxically, the whole thing actually diminished public trust in newspapers.

“The mass of people remembered only the abuse and the burning and the official assurances that all was well,” he wrote, “and belief in the newspapers sank to a lower level.”

Lord Northcliffe the practical joker

Lord Northcliffe: a press baron with a sense of humour
Lord Northcliffe: a press baron with a sense of humour

It would probably not be an exaggeration to describe Lord Northcliffe as the single most important figure in the history of British newspapers.

Not only did he introduce a new style of journalism that revolutionised the industry by meeting the demands of a newly literate working class, but he also instilled arguably more fear in the political classes than any other proprietor or editor before or since.

But one side of Northcliffe’s character that is relatively unknown is his sense of humour.

While reading about him recently (in Paul Ferris’s biography and the diary of the Daily Mail’s Tom Clarke), I came across a couple of stories that illustrate it well.

The shell in the office

When Northcliffe came back to London after visiting France in April 1915, the car carrying him to the Daily Mail office near Fleet Street was followed by a taxi containing a 10-inch shell.

Northcliffe then proceeded to have the shell installed on the first floor of the office, directly underneath the office of managing director Andrew Caird, giving instructions that no one was to go near it and that a “danger” sign should be attached to it.

“See where it points?” he asked Caird, pointing upwards towards the ceiling. “What will happen to you if it goes off?”

Caird’s only response was to smile feebly.

Later that evening, presumably as soon as Northcliffe was out of the way, Caird asked Tom Clarke to have the shell examined. Clarke got the 3rd Field Artillery to agree to look at it and, providing irrefutable evidence that attitudes to health and safety really have changed over the last century, he gave reporter W.R. Holt the unenviable task of accompanying the shell in a taxi to City Road.

An officer and a sergeant dismantled the shell and discovered it was not charged and was, in fact, completely harmless.

“Don’t tell the Chief I had the shell examined,” Caird said with a grim smile when he was told the news. “I don’t want to spoil the joke.”

It may have simply been a joke, but the story is nevertheless revealing. It shows how the men who worked closely with Northcliffe really believed that putting an unexploded shell in the office was the kind of thing he might conceivably do.

The fake telephone

Less terrifying for his subordinates, though perhaps no less illuminating about Northcliffe’s personality, was the telephone he kept in his office.

The phone was not connected but Northcliffe could make it sound like it was ringing by using a bell  he could operate his foot. He would then pick up the phone and pretend to have a conversation with someone – typically a politician or general – on the other end of the line. But rather than being struck by the rarefied social circles the press baron seemed to be operating in, it seems the victims of the prank were generally left confused by the way Northcliffe seemed to be doing almost all of the talking.

Tom Clarke was among those this prank was played on. As he entered the room, the phone rang and Northcliffe gestured to him to sit down.

“Oh, yes, the Prime Minister wants to know,” Northcliffe said into the phone, pretending to repeat the words of whoever he was talking to. “Oh… yes, I see… Say that I am in conference with an important visitor, and I’ll let him know.”

And then he ended the call and got on with his conversation with Clarke.

It is unclear whether the prank was intended to impress visitors or was simply done for amusement. But it would be strange if Northcliffe really was trying to impress them, as the idea that he had access to the corridors of power was certainly no fiction and he was never unduly impressed by those in positions of authority.

Northcliffe was seen as so important that Lloyd George, on his first full day as Prime Minister in late 1916, found time to invite him to a meeting. The press baron’s response was as perfunctory as it was dismissive: “Lord Northcliffe sees no advantage in any interview between him and the Prime Minister at the present juncture.”

A really good day

Today was a really good day.

Before Christmas, I had managed to interest the Daily Mail is doing a feature on my biography of Basil Clarke, the Daily Mail First World War reporter who went on to become the father of the UK public relations industry.

But it didn’t appear over Christmas and, because the article led with Clarke’s experience of Christmas 1914, I thought that the chance had passed with the end of the festive season.

Basil Clarke's first appearance in the Daily Mail in 66 years.
Basil Clarke’s first appearance in the Daily Mail in 66 years.

But then today it appeared. Headlined Mail man who went to the trenches in a bowler hat and Burberry coat, it focused on how Clarke lived in Flanders as a fugitive in late 1914 so that he could send back reports of the fighting to London.

