Challenges for the new Sun editor

What's in Dominic Mohan's in-tray

As had been widely anticipated, News International today named Dominic Mohan as the new editor of the Sun. Mohan, currently the paper's deputy editor, will replace Rebekah Brooks (formerly Wade), who will shortly take up her new position as chief executive of News International.

One of the central challenges for Mohan will be to establish the paper's political line ahead of the general election. As I've previously noted, the Sun is now almost certain to defect to the Conservatives at the next election. The paper's support for the Tories in the European election and their endorsement of Boris Johnson last year suggests we won't be seeing red smoke emerge from the Sun's Wapping HQ again.

Mohan is not known as a political animal but if Rupert Murdoch (and it will be him) gives the nod to David Cameron, it may be up to Mohan to determine whether the Sun attacks Cameron from the right (on immigration, tax and crime) or evolves into a more liberal creature.

On the business level, now Murdoch has declared that he intends to charge for all his news websites by next summer, Mohan will be responsible for providing the celebrity scoops that the News Corp head believes users will pay for.

Murdoch's UK newspaper empire is more dependent than ever on the Sun for profits, with both the Times and the Sunday Times losing millions in advertising revenue.

The Sun's circulation decline (down 0.4 per cent year-on-year) has been mild compared to some, but this has been achieved in part through an aggressive price war (in many areas the paper retails at just 20p) that may prove unsustainable.

Mohan can take comfort in the support of a proprietor who is committed to rescuing the printed press for the 21st century and who is redirecting resources to his core assets.

The imminent closure of the London Paper and the sale of the neoconservative magazine the Weekly Standard demonstrate that Murdoch is prepared to act ruthlessly to protect his most renowned titles. It will now be up to Mohan to prove that such faith has been well placed.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Why Prince Charles and Princess Anne are both wrong on GM foods

The latest tiff between toffs gives plenty of food for thought.

I don’t have siblings, so I was weirdly curious as a kid about friends who did, especially when they argued (which was often). One thing I noticed was the importance of superlatives: of being the best child, the most right, and the first to have been wronged. And it turns out things are no different for the Royals.

You might think selective breeding would be a subject on which Prince Charles and Princess Anne would share common ground, but when it comes to genetically modified crops they have very different opinions.

According to Princess Anne, the UK should ditch its concerns about GM and give the technology the green light. In an interview to be broadcast on Radio 4’s Farming Today, she said would be keen to raise both modified crops and livestock on her own land.

“Most of us would argue we have been genetically modifying food since man started to be agrarian,” she said (rallying the old first-is-best argument to her cause). She also argued that the practice can help reduce the price of our food and improve the lives of animals - and “suspects” that there are not many downsides.

Unfortunately for Princess Anne, her Royal “us” does not include her brother Charles, who thinks that GM is The Worst.

In 2008, he warned that genetically engineered food “will be guaranteed to cause the biggest disaster environmentally of all time.”  Supporting such a path would risk handing control of our food-chain to giant corporations, he warned -  leading to “absolute disaster” and “unmentionable awfulness” and “the absolute destruction of everything”.

Normally such a spat could be written off as a toff-tiff. But with Brexit looming, a change to our present ban on growing GM crops commercially looks ever more likely.

In this light, the need to swap rhetoric for reason is urgent. And the most useful anti-GM argument might instead be that offered by the United Nations’ cold, hard data on crop yields.

Analysis by the New York Times shows that, in comparison to Europe, the United States and Canada have “gained no discernible advantages” from their use of GM (in terms of food per acre). Not only this, but herbicide use in the US has increased rather than fallen.

In sum: let's swap superlatives and speculation for sense.

India Bourke is an environment writer and editorial assistant at the New Statesman.