Skip to content

Screwing the News

July 8, 2011

Farewell to the Screws as the Murkydock Empire takes a big hit. But there’s plenty more titles in the bag so no demise of the dirty digger yet.

Like News International, the Daily Mail and General Trust own a few titles as well.
Take a look at the Daily Mail’s Northcliffe Media list of UK regionals :
Advertiser Series (Hull)
Ashby and Coalville Mail
Ashford Herald
Axholme Herald
Bath Chronicle
Bath Times
Brentwood Gazette Series
Brides in Cornwall
Bridgwater Times
Bristol Evening Post
Bristol Observer Series
Burnham and Highbridge Times
Cannock & Rugeley Mercury
Carmarthen Herald
Carmarthen Journal
Cheadle Post and Times
Cheltenham News
Clevedon Mercury
Cornish Guardian
Cornwall Today
Crawley News
Croydon Advertiser
Croydon Post
Deal and Sandwich Express
Derby Telegraph
Derby Express Group
Dover Express
Essex Chronicle
East Grinstead Courier
East Lindsey Target
East Kent Gazette
Exeter Times
Express and Echo
Folkestone Herald
The Forester
Forest of Dean and Wye Valley Review
Gainsborough Targe
Gloucester News
Gloucestershire Echo
Great Barr Observer
Grimsby Target
Grimsby Telegraph
Herne Bay Times
Hythe Herald
Hull Daily Mail
Isle of Thanet Gazette
Kingston Informer
Kent and Sussex Courier
Leek Post and Times
Leicester Mail Group
Leicester Mercury
Lichfield Mercury Series
Lincoln Target
Lincolnshire Echo
Llanelli Star Series
Loughborough Mail
Mansfield and Ashfield Recorder
Medway News
Mendip Messenger
Mid Devon Gazette Series
Mid Somerset Series
Moorlands Advertiser
Neath & Port Talbot Courier
News In Focus
North Devon Journal
North Staffs Advertiser
Nottingham Evening Post
Nottingham Recorder
Plymouth Extra
Retford Times
Romney Marsh Herald
Scunthorpe Target
Scunthorpe Telegraph
Sevenoaks Chronicle
Somerset Guardian Standard
South Cheshire Advertiser Series
South Lincs Target Group
South Wales Evening Post
The Sentinel (Stoke-on-Trent)
Sutton Coldfield Observer
Surrey Mirror
Swansea Herald of Wales
Tamworth Herald
Tamworth Leader
Taunton Times
Thanet Times
The Citizen (Gloucester)
The Cornishman
The Herald (Plymouth)
Torbay Weekender Series
Torquay Herald Express
Uttoxeter Post and Times
Venue (magazine) (Bristol)
Walsall Advertiser
Wellington Weekly News
The West Briton
West Wiltshire Advertiser
Western Daily Press (Bristol)
Western Gazette
Western Morning News
Weston and Worle News
Whitstable Times
Wolds Target
Yeovil Times

Whats that got to do with Bristol?
With full page supermarket ads worth about £60k per edition they must be hoping for bumper advertising loot heading their way from the now defunct N of the W.

No wonder the massive media campaign from the Evening Lost for the monster Sainsburys Hypermarket at Ashton Gate with this kind of cash at stake.
Monster advertising revenue is the bottom line.
Anyone feel sorry for Northcliffe if things go sour for them as well in the next round of scandalous hacking revelations?

  1. thebristolblogger permalink
    July 8, 2011 6:31 am

    Punters might like to keep an eye on the Drivelling Post and their relations with the police. Particularly look out for stories quite obviously written by the police, often with a dubious relation to the truth, that they happily publish.

    Until recently the Post was running a sideline to this with the contents of letters from Stevie Lansdown’s solicitors Clarke Wilmott to Bristol City Council’s legal department regarding the Town Green appearing in the paper within 24 hours.

    These letters were being passed by the council’s Head of Marketing and PR, Peter Holt, to the paper’s Ian Onions.

    It’s all nice and cosy in there among the city’s establishment isn’t it?

