Virgin Trains decision to stop selling Daily Mail, subsequently reversed

[whole diary]

[TaplowGreen]

Been to Liverpool & tried to buy the Sun?

Guess you're unsupportive of that ban then?

Bit off track, but I'd be more supportive were it not for the collective Scouser amnesia when it comes to their antics at Heysel.

In my opinion the Sun is a rag, but I don't think people should be denied the opportunity to buy or read it, whatever the local agenda.

The Morning Star supported the overthrow of the British democratic system & its replacement with Communism, whose regimes were responsible for the deaths of tens of millions, but I still have no problem seeing it on the shelves.

One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is tolerating others views which we may ourselves find distasteful; and occasionally standing up for their rights to have those views where necessary .

[JayMac]

One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is tolerating others views which we may ourselves find distasteful; and occasionally standing up for their rights to have those views where necessary .

Indeed. We may not agree with Virgin Trains' decision, but tolerance is the watchword.

[Red Squirrel]

If a major chain of news agents refuse to sell a popular newspaper, then that IMO^▸ (in my opinion) is getting a bit too like censorship.

Absolutely.

It gets a bit less clear-cut when a business makes a very limited number of papers available, though. A private hospital might make the Mail and Telegraph available in reception, whilst a cafe on the Gloucester Road would be more likely to offer the i or the Guardian. That's not censorship, it's just the proprietors projecting their own viewpoint or attempting to reflect their customers'.

The relationship between supermarkets and newspapers is more interesting - I would expect them to sell all the most popular titles regardless of their editorial stance, but I certainly would not expect them to advertise in or promote papers which oppose their brand or values. But they do! This comes into sharp focus at Xmas when leading supermarkets air commercials advocating goodwill to all men, whilst advertising in papers that promote othering and general nastiness.

[johnneyw]

I would generally agree with RS although not sure if Xmas supermarket advertising does really advocate goodwill to all men. Seems more to do with that it's good to consume.

[Electric train]

I think we should reflect on the original words from VT^▸ (Virgin Trains - former franchises) "There’s been considerable concern raised by colleagues about the Mail’s editorial position on issues such as immigration, LGBT rights, and unemployment. We’ve decided that this paper is not compatible with the VT brand and our beliefs. We won’t be stocking the Daily Mail for sale or as a giveaway."

Its obvious that the staff and contractors of VT have raised concerns that the DM counter to the values and beliefs of the company, should we not respect their position obviously the senior management and executive of VT have not taken the decision lightly and it is their business to offer a service within the values they set

[TaplowGreen]

.

[TaplowGreen]

One of the prices we pay for living in a free society is tolerating others views which we may ourselves find distasteful; and occasionally standing up for their rights to have those views where necessary .

Indeed. We may not agree with Virgin Trains' decision, but tolerance is the watchword.

Which only misses the point  (clearly wilfully) by a mile or two.

[JayMac]

Not quite with you there TG. If we tolerate the often abhorrent views in the Daily Mail then equally we must tolerate the views of those who say said views are of considerable concern to their staff, and are not compatible with their company's ethos.

You call it virtue signalling on the part of Virgin. That's your view and you are free to make it.

I disagree. I call it a principled stand against a malignant influence in Britain today.

In the short term, it's unlikely that the Daily Mail's bottom line will be affected. Nor will Virgin's decision change the editorial stance. Longer term, who knows? One can but hope that the print Daily Mail is one of the first to die in a dying industry.

[ellendune]

The moral stance storey might have been more credible if they had also announced that they would no longer advertise in the Mail, which is what campaigners had been asking for.

Campaigners have specifically stated they they are not campaigning to stop sale of the Mail etc. , just to get companies to stop funding the papers through adverts. 

[Trowres]

Freedom to express views is one thing.


Freedom to spread misinformation (or to misinform by highly selective coverage) is something else.

No organisation is perfect, but some are worse than others.

[TaplowGreen]

Freedom to express views is one thing.


Freedom to spread misinformation (or to misinform by highly selective coverage) is something else.

No organisation is perfect, but some are worse than others.

.........and some are just plain hypocritical (........are they still stocking the Guardian, for now?) 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/nov/10/sir-richard-branson-hypocrite-support-saudi-arabia-tourism-scheme

[JayMac]

Virgin Trains have never stocked The Guardian for sale. Has in the past been complimentary in 1st Class.

Mirror, Times, FT, are sold on board.

And if you're looking for hypocrisy, look no further than Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail. Whilst the paper he edits consistently attacks the EU^» (European Union - about), he's been happy to trouser £460,000 since 2011 from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy for his Scottish estate and Sussex farmland. Whilst the paper he edits consistently attacks 'green' energy policies, he's happy to trouser renewable energy subsidies.

 

[TaplowGreen]

Virgin Trains have never stocked The Guardian for sale. Has in the past been complimentary in 1st Class.

Mirror, Times, FT, are sold on board.

And if you're looking for hypocrisy, look no further than Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail. Whilst the paper he edits consistently attacks the EU^» (European Union - about), he's been happy to trouser £460,000 since 2011 from the EU's Common Agricultural Policy for his Scottish estate and Sussex farmland. Whilst the paper he edits consistently attacks 'green' energy policies, he's happy to trouser renewable energy subsidies.

 

................they used to give away the Graun and now they sell The Times? Owned by Rupert Murdoch? The same Rupert Murdoch who had to apologise for (amongst other things) a cartoon in one of his newspapers that likened a chimpanzee to President Obama?

...........why, not even the Mail would stoop that low! 

(Tricky, this virtue signalling isn't it?)

[Red Squirrel]

.........and some are just plain hypocritical (........are they still stocking the Guardian, for now?) 

I think this is a reasonably good example of the false equivalence fallacy.

[TaplowGreen]

.........and some are just plain hypocritical (........are they still stocking the Guardian, for now?) 

I think this is a reasonably good example of the false equivalence fallacy.

I'm not suggesting equivalence between the Graun and the Mail, I was merely speculating as to whether Virgin would now stock the Guardian as it (along with many others) printed a story about Beardie investing in the tourist economy of one of the most brutal and repressive regimes on the planet. Widely published elsewhere - it's the hypocrisy that's the issue - some may consider that the antics of the Saudi regime are mildly more distasteful than the front page of the Daily Mail, especially in its treatment of LGBT folks in this context, but naturally views will widely differ.