When was the last time anyone saw a Morning Star on sale?

Anyway, who needs it when you have Milne and other loons at the Guardian?

There’s a priceless footnote by one Julian Lewis…

Line 2, leave out `socialist’ and insert `communist’.

I was amused to see Mike Hancock back the Star. The man has balls.

I saw the Morning Star in my newsagent this very morning actually.

Now since the BBC is meant to be editorially independent of parliament, perhaps someone could explain what good this is meant to do? If anything, this will force the BBC to maintain its stance.

Anyone got circulation figures for the Morning Star? I know my local Co-op carries probably two copies a day, which generally don’t sell (albeit I only notice it if they are there…) compared to what must be hundreds of the tabloids and tens of the qualities. I have a feeling that there will be other daily publications (Racing Post for example, and some locals) which outsell it and also have no BBC representation.

You don’t think that a reported circulation of less than 15,000 might explain this? How often do you hear the editorials of the East Grinstead Courier cited on the BBC?

On the other hand, self-selecting black lists are always useful.

Now I’m not a betting man, but I’d be prepared to put 50p on teh table and bet no member of the Cabinet put their names to this —- any takers?

Well if the Morning star doesn’t manage to raise the funds it needs to keep on going in time, this will be a moot point anyway.

With a circulation of less than 15,000, why should the BBC take notice of that rather than other niche newspapers? And why should the BBC be influenced by Parliament, especially an EDM signed by less than 10% of MPs?

How does its sales: BBC coverage ratio compare with The Sport?

Fun fact: The Queen gets the Morning Star every day.

OK, slight backtrack: her Press Office does.

Cabinet Ministers (and such panjandrums) get a special newspaper pack. Last time I saw one (when we were supplying them actually) there were 14 papers in it: including the Morning Star. And yes, The Queen does get the same package.

I actually delivered it one day…..

(We used to have a small business delivering the UK newspapers in Moscow, when we were out there. So you can now have a mental vision of Timmy trudging across Red Square in a blizzard delivering the Morning Star to The Queen on the trip she made out there. True story, too.)

I am continually impressed with the BBC’s apparent ability to be equally and simultaneously biased against all political factions.

I am also impressed that the comment box has been returned to its rightful place.

Tim -

And a Daily Sport for Prince Philip?

“When was the last time anyone saw a Morning Star on sale?”

Every single time I pop into the supermarket round the corner from my flat.

1 – Believe it or not I’ve seen it sold in the leafy Home Counties town in which I reside!

Is the Morning Star still the property of/associated with the Communist Party of Britain? The CPB sees itself as the descendent of the USSR-funded CPGB and still laments the fall of the communist regime. Not really sure this is a paper LibCon should be sympathising with.

If people want to put the 15,000 circulation of a 16 pager into context, try these ABCs from December 2010.

What a load of crap, the MS has a circulation of around 14,000-17,000, that’s practically nothing, just because they have the money, provided by the trade unions, to get themselves stocked on shelves doesn’t mean it’s widely read.

Can’t remember about the Sport in the Cabinet packs: I can remember that our only purchaser of The Sunday Sport was Julian Manyon of ITN…..

“When was the last time anyone saw a Morning Star on sale?”

Twice today actually, once in the local Spar about 10 mins from my house and once in a newsagent in the town centre. And I don’t live in a big city or anything, just a small mill-town in Lancashire.

As an aside, I do think the Morning Star occupies an important place in the media, it’s the only place where you can read about the labour movement in proper detail (most papers have a “business” section but never a “labour” section, funny that).

Also on this “well how many people read it?” business – maybe more people would read it if they knew of its existence ie if the Beeb used it in its paper coverage etc?

All I can say is that I have never seen a copy of the Morning Star in my life.

Does anyone ever buy it?

Or even look at it online?
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php

I would guess that a lot of people on the left don’t even visit the website, and would be far more likely to view the Daily Mail’s site before they looked at the Morning Star one.

Or maybe it’s just me.

@ 20 S Pill

“Also on this “well how many people read it?” business – maybe more people would read it if they knew of its existence ie if the Beeb used it in its paper coverage etc?”

True – but it’s not the Beeb’s job to boost the circulation of special-interest papers.

The way I see it, if the Morning Star had a wide circulation it would get referenced more often, both on the Beeb and elsewhere. I think the article is just yet another one of those complaints about BBC impartiality that tend to come, unjustified, from all corners.

Mr S.Pill,

As an aside, I do think the Morning Star occupies an important place in the media, it’s the only place where you can read about the labour movement in proper detail (most papers have a “business” section but never a “labour” section, funny that).