  2. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    July 8, 2011 11:10 am

    Certainly not a fan over the World Cup propaganda, but credit where it’s due, and as someone “loosely” involved in fighting a campaigne to protect the countrys’ Greenbelts, then I think we had a very fair hearing from the EP and I might go as far as to say they were more than helpful.

  3. July 8, 2011 11:01 pm

    There’s dodgy stuff going on BB is right on it.

    How do they choose the campaign to influence? The papers opposition to greenspace sell-off is at odds with the campaign against Ashton Vale greenbelt and town green status.

  4. Richard Lane permalink
    July 8, 2011 11:29 pm

    Well well well, 105 regional newspapers get a share of £60k per edition from the parent company for running a massive advertising campaign for Sainsbury’s, minus the parent comany’s share for placing the actual ad. Spread over a period of two years work. The only thing is, there was no campaign, any more than there is for Dave Woods pushing the local railways, or the ongoing story about M Shed, or the opening and naming of Cabot circus (Merchants quater). It was part of a story, part of the stadium story, a story that only the local media gain from. They gain whether it’s good or bad news, because they’ll have more to write about and people to comment on.
    Your conspiracy theories are wonderful. Of course they’ll have links to certain people, that’s their job, reporting news, how else would they obtain the news?. They have also given a voice to others in the recent stadium stories but you won’t acknowledge that

    Sometimes the press get behind plans because they are generally good for the area, if it’s good for the area, it’s good for everyone, themselves included.

  5. Richard Lane permalink
    July 8, 2011 11:46 pm

    “How do they choose the campaign to influence”? You say. The answer is simple, they support the campaign which is popular with the majority. They are supporting groups all over Bristol, that are trying to save small pockets of green spaces from being sold off to raise funds for the council, that land is generally near peoples houses and is used by those people. They are not supporting a group of people who’s motive is to stop a development of a stadium which will benefit many more people than the applicants trying to register a TVG on 42 acres of land, of which half is a former tip. The motive for the different groups is obvious for all to see, the people saving their small spaces deserve support, the TVG applicants don’t, simple.

  6. July 9, 2011 6:37 am

    It’s simple. The important pockets of local greenspace are enjoyed by residents across the city. The area greenspace sell-off plan quite rightly gets a bashing from local residents. The Post doesn’t have any financial dependence on them other than the cash daily cover price and decides to support them.
    The greenbelt estblished as a buffer a generation ago to prevent urban sprawl gets the opposite treatment even though protection of greenbelt is as important as any other greenspace in the city.
    Obviously the giant newsgroup depends on its advertising from big business. We’re talking large sums of. It doesn’t want to upset Sainsburys and Lansdown/Hargreeves
    Its down to cash, there is no ethical or moral balance in the decision as to who the monopoly media company decides to back.
    The editor has already given a half-arsed excuse as to why they’ve thrown their weight into Hypermarket and greenbelt trashing campaign, not mentioning the advertising loot.

    They’ve defined hypocrisy as I have already covered in ‘One greenspace for the rich and one greenspace for the poor’

  7. Will permalink
    July 9, 2011 12:56 pm

    They are not going to take out anymore national advertising for one new store in Bristol. Its 1958£ for a one-off half page ad in the Evening Post. And I’d imagine Sainsburys already has an advertising deal with them (could be wrong), can’t see a new store changing it (more or less). Sainsburys also couldn’t care less what the post says about them it would take alot for them to pull their advertising (Strangely adverts seem to work no matter what they are opposite).

