Talk:The Morning Star

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Is it neutral to say "concise and wide ranging"?

Its concise and wide-ranging reports of foreign and national news often cover events overlooked by the mainstream media, but it is entirely free of the celebrity gossip and other trivia that infest all the other national dailies to varying degrees.

was changed to

Its reports of foreign and national news often cover events overlooked by the mainstream media.

with the message "removed POV".

The fact is that the articles are concise (the whole paper is rarely longer than twelve "tabloid" sides) and they are wide ranging (e.g. today's paper carried reports about a riot by poultry farmers in China, a court case involving Greenpeace in the USA, and news from Uganda and Venezuala as well as the usual headline stuff about Iraq and Palestine). It is also a fact that the paper is entirely free of celebrity gossip and trivia. It is a further fact that all the other national dalies do go in for celebrity gossip and trivia, to varying degrees. These things are all true. If somebody can come up with a way of saying those things without appearing to be praising the paper, please do so. Meanwhile I am restoring the original wording, except for the word "infest", which I concede was POV. GrahamN 03:55, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

The fact that the paper is small -- only twelve pages -- does NOT necessarily mean that it's concise! It could be one page long and still be verbose, waffling, rambling, irrelevant... Manormadman (talk) 09:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)Manormadman

The article doesn't say 'concise' any more, though the paper's actually written in the traditional style of the UK broadsheets (ie consise with detail). It needs citations to back statements like that up though. There's not all much on the net unfortunately, but I'll have a look.--Matt Lewis (talk) 12:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bankrolled by the KGB

Is there a source for this statement? I wouldn't be surprised if (in fact I'd expect that) the Soviet Union made donations to the Star, but saying it's the KGB isn't fair, IMO. Dafyddyoung 19:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Odd fact?

The only daily socialist newspaper in the world? Surely those countries with socialist governments have dailies? --Oldak Quill 01:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ooops, just saw the phrase "English-language". --Oldak Quill 01:11, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, what about News Line? Probably most Morning Star readers disapprove of it, but it is undeniably a newspaper, it seems to be published daily, it is certainly in English, and it's hard to see how you could say it wasn't socialist. I'm adding a qualifier to the article. GrahamN 03:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone actually seen a print copy of News Line recently? I haven't seen one since the 80s. Grmdy 11:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial line

"Formerly Communist". Formerly? The article says that "in elections the party endorses the Communist Party of Britain". Consequently, the paper can only be considered formerly Communist if the political party is also so considered. (By the way, does the M Star still refer to North Korea as "People's Korea"?) I know its strapline says it's "for socialism", but Communist parties and papers have always described themselves as socialist - there's nothing new about this. In fact the countries that we call Communist countries always denied being Communist states, because according to Leninist ideology they were socialist states (merely on the transition to Communism), not Communist ones. -86.134.53.173 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually the strapline is "For Peace and Socialism". This is a slogan that was also widely used by the Communist Party of Great Britain and has been the strapline of the Daily Worker/Morning Star throughout it's history.
Ecadre 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

As regards your first point, you may well be right. I've seen it argued that the CPB aren't really communists at all, but reformist social democrats who have usurped the imagery and jargon of communism. But in any case the paper is by no means a mouthpiece for the CPB. There are as many articles by Labour politicians, Greens, Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, Friends of the Earth types and even (annoyingly) various species of clergy, as there are by people who label themselves "communists", whatever they (or you) may choose understand by that emotive word. If you are determined to judge people, its far better to judge them according to what they actually say and write than according to what they choose to call themselves. Don't you agree? GrahamN 02:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


I've edited the "Editorial" section to more accurately represent the relationship between the Morning Star and the Communist Party. It's a rather complicated area and the previous description was not correct in saying that there is no connection. For instance, by tradition, the Editor of the Morning Star sits on the Political Committee of the Communist Party.
Ecadre 12:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
The reporting of the news never refers to North Korea as "People's Korea", nor does it do the same thing for China, Cuba or Vietnam. The comments sometimes come from a Communist who is sympathetic to these countries, but such pages are supposed to be opinionated; that's their whole raison d'etre.

[edit] JamesE edit

It has been said that the reasons for why 11th September was on page 2 are incorrect. However, I get the Morning Star delivered everyday, and it is true that foreign news is always on page 2 and 3 and on 4 for Saturdays. What's wrong with this?

