Exhibit JC42 - The Leveson Inquiry

For Distribution to CPsHacks and Dons -Teaching at the London University Journalism School 1919-1939: Its origin,development and influence.In the context of solving the problem of a mismatch between what theearlier course offered and what students perceived as necessary forproviding them with entry into the reporting role, then the answer to thatquestion must be a categorical ’Yes.’ He pulled the course firmly out of therut of the ’old journalism’ with its emphasis on the old-fashioned aspects ofthe higher reaches of journalism, and established, in theory as well as inpractical sessions, the ascendancy of the role of the reporter in thehierarchy of training for news gathering and writing. Prior to hisappointment the Diploma had had no pivotal centre, and much wasrevealed that hitherto the University of London had carefully hidden, orallowed to remain unobserved. His appointment also had the support,financially, of the newspaper industry, and unusual for a newly-appointeduniversity professor (for such he was), a luncheon in his honour at the CafeRoyal.To sociologists this appears as a manifestation of outmoded ’grace andfavour’ attitudes of the press proprietors, but the luncheon had a simplerrelevance. It signalled to the press world that there was a renewed hope, incertain quarters, about the Diploma for Journalism’s future (Harrison, in1935, referred to it as a "five-year experiment.") The major newspapers,serious and popular, reported the event, and the Press Association spreadthe story (written by Clarke himself) on their teleprinters around thecountry. The regard in which Clarke was held by his peers was acontributory element in his appointment. Indeed, even Lord Beaverbrookhad asked him several times to become editor of the Daily Express, beforeArthur Christiansen accepted the offer.This aspect of Clarke’s job as Director of Practical Journalism assumedan important part of his plan: he was a builder of bridges between thecourse and the newspaper industry. That was his undisclosed role and bythe closing years of the course numerous editors, and proprietors, wereseeking his support for applications from various relatives, and he keptthem informed of the selection process. This selection procedure wassomething which had not had the attention it deserved until Clarke’sappointment with the course centralised in one College.Another achievement seems to have been to widen the range of topicsavailable to the students, and to impress upon them the importance of theirbeing able to get their message across clearly to people whose educationmight not match their own. While he did not, as far as can be known, referto the working classes as such, this was what he implied. He was alsoimportant because he alerted the students to the widening range ofquestions to which newspapers would have to address themselves if theywere to compete with the newer media of radio, television and cinemanewsreel.When it comes to asking ’What is missing from Clarke’s teaching?’ theobvious answer is the absence of any sign of a critical appraisal of thepossible effects of the kind of journalism he was teaching. While Clarke didnot contribute to such a development he does appear, in this, to share theattitudes expressed by some of his former students in their desire to foregoany pleasures of philosophical debate in favour of getting onto a job on anewspaper in the shortest possible time.137MOD100051308