    I would be surprised if the People that advertised in the NOTW didn’t already also advertise with northcliffe and don’t imagine that they would double up (one advert is enough) they have to leave some room for the news! – maybe if northcliffe thought they had the newspaper monopoly they could put up their prices (but they are far from that)

    The only extra advertising revenue the Post could see, in my view – (feel free to disagree) would be from the stadium its self.
    There are plenty of people in favour of the stadium without getting any financial gain… Maybe they just think its a good idea. (be they wrong or right)

  8. Richard Lane permalink
    July 9, 2011 6:21 pm


    Pick up a copy of the Evening post, the WDP, or the Journal, you will not see £60k full page adverts for Sainsbury’s or any other giant supermarket. Those adverts are placed with the nationals because they have a larger readership, usually in the millions and certainly not 100k as the EP. The EP have nothing to gain from those £60k adverts so they report the stories that are relevant to the area. Obviously they will champion a cause if they choose to, but if they choose an unpopular cause to champion, then it does them no favours, so why champion it if they will lose or alienate readers?
    You have to trust their judgement in choosing which side to support if any, even if it does not satisfy your own desires.
    You say: “We’re talking large sums of. It doesn’t want to upset Sainsburys and Lansdown/Hargreeves”, are we? Where is these large sums coming from and going to then? Because you seem to be implying that the newspaper benefits from it.

    As for protecting the greenbelt, that area of greenbelt was a token gesture from the city council to appease the then government. As it is adjacent to the NS greenbelt it actually serves no purpose and is restrictive to the city of Bristol, with it’s own restrictive boundaries, in my opinion.

  9. July 9, 2011 10:55 pm

    The Mail Group is not a community charity-it lives on its advertising and flogging itself to the super rich and multi-national greed-merchants.
    Unscrupulous developers in conspiracy with biased local rag and certain biased councillors have dodged greenbelt protection.

    Greenbelt is no more a token gesture than hospitals or schools-it is park and greenspace that’s part of the fabric of the city.

    This type of comment is an opinion borne of crass ignorance and a vain fawning obedience to a community failing conspiracy.
    A shallow and failed distortion of citizenship and neighbourhood.

  10. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    July 10, 2011 12:00 pm

    When the idea of Greenbelt first came about, I was far more interested in playing football for my school team and watching my hero, John Atyeo, than anything else. My guess however, would be that those good people running our great city, would have been delighted at having a defined southern border to compliment the natural ones we have in the Dundry and Failand hills. Imagine what other cities would give to be able to see countryside from their traditional centres, and the fact that our icons like the Suspension Bridge are still in a semi- rural setting almost like when first conceived. Greenbelts are not perfect, but the one around south Bristol has certainly played it’s part in moulding Bristol into the fine city it is today, and if it means that future development takes place on the derelict and unused land within the city, instead of the easy option of building on our countryside, it will continue to do so!

  11. Avid follower permalink
    July 11, 2011 8:37 pm

    Richards just doesn’t seem like himself these days.

  12. thebristolblogger permalink
    July 11, 2011 10:53 pm

    You have to trust their judgement in choosing which side to support

    This is the Daily Mail Group we’re talking about right? The paper that in January 1934 published an article “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” praising Oswald Mosley for his “sound, commonsense, Conservative doctrine”?

    Usually, you can’t go far wrong choosing the opposite side to that espoused by a right wing newspaper.

    And keep an eye out for the Mail and its sister papers as the phone hacking story develops. They may be playing a central role …

  13. bigredrich permalink
    July 12, 2011 8:19 pm


    I repeat, as for protecting the greenbelt, that area of greenbelt was a token gesture from the city council to appease the then government. As it is adjacent to the NS greenbelt it actually serves no purpose and is restrictive to the city of Bristol, with it’s own restrictive boundaries, in my opinion. If I’m not mistaken this area of land which the debate is about was added to the greenbelt at a much later date. I believe the park and ride site and the tennis centre were also developed before greenbelt status was given to this land, if not, then I would suggest precidents were set with those developments, though I could be mistaken.

    What we are talking about, unless I’m getting it wrong is, a dreamt up theory by Sacredspring that the EP is receiving bucket loads of cash from the likes of Sainsbury’s and Hargreaves Lansdown for supporting the supermarket and stadium developments.
    Which is a load of crap.

    I did not say greenbelt is a token gesture, you are twisting my words. I said that the area within Bristols boundaries at Ashton vale, was a token gesture, as the area beyond is protected anyway by the NS greenbelt, this is my opinion.

    Avid Follower

Comments are closed.