Talk:List of newspapers in the United Kingdom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Layout[edit]

Why have the Sunday papers been tagged onto the end of the daily papers? They are separate newspapers with separate editorial staff even if the ownership is the same. Mintguy 15:45, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Scottish newspapers deserve the same treatment as national newspapers. I don't mind that The Times, and The Sunday Times are listed together (I'd prefer if they weren't). But Sunday versions of Scottish newspapers should be listed in the same way (whatever that is), not just noted casually at the end. Dduck 14:29, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The United Kingdom is a country with four nations. It is not right to put Scotland down as a region and Scottish Newspapers as "regional". Some of the English papers do exist north of the Border but are little read in comparison with Scottish papers, others have their own Scottish edition (both Broadsheets and tabloids) I will try and edit accordingly. Refdoc 14:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Dduck - I am not sure what you mean. I have put the Sunday papers together with the daily papers for the simple reason to avoid an endless scroll. This is the same for Scotland and England. But edit to your heart's content! As long as you do not put the Scottish papers back to the regions... (Unlikely I would think!) Refdoc 14:55, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's looks fine the way it is now Dduck 17:25, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have moved the Western Mail and Y Cymro into a new Wales section, as they are not regional but national Welsh papers. I have also added Y Byd as a planned newspaper, as they're trying to get that off the ground in Aberystwyth. aliceinlampyland 15:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC).

Political Leaning[edit]

Why is the Telegraph noted to be a conservative paper while the Guardian has no such similar label associated with the left? --Mitamarine (talk) 07:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Something to do with the impartial balance always displayed in the Grauniad MurphiaMan (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Why is the Sunday Times considered Right Wing while the Guardian and The Independent "centre-left"? The latter two are farther from centre than the Times is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.62.120 (talk) 05:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Changed Telegraph to very conservative (far more conservative than the Times, comparable more to the Daily Mail), Times I've shifted to centre-right as usually about 2/3rds of each edition's fairly objective and then it goes into right-wing editorialising mode for the rest, Indy I dislike reading (it treats you like a child and makes judgements for you - like the Telegraph does) so I don't feel as though I should muck around with it, Guardian I've changed to left wing (though I'm unsure it's appropriate as it's not much more to the left than the Times is to the right) - will this do? DunKhan (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 15:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused why the Daily Mail is listed as 'centre-right to right': this makes it more centrist than either the Telegraph or the Evening Standard. Whilst these papers are openly Tory, the Mail's attitudes on issues like benefits, gender issues and immigration – not to mention the paper's history – place it very firmly right. For the sake of being bold, I'm going to change it but obviously if anyone can come up with a salient reason why this isn't appropriate feel free to roll it back. 5.66.100.49 (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Have changed the Daily Mail and the Sun to Right-wing, both papers have strong anti immigration and anti LGBT stances and support nationalism. Both papers publish articles which fuel discrimination and hate speech, such as the 'Enemies of the People' article by the Daily Mail (suggesting the judges of the UK High Court who disagreed with them were enemies of people living in the UK) and '1 in 5 Brit Muslims sympathy for Jihadis' from the Sun (making false claims about survey results to encourage hostility towards British Muslims). These papers have been moving increasingly to the right over the last few years and should be categorised Right-wing rather than Centre-right. Also historical support for Oswald Mosley and Adolf Hitler and their parties has been evident in the Daily Mail. Sylar78 (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

With the current scapegoating of immigrants currently being pushed by the Daily Mail and the Sun as well their strong nationalistic views displayed by their constant support for the Government's push for hard Brexit despite the economic implications for the country in which both paper's owners pay no tax with absolutely no criticism of any view point or negotiating strategy they should both be considered right to far right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.158.131 (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be Wikipedia editors who decide how far right or left papers are. (We're all biased because we all have our own opinions.) We need to find reliable, unbiased secondary sources for such assessements. -- Dr Greg  talk  01:20, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
https://fullfact.org/law/daily-mail-headine-comparison-to-nazis/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/ipso-sun-british-muslims-story-headline-significantly-misleading-a6953771.html
Sylar78 (talk) 12:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we can agree that based on the evidence provided, the Daily Mail and the Sun are both right-wing, possibly even far-right 92.27.23.176 (talk) 11:28, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
The first source you mention on 'Full Fact' actually seems to reject the comparison between the 1933 German newspaper headline and that of the Daily Mail. While your second source certainly gives evidence to support that The Sun has produced Islamophobic material, this does not essentially make it right-wing. Racism, Islamophobia, xenophobia and similar such beliefs do not automatically point to a specific position on the political spectrum (although they are generally much more associated with the right). I would say this source is better as it specifically claims a political position -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lego-ends-advertising-daily-mail-stop-funding-hate-campaign-a7413361.html
I shall continue to look for more reliable and unbiased evidence for the political position of both the Daily Mail and The Sun and post what I find. Helper201 (talk) 15:39, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Here is a reference for The Sun as right-wing.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/19/rightwing-tabloids-pour-scorn-appearance-child-refugees