It’s a really good piece. And I can say that because though it has my byline, it was actually adapted from my book by Guy Waters, an excellent writer who did a fantastic job on it.

I’m really pleased because it seems the article has sparked some interest in Clarke and also helped book sales. This evening my biography of him had even sneaked (however fleetingly) into the top 20 best-selling British political biographies.

Most importantly, though, it is nice to see Clarke’s work celebrated in his old newspaper. Today is, I believe, the first time he had been mentioned in it since it published a short obituary in 1947 – that’s 66 years ago – and I think he would have been really proud of it.

My first sight of my book on a shelf
My first sight of my book on a shelf

Buoyed by the article, I took a copy of the Daily Mail into Waterstones in Bloomsbury at lunchtime to see if there might be any chance of doing something there to promote it.

As well as having a good chat with a member of the staff there, I was pleasantly surprised to see that not only do they stock the book, but that it faces out so you can see the front cover.

It was the first time I’d seen it on an actual shelf in a book shop. And even better to be in one of my favourite bookshops.

So, yes, a really good day!

Abraham Lincoln on public relations

Abraham Lincoln: "Public sentiment is everything."
Abraham Lincoln: “Public sentiment is everything.”

Abraham Lincoln may have died half a century before the birth of the public relations industry, but a quote of his I came across today could have been written as a defence of it.

Debating with the Democrat politician Stephen Douglas in 1858, Lincoln said:

Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutes and decisions possible or impossible to be executed.

It is a quote I wasn’t previously aware of but, for those of us who work in public relations, I think it is worth remembering.

Public relations often has a bad reputation. But this gets across, perhaps better than any other quote I can think of, why virtually every successful organisation understands that they cannot do without it.

10 articles about Basil Clarke you might have missed in 2013

Basil Clarke
Basil Clarke (far right) in a Somme trench in 1916

It’s now six months since my biography of Basil Clarke, From the Frontline, was published.

During that time, there have been quite a few articles and blog posts about both him and the book, particularly focusing on his role as a First World War reporter for the Daily Mail and as the father of the UK public relations industry.

I thought it might be useful, at the end of the year, to collect the links to some of them in one place. So here they are.

If any of the links below pique your interest, you can get a copy of the book here.

First World War Reporter

The reporter who went undercover on the front line: Ben Macintyre writes in The Times about how Clarke lived as a fugitive in Flanders during the early part of the First World War to get news back to London. Behind a paywall.

Why we should remember the bravery of World War One journalists: My blog for the Independent about how we should do better at remembering those journalists who, like Clarke, defied the Government’s ban on reporters in the war zone in late 1914.

Father of Public Relations

Meet the father of UK PR: A Q&A I did with Gorkana about the book and about Clarke’s contribution to public relations.

What British PR’s founding father can teach us today: My article for PR Week about the five things people working in public relations today could learn from Clarke.

What would Basil Clarke make of today’s PR industry?: A blog post I wrote for comms2point0 about what Clarke would have made of public relations in the 21st Century.


Basil Clarke at the Manchester Guardian: A great post by Richard Nelsson, in which he digs out some of the original articles Clarke wrote as a reporter for the Manchester Guardian.

Remembering Liverpool’s beauties and beasts: The Liverpool Echo did this feature on two articles Clarke wrote about Liverpool, one about him becoming embroiled in rioting in 1911 and the other his claim that women from Liverpool had a “high average of beauty… not equalled even in London itself”.

Reviews/ Overviews of From the Frontline

Review: ‘From the Frontline: The Extraordinary Life of Sir Basil Clarke: PR commentator Alex Singelton’s review of From the Frontline.

Basil Clarke: Past and Present of PR: A review and overview of the book by Richard Bailey, senior public relations lecturer at Leeds Metropolitan University.

The man who invented public relations: The Guardian’s media blogger Roy Greenslade gives an overview of the book and of Clarke’s life.

C.P. Scott, Lord Northcliffe and Basil Clarke

As someone who worked for both the Manchester Guardian and the Daily Mail during the early part of the 20th Century, Basil Clarke worked for two of the truly great figures of British journalism in C.P. Scott and Lord Northcliffe.

Clarke set out his thoughts about both men in an autobiography he wrote but never published.

