Richard
Bagley writes:
MPs scolded the government today for taking six
weeks to concoct a flimsy Yes Minister-style
letter failing to explain why the Morning
Star is barred from talks on press regulation. Morning Star editor Richard Bagley wrote to Prime Minister David
Cameron and Culture Secretary Maria Miller on December 3 asking why the paper
was not invited to meetings of national newspaper editors following up the
Leveson report. A deafening 44-day silence followed as Whitehall brains puzzled
over how to explain away the blatant discrimination against Britain's only
socialist daily paper.
Then suddenly a letter arrived this week from Ed
Vaizey, the second-ranking minister at the culture and media department. Mr
Vaizey did ask Mr Bagley to accept his apologies for the late reply. The
minister also added: "I appreciate your disappointment at not being
included in the meeting on December 4."
But the letter then plunged into classic Whitehall-speak by stating that Ms Miller had "spoken to editors of the majority of our national titles, but I'm afraid could not engage directly with editors of all newspapers." It failed to mention that the meeting on December 4 hosted by Ms Miller was attended by the editors of every national newspaper except the Morning Star - since the paper was the only one not invited.
But the letter then plunged into classic Whitehall-speak by stating that Ms Miller had "spoken to editors of the majority of our national titles, but I'm afraid could not engage directly with editors of all newspapers." It failed to mention that the meeting on December 4 hosted by Ms Miller was attended by the editors of every national newspaper except the Morning Star - since the paper was the only one not invited.
Easington Labour MP Grahame Morris declared today:
"This decision to exclude the Morning
Star, a long-established national newspaper, is quite simply outrageous. It
is political bias of the worst kind." Morning
Star Parliamentary Readers and Supporters Group convener Ian Lavery MP said
he would immediately write a letter to the Culture Minister demanding a proper
response.
"I find it extraordinary that the letter from Mr Vaizey gives no explanation whatsoever as to the reasoning behind their decision to exclude the Morning Star. I am challenging the minister to explain why it was the only national newspaper not to be invited. The Star is not a new kid on the block. It has survived for 83 years and should be part of any discussions the government may wish to have not just on Leveson but the media in general."
"I find it extraordinary that the letter from Mr Vaizey gives no explanation whatsoever as to the reasoning behind their decision to exclude the Morning Star. I am challenging the minister to explain why it was the only national newspaper not to be invited. The Star is not a new kid on the block. It has survived for 83 years and should be part of any discussions the government may wish to have not just on Leveson but the media in general."
Islington North MP Jeremy Corbyn said he would
put parliamentary questions down demanding an explanation from Mr Vaizey. Plaid
Cymru MP Jonathan Edwards declared: "I will be supporting the efforts of
my parliamentary comrades to raise this issue with the government."
Ah, the 2010 Labour intake. The sort of people who would have come a carefully arranged second to some dolly bird of either sex if the dolly birds had not been too grand to be in Opposition.
Ian Lavery, veteran trade unionist. Grahame Morris, local councillor and Secretary of the Constituency Labour Party. It is full of people like that. And one of its places to see and be seen is among the Readers and Supporters of this country's original, and uniquely consistent, anti-EU newspaper.
If the EU is funding The Guardian and the The Observer, then it is not funding them by nearly enough to keep them solvent. The generally (not, it must be said, quite universally) pro-EU tone of those papers is an expression of principle, not of payment.
Likewise, the uncritical allegiance to the United States, at least until that country acquired a black President, and to the State of Israel on the part of the Murdoch papers, Murdoch being a kind of foreign power in himself; on the part of almost all of the writers on the Telegraph titles; and on the part of many, possibly most, of those on the Mail ones.
The Soviet Union collapsed a generation ago, exactly as and when it was always bound to do. The traitors in our midst today are those who give priority over our own interests to those of the EU and the US, of Israel and the Gulf despots, of China (much loved of Murdoch) and the Russian oligarchs, of money markets and media moguls, of separatists (favoured by Murdoch) and communalists.
Not that there should be any new Cold War against Russia, China or anywhere else: the desire for such is motivated by the Trotskyist backgrounds of the proponents, while those lining up with separatism and communalism on the pseudo-Left are still easily identifiable as Trots, and while ostensibly left-wing converts to Eurofederalism are really still Gramscians, with, especially, the first and third of those tendencies coming together in support for global American hegemony and for Israel's ruling secular Far Right.
Thus, the need for the British newspaper that always held the line against both Trotskyism and Eurocommunism, both of which fed into New Labour and thus feed into its Continuity Coalition, has never been more strikingly apparent. If only its Saturday edition could combine the television listings of the Daily Mail with the first and third sector advertising of a certain Lib Dem rag.