Helper201 (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Organisation alert: By Ceremonial County?[edit]

The list will quickly get unmanageable, when we add, say Newsquest's 300 titles. Which we will. Could I suggest:

  • By ceremonial county for town & village papers
  • By city for proper cities - though to be honest, I'd be happy to subsume them into counties, too, along the style in Twin towns
  • Umm, and another look at the Regional Newspapers. What are the criteria for inclusion here. Why, for instance, is the Yorkshire Post not in the list. Why are the Liverpool Daily post, & Belfast Telegraph in the list?

--Tagishsimon

This looks like a good idea to me. And I think it would be best to subsume the cities into the counties - why should tiny cities such as Wells or Ripon be made more prominent than far larger towns such as Reading or Northampton? And the regional newspapers certainly could do with reconsidering. Matthew 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Minister[edit]

The following is more suited to page about UK newspapers, rather than alist of them:

The BBC situation comedy Yes Minister contained this classic comment about British national newspapers of the era:

Humphrey: The only way to understand the press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press; I know exactly who reads the papers.
The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by people who own the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country.
And The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think that it is.
Humphrey: Oh, and Prime Minister, what about people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.

ownership changes[edit]

The Daily Telegraph and Sunday Telegraph should be listed as owned by the Barclay brothers. (The Scotsman papers should have said that already.)

Broadsheet / Tabloid[edit]

The Times, The Independent and The Scotsman have been moved out of the broadsheet catergory. I don't know about The Scotsman, but The Times is still (AFAIK) produced in both tabloid and broadsheet format. The Independent use the term compact rather than tabloid. What should be done about this?

I suggest starting a 'Compact' category. Unless anyone objects --Taras 02:25, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Seems a reasonable idea, but we may need to add a fourth category! I heard about a month that the Guardian is planning to move to a smaller-than-a-broadsheet, larger-than-a-tabloid format. -- Arwel 12:17, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"For the time being, this list continues to use Broadsheet to mean Serious, and Tabloid to mean less serious; arguably these are points of view with which some readers may disagree."

At the moment they seem to be divided on 'shrank since 2000' and 'shrank before 2000', if the listings of the Mail and Express are anything to go by. Whatever we do, we should do something with the headings accordingly. -- Smjg 10:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Descrining the Times as being available in 'Tabloid' format is incorrect as 'Tabloid' refers to the type and quality of paper, not its size. The correct term is 'Compact', which I'll think you'll find is used by both the Quality papers which use smaller sizes. Grunners 14:25, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looking on OneLook, nearly all definitions are referring to paper size. Some also mention sensationalist style or something to that effect, but it seems the real definition is size. The 'correct' name for the tabloid-sized serious papers seems a matter of debate, but my point is that the Mail and Express don't, in either my mind or theirs, deserve being listed with the Sun, Star and Mirror rather than with the Independent and Times.
For that matter, does 'Quality' with a capital 'Q' have any defined meaning?
Maybe we should make the categories "whitetop" and "redtop". That leaves two somewhat different bluetops (Mirror and Metro).... -- Smjg 11:52, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's an idea:

  • Add a "middle-market" heading for the Mail, Express and possibly Metro, as thinking about it, it seems arbitrary to list these in either of the existing categories.
  • Come up with a better word for the 'serious' papers than the highly subjective "quality".
  • ...