I included some of Clarke memories of them in my biography of Clarke, but given their importance to newspaper history I thought it would be worth blogging the bits about Scott and Northcliffe that didn’t make the final cut.

C.P. Scott

C.P. Scott
C.P. Scott: “formidable and rather terrifying”

The picture of C.P. Scott, the owner and editor of the Manchester Guardian, that emerges from Clarke’s autobiography is of an intimidating man with exactingly high standards.

“He was a formidable and rather terrifying personality,” Clarke wrote. “He had not the habit that most people have of smiling a little at times as they talk to you. His face remained set, and from under his grey bushy eyebrows his keen blue eyes watched you searchingly with that suggestion of fierceness which blue eyes sometimes do convey.”

When he was still a sub-editor at the Manchester Guardian, Clarke passed some copy that described a recently purchased mechanical street sweeper as being economical and effective.

“Dear Mr Clarke,” Scott wrote to him the next day, “I think you mean ‘effectual’ rather than ‘effective’. A lady’s ball dress, you know, may be ‘effective’ without being ‘effectual’.”

“There wasn’t much that escaped C.P.’s eye,” Clarke wrote.

On another occasion, Scott wrote to Clarke to admonish him for having passed some Press Association copy about the death of William H Rattery that referred to Rattery as “the deceased politician”.

“He must have waded through all the 80 or 90 columns of that night’s copy to discover who had passed that offending phrase,” Clarke wrote.

As forbidding a figure as Scott might have been, he could, though, still be a source of humour. Clarke’s autobiography included the following, admittedly “perhaps apocryphal”, anecdote:

He [Scott] was cycling home to Fallowfield as usual in the early hours of the morning when his bicycle lamp went out and, having no matches (being a non-smoker), he asked a street sweeper for a light. This the street sweeper himself applied to the extinguished lamp as the following dialogue took place:

Street Sweeper: I often see you riding home about this time, Mister.
C.P. Yes, I usually get away from work about now.
S.S. Where do you work?
C.P. At the ‘Guardian’ office.
S.S That’s the Scotts’ paper, isn’t it?
C.P. Yes, it is.
S.S. Well, will you tell ’em summat from me, Mister?
C.P. What can I tell them from you?
S.S. You can tell ’em that I think it’s a bloody shame to keep an old feller like you out till this time of a night!

Lord Northcliffe

Lord Northcliffe: "A little stagey, perhaps"
Lord Northcliffe: “A little stagey, perhaps”

Clarke had a much closer relationship with Lord Northcliffe, the newspaper baron who founded the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror and owned The Times and The Observer.

As I relate in my book, Northcliffe liked Clarke’s combative nature and was impressed with the quality of his work. And for Clarke’s part, a signed photograph of Northcliffe was one of his more precious possessions.

But Northcliffe was a much more controversial figure than Scott, and this was a subject Clarke touched on in his autobiography. Writing over a decade after Northcliffe’s death, Clarke wrote:

One heard, and still hears, conflicting estimates of him, the less kind of them attributing to him a sort of ruthlessness closely akin to that grim, brutal quality which the Prussians so highly venerate and esteem under its stark, back-to-front German name of “Rücksichtslosigkeit”, or, crudely translated, back-sight-less-ness.

For my own part I liked him. He was always good to me, unusually appreciative for a boss, very human, and extremely generous; and, if it be my lot to have any more bosses in this life I hope I may not ask for better or fairer than that. What if he did like to dramatise things a bit at times? That’s harmless enough. In the following sort of thing, for example, is there ground for anything beyond a tolerant smile?

Northcliffe: (Calling me back sharply after I had passed him in the office corridor): Who am I?
Clarke: Why, ‘the Chief’, of course.
Northcliffe: What’s my name?
Clarke: Lord Northcliffe.
Northcliffe: What am I on this paper?
Clarke: You are the owner and Editor-in-Chief, of course.
Northcliffe: Oh! So you do know who I am, do you? Then why did you just cut me just now?
Clarke: I’m sorry, Chief, you looked so preoccupied and worried as you walked along that I didn’t like to butt-in on your thoughts.
Northcliffe: Well, remember this, young man: any time you meet me in the corridor I expect a small smile. Don’t forget it.

A little stagey, perhaps, but not unlikeable.