All the papers used to have labour correspondents. They found the stories didn’t sell papers, so stopped having them (they found this out before they found nothing sold papers…). Nothing odd there. If people didn’t think sport was worthwhile the papers would stop employing sports journalists (and the average standard of the written word would increase… sorry, couldn’t resist).

@23 Chaise

“True – but it’s not the Beeb’s job to boost the circulation of special-interest papers.”

No, that’s the job of Have I Got News For You’s ‘fill the headline’ round or whatever it’s called… more seriously, I don’t see the Morning Star as “special-interest” as you put it – have you ever read it? Not being snarky, genuinally interested… it reads to me as just having a different bias from the Sexpress & Mail et al and at least they’re honest about it.

“The way I see it, if the Morning Star had a wide circulation it would get referenced more often, both on the Beeb and elsewhere.”

It’s a catch-22 though innit. If it got referenced more by paper-reviews it would have a wider circulation, and if it had a wider circulation it would get referenced more.

“I think the article is just yet another one of those complaints about BBC impartiality that tend to come, unjustified, from all corners.”

For once I don’t see it like that. And I normally do, because I don’t think the Beeb is guilty of being biased one way or the other 99.9% of the time and I constantly tell people off for saying it. I guess this is a little different in that it’s about MPs of both sides signing an EDM rather than traditional blog-Beeb-bashing.

@24 Watchman

“All the papers used to have labour correspondents. They found the stories didn’t sell papers, so stopped having them[..]”

You’re showing your age there I see your free-market logic an’ all, but also maybe it has to do with the fact that organised labour in this country is (or was – who knows what this government will ignite) a fading force after the Thatcher/Major “reforms” alongside the rise of individualistic selfishness.

It’s a catch-22 though innit. If it got referenced more by paper-reviews it would have a wider circulation, and if it had a wider circulation it would get referenced more.

If if if.

If you Google “communist paper UK” the first result is the Morning Star. If you clicked through you could easily find the subscription page.

@ 25 S Pill

“Not being snarky, genuinally interested… it reads to me as just having a different bias from the Sexpress & Mail et al and at least they’re honest about it.”

I haven’t read it… I’m calling it a special-interest paper because it has very few readers compared to mainstream papers, and it obviously caters to a certain political POV. I’m not saying its biased and should therefore be kept off the airwaves, I’m saying it’s small and therefore it’s not surprising that you don’t hear much about it.

“It’s a catch-22 though innit. If it got referenced more by paper-reviews it would have a wider circulation, and if it had a wider circulation it would get referenced more.”

True, but again: is it the Beeb’s job to foster smaller papers like that? If every episode of BBC News suddenly carried quotes by the Tunbridge Wells Gazette, I think that you’d find it weird.

I don’t think the Beeb has put the top papers at the top.

“For once I don’t see it like that. And I normally do, because I don’t think the Beeb is guilty of being biased one way or the other 99.9% of the time and I constantly tell people off for saying it. I guess this is a little different in that it’s about MPs of both sides signing an EDM rather than traditional blog-Beeb-bashing.”

You may be right. I get so fed up of the whole “The BBC doesn’t like me!” lament that I probably do have a knee-jerk reaction whenever I hear a complaint like this made. If it turns out that the Star should logically be cited more often based on its circulation, I’ll agree that this complaint has merit.

In the days of the CPGB, the Morning Star was noted for its opera reviews and racing tips. Their absence today may perhaps explain the decline in sales.

In a royal wedding year, it is worth recalling MS coverage from 1973: “Anne Windsor will marry Captain Mark Phillips in London today.” That was the entire article.

@ Charlieman

“In a royal wedding year, it is worth recalling MS coverage from 1973: “Anne Windsor will marry Captain Mark Phillips in London today.” That was the entire article.”

I heard tell that on the Queen Mum’s 100th birthday they ran a picture of her alongside a headline about a “special lady turning 100″ or something. The article turned out to be about an old woman who’d been a Communist Party member since she was 18, and the caption under the Queen Mum’s photo just read “another British pensioner who turns 100 today”.

hahahahaha The Morning Star that should do it! hahahaha on the BBC. Hang on I know someone from the Morning Star! yeah! Get charlie on TV! Bollocks you fuckin BBC shower of shite! He was on the BBC before one time with that sexy one with the big eyes but not officially repping for the Morning Star in da BBC house. I think he was talking bout those protesters in Greece who went on hunger strike. Maybe he wasn’t working for the morning star then.

yeah more Morning Star! Bollocks! If Egypt can have a revolution so can we! Boooolllokz!!

50 MPs getting up early can’t be wrong

You sometimes see it on sale in railway stations.

28. Charlieman – “In a royal wedding year, it is worth recalling MS coverage from 1973: “Anne Windsor will marry Captain Mark Phillips in London today.” That was the entire article.”