Any objections? -- Smjg 14:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Where should The Morning Star be listed? I'm not sure I've ever seen it on sale, and I certainly haven't in recent times, and so haven't had a chance to take a look. But I did notice "but it is entirely free of the celebrity gossip and other trivia that feature in all the other national dailies to varying degrees". -- Smjg 16:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to move The Morning Star to specialist, despite its size its not really a tabloid and its limited distribution and readership makes it fit better in that category. --Ebz 16:22, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunday editions[edit]

"Sunday broadsheet newspapers have tended to keep the broadsheet format due to considerations of size, as to maintain the same content in a tabloid paper would be excessivly [sic] unruley [sic]."

Would whoever added this care to clarify what you mean?

And was I imagining it, or were the Times and Independent once listed here in what were the right categories last time I knew (Sunday ones broadsheet, otherwise compact)?

-- Smjg 14:16, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For that matter, the only things we have to go by are the Times and Independent, which only shrank in the last two years. Moreover, the Sunday Express managed to switch to tabloid format, and I recall hearing it was since the Daily Express did. So can really draw any conclusions? Even if it isn't feasible at the moment, maybe the Sunday Times and Independent on Sunday will manage to adapt their formats such that it will be feasible? -- Smjg 14:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The other day I read somewhere that the plan of the Sunday Times is to remain broadsheet. I haven't seen anything about what the Independent on Sunday plans to do.... -- Smjg 16:05, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Now that the Independent on Sunday is a compact, the only example of this statement is the Sunday Times. So does it make much sense to leave the statement in at all? -- Smjg 10:58, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am sure the Sunday Express switched to tabloid a few years after the Daily Express, but I can't find any information for it. That the Daily Express switched in 1977 is documented here at BBC News, but it doesn't mention the Sunday. My Dad took them both, and I clearly remember the Sunday Express being broadsheet for quite a long while after the daily (I was born in 1972). SimonTrew (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Disputed[edit]

The dates of establishment are inconsistent with those in History of British newspapers. Who is right? -- Smjg 18:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would have been more helpful if you had stated which newspaper's dates you thought were inconsistent, rather than leaving it to each reader to compare the two articles. My reading is that the discrepancies are in the foundation dates of the Mail on Sunday, Sunday Express, and Independent on Sunday. I remember the Mail on Sunday being founded, so it was certainly not established in 1896 -- the 1982 date sounds plausible. I think the Independent on Sunday was founded the same time that the Independent was, but I won't swear to it. -- Arwel 20:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Independent on Sunday was founded in 1990, four years after the daily paper. Loganberry 23:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yet another inconsistency:

  • "Daily Mail was a broadsheet until 1971"
  • "The Mail was the first tabloid newspaper in Britain" under Daily Mail
  • "The Sun was launched in 1964 as a tabloid replacement for the Daily Herald" under The Sun.

-- Smjg 11:57, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've fixed the dates as far as I've managed to make out. And removed "Daily Mail was a broadsheet until 1971" pending resolution of the inconsistency - it would be nice to have this information though. -- Smjg 14:44, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Regional v local?[edit]

Is it really possible to make a hard and fast distinction between "regional" and "local" newspapers? For example, The Birmingham Post is readily available in newsagents 25 miles and more from the city, yet has been classed as local. Conversely, the Liverpool Echo is listed as regional. Both papers are city-based, and I think both the Echo and the Manchester Evening News would fit better into the "local" category. Loganberry 23:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the M.E.N. is freely available (for a price) here in Crewe, and we're 30 miles from Manchester. I've seen the Liverpool Echo on sale in Rhyl... -- Arwel 00:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I could say that I've seen the Echo at Euston station, but that would be cheating. =;) But I doubt any local paper of any importance is entirely confined to its "named" town or city, so in that sense they're all regionals. But I used to live in Liverpool, and at least at that time (early-mid 1990s) it definitely felt like a city paper first and foremost, in the sense that the Daily Post with its wider circlation area isn't. Loganberry 13:01, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Birmingham Post is stocked daily by the Co-Op supermarket in Long Buckby, some 50+ miles from Birmingham! It's tough to draw a line between regional and local - as an example, the Northampton Chronicle & Echo focuses on Northampton and the western half of Northamptonshire. Local, or regional? I should say local, as Northamptonshire is a county, not a region (eg South West or East Anglia). By this measure, only newspapers such as The Yorkshire Post would truly count as regional. Thoughts? Matthew 21:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

And what about Evening Standard? For that matter, why is it the only 'local' one that has "(tabloid)" next to it? -- Smjg 17:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This Regional/Local division doesn't work; is local 10 miles or 20 or 30 or what? Better just to list the papers, then people can click through to more about them if they want to know more - assuming there is an entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.38.254 (talk) 19:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Regional/Local is a complete non-starter as in the industry the terms are used interchangeably - and of course, circulation areas are not set in stone and do change. The industry standard of organising papers is done on frequency of publication, so there should instead be a single 'Regional & Local Newspapers' section, split into dailies and weeklies.

