What papers have their say

There is an interesting Early Day Motion doing the rounds in Parliament, all about the Morning Star. It is EDM 1334 and it goes something like this;

"That this House notes the Morning Star is a national daily newspaper available in shops across the UK; further notes that it is the only socialist daily newspaper in the English language worldwide; further notes that the Morning Star and its management have strong links with the trade union movement; welcomes the different light it shines on news and current affairs from that of other daily newspapers; expresses concern that the Morning Star is rarely ever shown on or reported by the BBC on television and radio; and calls on the Director General of the BBC to ensure that the Morning Star is featured regularly and as a matter of course in broadcast newspaper reviews in the interests of fair and balanced reporting."

Considering this is about the house newspaper of the Communist Party of Britain it has accrued a considerable number of signatories, fifty two of them in fact. This includes my favourite Lib Dem MP, Bob Russell, the ever-cuddly Frank Dobson and the SNP's Angus MacNeil... none of whom have openly endorsed the revolutionary transformation of the UK into a Brezhnevian worker's paradise.

It raises an interesting point about what newspapers are seen as fit for those little 'tomorrow's papers' roundup's on news programmes and one that is worth supporting. It would have been slightly better if it hadn't been MPs pressuring the state broadcaster to give preferential treatment to the Morning Star over other minority papers - which steps over the line of political interference in the BBC and smacks of special pleading.

Daily newspapers like The Voice or the Edinburgh Evening News do proper journalism, have a distinct identity, serve a specific community and sell a decent number of copies (40,000 a day in the case of the Voice and 25,000 a day in the case of the Morning Star, I'm told).

These slots would certainly be more interesting if there was a bit more variety. After all the Telegraph, Times, Guardian and Independent all having different headlines on the same story only takes you so far - while a few "black teenager disappearance goes unreported" and "Strike action is brilliant" headlines would shake things up a bit.

Democracy isn't just about majority voices after all.

I was surprised to see that the Morning Star had a rather belligerant piece in their paper about the EDM. They choose, for example, to denounce Michael Meacher and Caroline Lucas for not signing. This is particularly strange seeing as Caroline at least has every intention of signing but you have to literally put your pen to an official document to get your name on an EDM and she hasn't yet been in the same room as that piece of paper.

It's an EDM not a fire that needs putting out here and now.

Personally I think I'd support the EDM too, but why it had to be so self serving I've no idea. Many of us would support the call for more space for minority papers and ideas but for the Morning Star to be singled out over other, more widely read, papers seems a little bit like advertising rather than principle.