The reason for my edit is that I actually work at the paper and have done for several years, so was able to get a denial of this straight from the editor, deputy editor _and_ foreign editor. It's true that foreign news is always on pp2-3, but this doesn't mean it's never on the front page - Saddam Hussein's capture went on the front, for instance. September 11 didn't go on the front for various trivial technical and production-related reasons - nothing to do with some imagined disrespect towards America, which was why I have taken the claim out again. JamesE 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Behind-the-scenes" donations from the TGWU

An extravagantly anonymous editor (IP 90.197.240.22 has apparently only ever been used once, for this edit) added a reference to "sizeable behind the scenes donations from trades unions such as the Transport and General Workers Union". What is this referring to? In the absence of any kind of explanation or corroboration I've removed it again. GrahamN 15:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess it refers to the fighting fund and "fundraising" training advertised on the paper's web site.

This may be linked to exotic donations from a union which can only afford conditional fee lawyers for its members when they're in trouble at work: a puzzling priority which cannot be explained in any plausable way. TGWU is unusual among unions in allowing volunteer branch committees considerable budget and influence - even the right to increase the subscription according to a Certification Office investigation into the taxi drivers' branch[1]. Branches are large and need not be linked to any one employer. Branch committees are elected face-to-face at meetings where they are often the only people present - a flawed electoral system open to entryism.

When I went to a meeting of branch 1/1148 to complain at lack of legal representation - let alone any other service - from my union I found a certain Dr Martin Graham, treasurer, well up on the agenda. He was proposing a thousand-pound purchase of non-dividend shares in the Star. This was approved unanimously (I abstained). On a roll, he suggested a £200 add wishing the Star a happy christmas from the T&G. Again unanimous. Not so union services to members. "The purpose of a union is not legal insurance but solidarity", I was told my the treasurer and secretary, while I read in the minutes that an ex colleague from the same employer had made an almost identical complaint about lack of legal support the month before.

I had never heard of this Dr Graham before, mor Mr McBride the secretary. They were nothing to do with my ex employer but I google one of their names here [2].

As for "behind the scenese", the Star's accounts cost £15 to get from the Docklands registry of friendly societies, while Transport and General branch accounts should legally be circulated to all members who get other mail. Mine are not: you have to go to the annual general meeting and hope for an un-audited handout. This does indeed list large donations to the Star and other political causes. I'll post a copy if anyone wants.

My branch bank account was frozen by the regional union office a year or two ago. What that says about unaudited accounts, and whether money claimed for the morning star actually reaches it is anyone's guess.

Such is life. I am glad that other people have noticed the Star / TGWU link before me.

This is obviously a personal grievance, but it's being replayed in the article. Unless the specific claims around T&G donations can be properly sourced, I think it should come out, along with judgemental POV comments such as "may or may not ... have joined for the purposes of donating funds", and the comment about TU staff "hired from Morning Star articles". It's almost certainly true that the Morning Star receives support from Trade Unions, and this likelihood should be stated, but it shouldn't be mixed up with one T&G members personal gripe with the union.
Also, the comment "some Socialist groups argue..." isn't sourced, and I believe may come under the heading of "weasel words". Can anyone source it (and given the use of the plural, I guess it needs multiple sources)?
Grmdy 09:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If a union can donate large amounts of members' money to a paper on a show of a few peoples' hands, I think that is a general point relevent to every member. The number one complaint to workplace bullying helplines is failure of unions to represent members and all union members should be able to read in Wikipedia where some of their money is going instead.

It's a complicated point as has been said above, because it involves a decentralised organisation with only the vaguest of public central accounts, and that's why vague words are necessary to avoid someone else instantly removing them as unfounded. The use of union members money is obvious, but without access to the local accounts of every union branch and hours of time to compile the findings, the evidence will have to come from anecdotal references of which there are many. For example Amicus subscribes in bulk to the Morning Star, quantities are available at T&G headquarters, union jobs are advertised any day of the week on the Morning Star online web site a handful of senior figures in some of the large trades unions are also members of the CPB. An interview with the Morning Star editor, formerly referenced here, quotes him as saying that many of the shareholders are union organisations and it's hard to see why they should buy non-divend hard-to-sell shares except to support the paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veganline (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

That's called democracy, bud. As I said, TUs give support to the Morning Star, as they do to (for example) Tribune. But POV rants about what allegedly went on in some TU branch meeting have no place in an encyclopedia article IMO. Grmdy (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where do the italics go?