Yeah? How did they cover the fall of Phnom Penh? Or the invasion of Afghanistan?

Apologists for mass murder are always funny. Until their views have consequences.

I don’t see why the BBC ought to support the reality-challenged.

maybe they don’t have it on the t.v ,because no one reads it.

“Now I’m not a betting man, but I’d be prepared to put 50p on teh table and bet no member of the Cabinet put their names to this —- any takers?”

No bet as there is a general convention that members of the Government don’t sign EDMs. If the EDM had been tabled under Labour you wouldn’t have seen anyone from the Cabinet signing it either.

A national is it? They’ve never sold it where I live, Inverness…

I think the BBC is undoubtedly left-liberal biased, but not intentionally so. As the estimable and left-liberal Andrew Marr – who, as the BBC TV’s political editor was apparently respected deeply by Conservative and Labour MPs for his professionalism – once said:

The BBC is “a publicly-funded urban organisation with an abnormally large proportion of younger people, of people in ethnic minorities and almost certainly of gay people, compared with the population at large”. And all this, “creates an innate liberal bias inside the BBC”.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/6764779.stm

Now, of itself, this is no bad thing – as long as the audience can discern and appreciate (as most do with newspapers – sorry ‘viewspapers’!) the resulting institutional bias. However, when I think myself into a different viewpoint than that adopted by (say) a Today Programme interviewer, I am often shocked to think what other listeners with different assumptions must think about the bias…particualrly when they know they are subsidising it!

That said, I would query whether one can indeed provide absolutely impartial news and comment. Is there a point above all human affairs that is objective, and can any human being attain it? I’d say No; but I’m open to other arguments. What we need is any number of points of view in news and analysis of news, each striving for objectivity, and then perhaps we can reach some more or less settled interpretation – even if certain events (eg the Thatcher governments) remain contested ideologically. So I’m not arguing for relativism, but rather perspectivism – this mountain is visible from an infinity of different points, but the mountain still exists objectively! And this is the advantage of having a number of different news channels….

Btw, I wholly oppose the cuts at the BBC World Service!!! I travel widely, and I know how widely respected the World Service is for its impartial reporting. I was in Egypt 5 years ago, and a shopkeeper told me how much he relied on the World Service and the tv equivalent. And, in Brazil, I met a young jungle guide who spoke almost perfect BBC English: “My mother insisted that I listened to the BBC, not Voice of America.” The World Service is a major global force for democracy: it should not be cut!

@37

I would query whether one can indeed provide absolutely impartial news and comment.

If Flat Earth News by Nick Davies is accurate then the Times managed exactly that prior to being bought out by Mr Murdoch, whom believed it to be ridden with left-wing bias.

37
The mountain might objectively exist but there are differing positions on the mountain,all giving a different view. And there are some positions on the mountain which are more desirable than others..

@33 So Much For Subtlety: “Yeah? How did they cover the fall of Phnom Penh? Or the invasion of Afghanistan?

Apologists for mass murder are always funny. Until their views have consequences.”

I must stress that my ironic comment about the marriage of Princess Anne and coverage in the Morning Star does not qualify me as a spokesperson for the newspaper.

In the mid 1970s, the CPGB and MS followed the Moscow line. Events in Cambodia would have been reported in the MS “on message”. By 1979, the CPGB and MS had drifted from the Moscow line on divergent paths.

Smart liberals viewed the Russian takeover of Afghanistan, a satellite country, as rational self defence. Russians and the west had seen what happened next door in Iran and were rightly very scared. And then cold war irrationality kicked in, and the USA funded a bunch of nut balls. The same bunch of nut balls against which the USA conducts war today.

@39:

“The mountain might objectively exist but there are differing positions on the mountain,all giving a different view. And there are some positions on the mountain which are more desirable than others..”

Indeed; and then the arguments about the merits of particular perspectives begin…

It’s often said the Beeb is accused by the right of left-bias and the left of right-bias. I’ve also often heard it said that this shows it is doing a good job because it narks both sides.

I find its reactionary and inflamatory interviewing is probably the reason – interviewers simply attack whoever comes on, taking their stand and deliberatly trying to knock them down with counter-arguments. The Beeb say this shows an openness to debate by challenging all angles. To me its simply lazy journalism by not actually taking part in a construictive debate (on either side) and instead looking for an inflamatory angle by bullying any interviewee (again, left or right).

That said its alot better than most other news outlets. The least smelly turd in the bog is hardly a proud claim though.

40. Charlieman – “Smart liberals viewed the Russian takeover of Afghanistan, a satellite country, as rational self defence. Russians and the west had seen what happened next door in Iran and were rightly very scared. And then cold war irrationality kicked in, and the USA funded a bunch of nut balls. The same bunch of nut balls against which the USA conducts war today.”