London Gazette[edit]

This really should be mentioned somewhere as it is the official newspaper of the UK, and the longest running. However I have no idea where to put it, any suggestions? I know it is not strictly a newspaper in the conventional sense, but it has as much right to be in the list as, for example, Ariel. Rje 23:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I added it under specialist newspapers, as that seemed the most appropriate place. I'd never heard of it before I read Rje's comment above. - PaulHammond 15:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)
Personally I wouldn't count it as a newspaper - it's two volumes, telephone-directory sized (as it needs to be to contain all the winning Premium Bond numbers!). -- Arwel 16:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Is it useful to ensure it is not confuse with the British Gazette? I am tempted to add a {{for}} link on that article. SimonTrew (talk) 14:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Middle-market?[edit]

What is the criteria for this? It seems rather arbitary. -- Joolz 22:34, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Basically those that don't fit neatly into either of the other two categories, and can be considered as somewhere between the two. -- Smjg 13:46, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Is that because of the typeface used in the title. Generally, the style and content of certainly two of the papers in the category (mail/express) is very much tabloid in style. What defines something as tabloid, other than dimensions. --waxapple 16:52, 13 Dec 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.195.238.102 (talk)

Bit of a mess?[edit]

This article is a bit messy at the moment, I suggest we have:

  • National Papers
  • Scotland
    • Scottish National papers
    • Scottish Regional
    • Scottish Local
  • Wales
    • Welsh regional etc
  • England
    • etc...

that way it keeps it much tidier... -- Joolz 13:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The way National vs. Scottish is handled at the moment is a bit ambiguous. It states that some of the 'national' papers have Scottish editions. Do England, Wales and Northern Ireland share the same editions then? As such, should they be listed as 'National' for being three out of four, or under each? And of the 'national' papers that don't have Scottish editions, which have one edition throughout the UK and which aren't sold in Scotland at all? -- Smjg 13:54, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Infact, not only that, The Guardian has a northern England edition, if i recall correctly. -- Joolz 15:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
All of the newspapers have different print sites. Hence The Telegraph is different here in Manchester (Trafford Park Printers) than the West Ferry version in London. Indeed, the Guardian is called 'The Guardian (North)' - however the differences are so slim that listing every single variation of a newspaper here is the wrong place to do so. Perhaps details of the Guardian North and Telegraph variation should be printed on The Guardian page? In addition, some areas of the country get the early 1st edition, some the 2nd edition and some the final 3rd edition. In Bury (Lancs) I get the 2nd edition of the Times and FT, but the final edition of the Telegraph and Guardian. --Mrclarke 07:31, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

'1.1 Serious papers '[edit]

Can we not come up with a more appropriate name? I know we can't really call them 'broadsheet' anymore, but to call them serious implies that the others arent. Whatever our beliefs about the other papers, they are serious. Robdurbar 14:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Isle of Man[edit]

I've removed this bit as the IoM is not in the United Kingdom. For the record the three listed papers were:

Isle of Man[edit]

--Robdurbar 22:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Local newspapers[edit]

The incomplete list of local newspapers is substantially too large in scope for this article. Pretty much every locality in the UK has a local paper, and I would suspect that the list is nowhere near complete, yet is already too large. I haven't just been bold and deleted them in case there is some project or precedent that I am not aware of but I am sorely tempted to remove the list, perhaps retaining only the most notable/those with wikipedia articles. MLA 10:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

As this is a list page, my view is that it is not yet too long. if & when it is, the better thing to do, I think, would be to seperate it into a series of pages. But certainly not remove it. As it is, we have only scratched the surface of the number of papers in the UK. --Tagishsimon (talk)
  • Yes, we should definitely move the Yorkshire papers (and any following lists of regional papers) into a series of separate articles; this single county is already dominating the page and would almost lead one to believe that Yorkshire was a constituent country on a par with Scotland.Polocrunch 13:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
This section on Yorkshire newspapers seemed just to be a verbatim wikification of the source website. Is it needed at all, rather than just a hyperlink to the external site with all this information on? Matthew 14:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

lists and encyclopedias[edit]