Ah, the 2010 Labour intake. The sort of people who would have come a carefully arranged second to some dolly bird of either sex if the dolly birds had not been too grand to be in Opposition.
Ian Lavery, veteran trade unionist. Grahame Morris, local councillor and Secretary of the Constituency Labour Party. It is full of people like that. And one of its places to see and be seen is among the Readers and Supporters of this country's original, and uniquely consistent, anti-EU newspaper.
If the EU is funding The Guardian and the The Observer, then it is not funding them by nearly enough to keep them solvent. The generally (not, it must be said, quite universally) pro-EU tone of those papers is an expression of principle, not of payment.
Likewise, the uncritical allegiance to the United States, at least until that country acquired a black President, and to the State of Israel on the part of the Murdoch papers, Murdoch being a kind of foreign power in himself; on the part of almost all of the writers on the Telegraph titles; and on the part of many, possibly most, of those on the Mail ones.
The Soviet Union collapsed a generation ago, exactly as and when it was always bound to do. The traitors in our midst today are those who give priority over our own interests to those of the EU and the US, of Israel and the Gulf despots, of China (much loved of Murdoch) and the Russian oligarchs, of money markets and media moguls, of separatists (favoured by Murdoch) and communalists.
Not that there should be any new Cold War against Russia, China or anywhere else: the desire for such is motivated by the Trotskyist backgrounds of the proponents, while those lining up with separatism and communalism on the pseudo-Left are still easily identifiable as Trots, and while ostensibly left-wing converts to Eurofederalism are really still Gramscians, with, especially, the first and third of those tendencies coming together in support for global American hegemony and for Israel's ruling secular Far Right.
Thus, the need for the British newspaper that always held the line against both Trotskyism and Eurocommunism, both of which fed into New Labour and thus feed into its Continuity Coalition, has never been more strikingly apparent. If only its Saturday edition could combine the television listings of the Daily Mail with the first and third sector advertising of a certain Lib Dem rag.
What utter rot, if I may say so.
ReplyDeleteIf the stance of Murdoch's papers is an expression of his "principles", pray tell us why Murdoch's British titles are Royalist, when Murdoch is an avid Republican?
Answer that.
The Left has this all backwards; Murdoch doesn't fill his newspapers with stuff that reflects his "principles", he fills them with stuff that he knows will sell, because it reflects the opinions of the masses.
Murdoch has no power,whatsoever; it is us, the consumers, who choose to buy his newspapers over any others. He doesn't force us.
There is a touching fantasy on the Left that, if only the poor masses weren't brainwashed by Murdoch and the "false consciousness" of the evil "right-wing media" they'd all rise up and embrace multiculturalism, mass immigration and the EU.
Owen Jones pedalled this myth in his Chavs book.
But it's all claptrap: people could boycott Murdoch's rags and buy the Morning Star, the Observer, the Independent, the Guardian etc, if they wished.
But they don't. Because his papers better reflect their views. Get over it.
And stop trying to regulate anybody who doesn't agree with you. I don't need you and the Left choosing for me what I can and can't choose to read. It's still a free country.
Point proved.
ReplyDeleteEspecially the extraordinary idea that the Murdoch papers are monarchist. They have spent at least 30 years doing more than anyone else at all to subvert the monarchy.
The Sun is ardently Royalist and anti-mass immigration.
ReplyDeleteAs was the NOTW.
If one is, and the other was, "ardently Royalist", then one has, and the other had, a very, very, very strange way of showing it.
ReplyDeleteOne does, and the other did, promote an economic system which cannot function without unrestricted global migration. The odd bit of gallery-playing cannot disguise that fact from those of us who read books. Nor from those of us who write books.
That's a different issue-the Sun is royalist (whereas Murdoch is not) and anti-immigration.
ReplyDeleteMy point remains. Which is that there are loads of newspapers out there for people who don't agree with the Sun/Mail etc (Observer, Indie, Guardian, Star etc)
But people don't buy them in anything like the same quantities.
Because Murdoch and Rothermere's papers reflect popular opinion-not the other way round.
That's the point you silly leftists don't get-we CHOOSE what papers we want to ybuy-and we dont want you regulating what we can read!!!
I hope that you feel better for that (The Sun is "Royalist" - I ask you!), but none of it had the first thing to do with the original post.
ReplyDeleteOh, sorry I was answering your general point that Murdoch et.al have too much "power" and supposedly we therefore need "regulation" of what we can read.
ReplyDeleteAu contraire; he has no power we, the readers, don't give him.
On four continents, although nowhere more than in Britain (not even in China), Murdoch is a gigantic beneficiary of State patronage. That is how is where he is.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, amidst your bluster, I missed the bit where you explained how he has any "power" not granted by the millions who freely choose to buy his papers, instead of the Morning Star?
ReplyDeleteYes. You did.
ReplyDelete