Smart liberals being a euphemism for pro-Soviet Quislings it seems. How does invading another country amount to self defence? It is odd that what took place in another, and Shia, country should push the Soviet Union into fighting with their Sunni enemies in Afghanistan. Especially as the Islamists did not turn on the Russians until the USSR collapsed. The USSR shared a border with Iran but neither side crossed it with weapons (and if they were afraid of Iran that seems odd to say the least).

The nut balls the US funded are in power now. The Americans’ allies.

Sunny,

You are going to accuse me of banging on a drum no doubt.

It is not just the Morning Star that is marginalised by the BBC.

So too, it is in Scotland.

Their favourite blogger, a chap called Brian Taylor, their political correpondent, has an interesting blog hosted by the BBC called ‘Blether with Brian’. No, really it is quite good on a chatty, uninvolved sort of a kind of a way.

The BBC in Scotland however actually bans any reference or links to Newsnet Scotland. Which, politically is aligned to the SNP. Which, recently carried a post by Alex Salmond.

I consider that to be censorship too.

OK, http://www.newsnetscotland.com is a virtual newspaper and not an actual newspaper but the principle is the same, is it not?

Looks like the Guardian’s biased too – no mention of the Morning Star in their latest roundup of national newspaper ABCs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/table/2011/feb/11/abcs-national-newspapers1

As others have already noted, the Morning Star’s daily circulation is around 13-15,000 – a mere tenth of the Independent’s (pretty poor) sales – and comparable to that of the Birmingham Post.

Are you dising my mates paper? No one reads my blog either but it doesn’t mean I shouldn’t be on the BBC.

Although Ian Hislop has an active broadcasting career, I have never actually seen Private Eye feature in news reviews on TV, nor have I seen or heard contributors or interviewees from the Eye on news/current affairs programmes. Odd that, given that PE sells 210,000 copies…… a somewhat higher circulation than the Independent.

33. So Much For Subtlety

“Apologists for mass murder are always funny. Until their views have consequences. I don’t see why the BBC ought to support the reality-challenged.”

Do you ever read MS? Its writers are from various backgrounds, from greens and socialists to social democratic, for example. Many such writers would not have had a look in the the Star in the past. The reality-challenged? A case of the pot and kettle I think.

As former editor John Haylett says: “Things that happened in the Soviet Union 70 years ago are still being used as a stick to beat the Morning Star.”

I do see the Morning Star in newsagents, but I wonder who actually buys it. And what a strange world we live in: of all the things to campaign about, 50 MPs are protesting about a “BBC bias against the Morning Star”. They want to ensure that the paper is “featured regularly”. Have I been asleep, or has the Morning Star played such a significant role in mobilising the proletariat in their millions to come out in a general strike, occupy Parliament Square, and bring down a dictatorial regime that the BBC can be criticised for bias in not reporting any of this?

Perhaps they should have called for Private Eye to be featured regularly – it does have a larger readership I believe.

The Morning Star: takes me back to the days of Red Robbo, shop steward at British Leyland in Longbridge and member of the CP. Now whatever happened to British Leyland…?

The Morning Star is the only left wing daily newspaper in Britain and on that basis alone deserves to me included in any press review by the BBC or anyone else. It is the only paper that opens up its pages to the whole spectrum of green-left ideas in the country. If we don’t want to continue to live in a world dominated by Murdoch’s junk food fare of celebrity gossip, right-wing prejudice and blinkered vision, then papers like the Morning Star need our support irrespective of whether we agree with every word or article. For anyone who believes in democracy and press freedom, the continued existence of the Morning Star and any other such papers are vital.
That’s why so many MPs have signed up in support of the EDM

@ 50 John Green

You appear to have forgotten the Guardian and the Independent. They may not fit into your personal ideal of “left-wing”, but go down that road and you end up with the BBC having to cite every paper in the country because someone somewhere thinks it’s the only one that properly represents their side of the fence.

As a communist I fully support Ian Lavery’s motion. It’s not surprising that the BBC never mention the communist party of GB, and the ‘Morning Star’. The BBC are bastions of capitalism. And along with the USAs paranoia of communism or socialism, and it’s blatant interference in progressive countries, particularily in Central and South America, Chile being the classical example. Chile being the only elected socialist country. Can any reasonable person on this planet deny that socialism is by far the only morally decent political system! If its ALLOWED to work. It’s a pity that it’s only a few money hungry and power hungry people in the world who are allowed to contol our lives! I hope all communists and socialists keep up the good fight to eliminate greed and to try and eradicate poverty and misery! Gerry Tench.