Since when do encyclopedia articles amount to lists ? This article need replacing with an article about the British press. Johncmullen1960 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Lists can be encyclopedic, wikipedia has a section on them at WP:LIST. This isn't a great example as the information could be captured in a category so it's not especially value adding. MLA 08:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed - History of British Newspapers website[edit]

I have removed the History of British Newspapers website because of a Page not found notice. Kathleen.wright5 01:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

National and Scottish newsapers[edit]

In the listing it gives "national papers" then "Scottish papers", however, if my memory is correct. The English daily newspapers, which are normally published in London and Manchester, do not normally circulate in Scotland. While editions produced for Scotland are published in Glasgow and Edinburgh as separate publications, even if they have the same ownership as those English titled publications. In some cases there may be additional printing plants used, for example Inverness, but that would be the same publication as produced in Glasgow. Looking at the local list for Worcestershire, there are about ten weekly papers, including the oldest continuously published weekly newspaper, since 1690, also the daily "Worcester News". I'll come back to the topic another day when I've put more details together. 81.174.167.128 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Brian

See List of newspapers in Scotland - The Scottish editions of the nationals are AFAIK basically the same as published in England, but with the word Scotland on the front page and the odd Scottish related article replacing England related ones. Jooler 00:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Please check if the newspapers have articles or they do not. I am German and haven´t dared to do that but there are surely mistakes. e.g.: The Daily Mirror on this side in contrast to Daily mirror on the special side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.146.24.66 (talk) 21:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Regression[edit]

Two users have taken the 'liberty' to undo improvements that were made a while back:

  • Middle-market papers have been re-merged into "Tabloids".
  • "Serious", later "'Serious'", has been changed back to the highly POV "Quality".

Why?

Maybe the latter term could be better phrased as "Papers focused on serious journalism". What do you people think? -- Smjg (talk) 12:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


General Tidy-up[edit]

I think this page could be improved by creating a general index page for Newspapers in The United Kingdom, then having link entries that take the reader to several pages, e.g:

England - National Morning Papers

England - provincial daily papers, morning and evening

England - Weekly paper by county

Scotland - National Morning Papers

Scotland - daily papers, morning and evening

Scotland - Weekly paper by county

Wales - National Morning Papers

Wales - daily papers, morning and evening

Wales - Weekly paper by county

Northern Ireland - National Morning Papers

Northern Ireland - daily papers, morning and evening

Northern Ireland - Weekly paper by county


Then a note, to the effect that Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are not part of the United Kingdom, but include links to pages that have their newspapers:

Isle of Man newspapers

Guernsey Newspapers

Jersey Newspapers

There are many newspapers in England that are not listed.

Brian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brian426uk (talkcontribs) 18:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Metro being "National"[edit]

The Metro is listed as "working towards national status, wide availability in the major cities makes it the UK's 4th highest circulation paper." How can it be included in the "National" section if it is only working towards national status?

Until it is available throughout the UK, as with the other "National" papers, it should only be described as Regional.--86.132.232.235 (talk) 12:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Surely a "national" paper means one that is available across the "nation" - which Metro is. It just happens to be an urban national paper, so you can't get it in the countryside. But where I live there are no shops so you can't actually get any papers locally - so if availability is the arbiter, there are no "national" papers, which would be a nonsense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.38.254 (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

first paragraph[edit]

As well as being verbose, the tone is lofty and POVish. The initial "Traditionally" has that tone and reflects the subjective nature of the comments. The assertions may not be based on research either. What's more important about the British press is its age, extent and national nature. There's also excessive emphasis on sheet-size, which is no longer an indicator of the type of content. Such old-man stuff might appear on a separate page about sheet-size. What matters are things like readership, circulation, distribution, content, law, regulation and the press's relationship with broadcasting and the web. Under Wales we have "Newspapers focused on serious journalism" which is highly POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.103.145 (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Financial Times[edit]

I suggest stating that Viscount Cowdray and the Pearson family have a stake in the Pearson group, publisher of the Financial Times, and citing The Sunday Times Rich List. Alekksandr (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Now done. Alekksandr (talk) 16:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)