Is it The Morning Star or The Morning Star? Corvus cornix 23:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Removed from editorial section

In 1940, the paper, then the Daily Worker with an anti-war editorial policy during the Vyacheslav Molotov-Joachim von Ribbentrop Pact, accused Sir Walter Citrine, the General Secretary of Britain's Trade Union Congress, of "plotting with the French Citrines to bring millions of Anglo-French Trade Unionists behind the Anglo-French imperialist war machine." Citrine sued, and the case turned into a display of the Daily Worker's editorial position as being directed from the Soviet Union. [1] Because of its pro-Moscow position during the war, the Daily Worker was suppressed by police action on January 21, 1941 and ceased to publish. It was allowed to start publication less than a year later, and the staff became known as "tankies" by other left-leaning journalists for supporting the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring even though the society was separate from the Communist Party of Great Britain.

I've removed the previous from the "Editorial" section since it is delving into the history of the Morning Star rather than it's current editorial positions. It is also rather misleading in how it describes this period and throws in unconnected "Point of view" stuff about events that happened over 25 years later.

If there's going to be more historical stuff in the article then it should be done properly rather than just stick it in willy nilly. Ecadre 21:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I created the new section, and added a new paragraph to separate the point on Prague Spring.
-- Randy2063 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone added the same text at the start, I've removed it since it's repeated further down.
Grmdy 09:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, is there a source for the line on the Prague Spring? The CPGB line at the time was to condemn the Soviet intervention, is there evidence that the Morning Star line was different? Grmdy 09:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

I've just rearranged the intro - I feel it conforms more to WP style with a description of the paper first, followed by the short history. It was very unusual with the way jumped straight in. --Matt Lewis (talk) 14:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Better sections

I'm changing 'Editorial Policy' to 'Editorial Stance' (per The Guardian) and will create a 'Contributors' sub-heading, and possibly try out others. I think sub headings are the way to go. There's no reason why this article can't look like professional, and become a 'GA', or even higher. Why not? --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I kept Editorial Policy, as it did make better sense - added new sections under it.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Finances' section

This is currently a lot of prose that could use some citations, and maybe some sub headings too. Is the title the best it can be? --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've pointed out above, the "Finances" section seems to have been used by one individual to replay his personal gripe with his trade Union, and is extremely POV. The citation given for one section refers to a website with an extremely POV take on the issues involved - e.g. it refers to the Star as a "Stalinist lying sheet" and "screwing the trade union movement". Most of the section needs to be removed, IMO. Grmdy (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Your own interests are in Cuba? Nothing wrong with that but I think there are more people being let down by their trades unions and wanting to read why than debating armchair politics or joining the communist party of britain. It only had thirty seven members at one count

I don't know how best to edit this page but if you have a look at employees.org.uk you'll see the problem. Maybe someone less close to the issue could find the best edit. Veganline (talk) 16:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Veganline, that website it the POV one I was talking about, and it contains no evidence, just unsubstantiated claims and interpretations. I have no idea what you're wittering on about Cuba and the CPB for, it is entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia entry, not a debating society - it should be NPOV Grmdy (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Certainly the article must be unbiased (WP:NPOV). Facts and arguemnts can be got across - but they must be reliably sourced, and ought not be unjustly weighted. I've tidied up the section purely on "style" grounds. Nothing exciting, but hopefully a better 'base' to improve...--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, it looks better now, I think. I've also changed the sentence "Consequently the paper has always been heavily dependent on donations made by activists within organisations such as trades unions, who may or may not be representative of those unions, or have joined for the purpose of donating funds." to "Consequently the paper has always been heavily dependent on donations made by activists, and sympathetic organisations such as Trades Unions.", which is a phrasing that isn't making unverifiable assumptions about people's motivations. I've also removed an unverified statement about what "Some socialists" allegedly think... if anyone can actually source it, then it could potentially be reinstated (depending on the reliability of the source), but I raised it's unsourced nature several months ago and it still hasn't been sourced. Grmdy (talk) 22:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Finance Section

I don't understand how, if the cover price doesn't cover the cost of an issue, how bulk orders from the USSR could serve as indirect subsidy. I took it to mean that each copy sells at a loss: is this incorrect? Is it instead the case that each copy sells at a loss simply because not enough are sold, or prior to the USSR's dissolution they were profit-turning per issue? Nach0king (talk) 16:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)