it's newspaper war!

September 4, 2006 1:24 PM

Today is the day that Rupert Murdoch started trying to kill off the Evening Standard^ by launching thelondonpaper, a free evening paper. But Associated, publishers of the Standard (and London's fake Metro^, too), rushed out their own free paper, London Lite, last week -- the same tactic they used against the London Daily News^ back in 1987. In 2006, why is London having a newspaper war? And considering that it's Murdoch vs. the publishers of the Daily Mail, who should we be cheering for, exactly?
posted by reklaw (23 comments total)

It's quite scary sometimes, when I travel in to work every morning, to look at every single person opposite me in the train carriage and find they're all reading Metro. So I for one would welcome at least one other paper on the 0853.

If I were Pinky or The Brain I'd consider putting in hypnotising newsprint so I could take over London.
posted by randomination at 1:32 PM on September 4, 2006

Er, what exactly is fake about the meto? I mean, I know it's super-lightweight, and also not very good, but "fake"?
posted by Artw at 1:40 PM on September 4, 2006

Artw: this Metro is the real one. London's Metro is published by Associated, who also publish the Evening Standard and now London Lite. They basically rushed it out with the name 'Metro' to snatch away the tube distribution contract, not to mention the UK rights to the name.
posted by reklaw at 1:43 PM on September 4, 2006

'Fake' Metro? I don't get that. 'Tis a well-read freebie.

I saw the 2 freebies being given away tonight in Moorgate but after a quick glimpse of the front pages of both I paid 50p for the Standard. The Metro is good enough for light/lite news in the morning but somehow more in-depth news post-work seems more suitable. How else are we to make sense of the latest terrorist attack/threat due to Blair's criminal actions in Iraq?

And if it's a fight to the death between Murdoch and the Mail, here's to a bloody stalemate.
posted by movilla at 1:47 PM on September 4, 2006

^
^
^
^
posted by caddis at 1:47 PM on September 4, 2006 [2 favorites]

They basically rushed it out with the name 'Metro' to snatch away the tube distribution contract, not to mention the UK rights to the name.

Really? I've read both versions (in London, New York & Boston) and their pretty much undistiguishable.

And stop with the fucking Chevrons.
posted by cillit bang at 1:48 PM on September 4, 2006

they are carets
posted by caddis at 1:54 PM on September 4, 2006

> considering that it's Murdoch vs. the publishers of the Daily Mail, who should we be cheering for, exactly?

Is the Beaver still dead?
posted by jfuller at 2:08 PM on September 4, 2006

Cillit, if an item uses another's name and is designed to look like the other, but isn't in fact associated with the other, that's pretty much the definition of a fake.
posted by Hogshead at 2:08 PM on September 4, 2006

Like Kissinger said about the Iran-Iraq war, it's a pity they can't both lose.
posted by greycap at 2:09 PM on September 4, 2006

caddis, we get it already. You don't have to do it every time, that's just being rude; it adds nothing, detracts from the conversation & beats a dead horse.
posted by jonson at 2:10 PM on September 4, 2006

The caret is so special that it shouldn't be wasted merely on Wikipedia.
posted by caddis at 2:20 PM on September 4, 2006

Good one, greycap.

For all his faults, Kissinger does have a sense of humour.
posted by Flashman at 2:32 PM on September 4, 2006

He didn't launch it, it says "beta." Apparently this is what you get when you buy the Minds Behind MySpace.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 3:20 PM on September 4, 2006

My preferred historical analogy would be Stalin v. Hitler in 1941. Stalin is very bad, but at least he's a single evil person. Hitler is an evil philosophy.

Similarly, Murdoch may be a manipulative swine and a ruthless operator who unashamedly uses his influence to buy political power and suppress dissent*, but he's just one guy.

His opponent is the Daily "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" Mail, which has a long and ignoble history of racism and rabble-rousing, moving from Jews through Poles to the asylum seekers of today. Anything that gives the Daily Hate a bloody nose works for me.

*allegedly
posted by athenian at 3:38 PM on September 4, 2006

Have to disagree with you Athenian. Even using you charactersiation of the Mail, its more like Hitler and Franco - both are morally objectionable, but if you have to get rid of just one you choose the bigger, aggressively expansionist one first - which means in this fight one should back the Standard. Equally, the Standard has never shared the Daily Mail's editorial line - so it is a little harsh to tar them with the same brush.
posted by prentiz at 5:03 PM on September 4, 2006

This newspaper war, if it is that, is probably more important than I realize.
posted by Vindaloo at 5:54 PM on September 4, 2006

who should we be cheering for, exactly?

The readers.
posted by jon_kill at 6:30 AM on September 5, 2006

^
posted by alasdair at 6:42 AM on September 5, 2006

I dream of a newspaper war. In my city, we get to choose between the Murdoch daily or the national Murdoch daily. On wednesdays we get the suburban Murdoch weekly, while on thursdays we get a Murdoch glossy.

There is a weekly independent, but it's full of fake gig reviews, fake music reviews, fake gallery reviews, movie reviews written by failing liberal arts majors, and advertising.

Truly, we've been outfoxed...
posted by Pinback at 7:08 AM on September 5, 2006

Equally, the Standard has never shared the Daily Mail's editorial line


That's increasingly not the case: not for nothing the Standard is nicknamed Baby Mail by many.


(Though historically the Standard hasn't always been part of DMGT so you might want to let it off.)


Surely the win-win for haters would be both firms to keep going to the bitter end, and both Murdoch and Rothermere lose multimulti millions as a result?
posted by blastboy at 9:40 AM on September 5, 2006

Why do you have to cheer for one side or the other? That's just a completely foriegn mentality to me.

I mean, if you see two high school football teams playing and you've never heard of either, do you have to pick one to root for? Why do you care?
posted by nyxxxx at 2:25 PM on September 5, 2006

Cause one team will rape your sisters and mothers, the other will just murder everyone.
posted by movilla at 4:40 PM on September 5, 2006