The Independent's Andreas Whittam Smith is anti and at least three of

The Independent's Andreas Whittam Smith is anti (and at least three of this paper's other columnists are pro); and the ubiquitous Roy Hattersley is "on balance" pro.The diversity and debate in the British press is just what contrasts it with a monolithic media in Belgrade, now Milosevic has shut down B92 radio and other independent services (on Saturday official Belgrade radio cheerfully reported that two pilots had been captured and four Cruise missiles downed, and that the Pentagon had "confirmed the losses").Nevertheless, the Daily Mail is in a category of its own. Philip Stephens (the Financial Times) is pro, though wants ground troops involved; The Guardian's Hugo Young is pro; The Express's Andrew Marr is critical. Two of the most-read Times commentators, Simon Jenkins and Matthew Parris, are strongly opposed. True, The Sun, with its "Clobba Slobba" headlines is doing its best. But just as the support for the war is less gung-ho, so no one has yet turned on the editorialists and commentators who oppose the war to accuse them of being disloyal or unpatriotic, let alone treacherous - even though the Serbian media is closely monitoring British coverage and regularly quotes articles which criticise the war effort.In fact the opinions of commentators haven't necessarily been easy to call in advance, to judge by a sample from last week. There is much less jingoism in editorialising and commentary on this war - at least in middle-market and upmarket papers - than there was during the Falklands war or even the Gulf war. And the Daily Mail, of which more in a moment, reflects the Tory right, which has been the most condemnatory of the Nato bombing,The Observer's Suez history is a reminder of something else that has changed.

The Times and The Telegraph mirror the Tory front bench which - with reservations - has backed the Government. The notable exception last weekend was The Independent on Sunday, The Observer's main rival for the liberal audience, which came out unequivocally against the war, arguing cogently that Nato was the wrong institution to be acting as the world's policeman. But otherwise The Guardian, The Independent and the pro-Labour tabloids The Sun and The Mirror (apart from the latter's Paul Routledge) have been supportive. The Express has also supported British involvement in the war, although more questioningly. In this respect the left-of-centre press has broadly reflected the larger political community, in which the strongest support, naturally, is among Government backbenchers who believe in an "ethical foreign policy" and a new international order, in which military intervention to protect the oppressed is regarded as desirable.

The paper was factually right, as it subsequently turned out, but that didn't stop it suffering obloquy for its perceived lack of patriotism for years afterwards - even though Hugh Gaitskell's Labour party was also opposed to the war The Observer's reverse is symbolic for several reasons. The first is that it is the left to liberal press, which has been most squeamish about war in the past, and which is now the most supportive of Nato. More boldly still, it accused Anthony Eden, the prime minister of the day, of misleading Parliament because he had refused to acknowledge covert Israeli involvement in the operation. THERE WAS something deeply symbolic about The Observer coming out in favour of the Nato bombing on Sunday with an editorial headlined: "There is no alternative to this war." In 1956 it was the same paper that incurred the wrath of advertisers and readers by opposing Britain's engagement in Suez. "There is room for only one arty, rather highbrow success at any one time," says Mr Buckingham.In all, it seems the most important message is for film-makers to break out of the cosy circle of directors, producers and broadsheet reviewers, and step into the dangerous world of the out-of-town multiplex, tabloid feature writers and regional TV stations.With that, they should add a dash of focus group and polling, and be prepared to change their product if necessary - just as the major Hollywood studios do Either that, or keep their integrity and stay poor..

The hardest blow of all was the release and success of Shakespeare in Love at approximately the same time. "The posters were sexy and the trailer was positively raunchy, but they overplayed their hand."Despite the reviews, the rest of the media coverage was negative, with many lovers of classical music boycotting a film they perceived to demean the cellist's memory, and the mass-market audience uninterested in the subject matter.Then there was the problem of the title, with some potential viewers inevitably confused by the apparent reference to American First Ladies. "Unless it's an action thriller and you're absolutely sure who is going to come and see the film, you'll want to check" - and that means using preview showings and focus-group discussions, he said.Mr Buckingham would not be drawn on individual film-makers, but another British industry source, well-versed in marketing, said directors and producers frequently had very little idea how to make their films succeed financially."There are too many people out there who think that, if they have a decent product, it will succeed on its own merits and from the reviews," she said.There are three main conclusions that film marketeers agree on.First, media reviews play only a minor role in attracting crowds, and are less important than either the press or many directors think."Word of mouth is by far the most important factor," said Mr Buckingham.Second, coverage in the main sections of the press, often achieved through the news pages and through feature articles, is very important, but can occasionally be a two-edged sword when it turns out to be of the negative variety.Third, focus groups, the bane of many creative types who prefer to trust instinct, are becoming increasingly prevalent, even in the low-budget, specialist film market, and their influence is spreading backwards through the film-making process so that even scriptwriters may come under their influence.The film industry source points to the example of Hilary and Jackie, this year's biopic of Jacqueline du Pre and her sister, as a film that fell foul of some of the key rules."The reviews were very good, and the marketing made a positive effort to open up a specialist film to a much wider audience," he says. Mr Buckingham spoke off the record at the seminar, but said afterwards that there was an essential issue which film-makers had to tackle as early as possible in the process.Directors and producers have to decide who their audience will be. And consumers are being saturated with information, publicity and informed opinion in greater quantities than ever before.In such a sophisticated world, then, making a great movie plainly isn't enough."Marketing is very, very important to ensure that a film gets the results it deserves at the box office," said Peter Buckingham, director of Film Four, Channel 4's film distribution arm.