Great Western Coffee Shop

Virgin Trains drops Daily Mail as it deems paper 'not compatible with our beliefs'

Virgin Trains has stopped stocking the Daily Mail in its on-board shops or providing it in first-class carriages, saying it has decided the paper is "not compatible" with its brand and beliefs.

[...]

"Thousands of people choose to read the Daily Mail every day. But they will no longer be reading it courtesy of VT [Virgin Trains]. 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."

Source: PR Week (https://www.prweek.com/article/1453993/virgin-trains-drops-daily-mail-deems-paper-not-compatible-beliefs#S5rdoVP5JvjoRCXX.99)

Theyve never offered it on train....and to avoid any confusion, this only refers to West Coast too

That's what I thought. The last time I travelled on Virgin West Coast First class the complimentary paper was The Guardian.

I think this is a bit of publicity stunt by Virgin that could end up being an own goal. People don't like being told what to do so it wouldn't surprise me if there were more people than usual reading The Daily Mail whilst travelling on Virgin trains today.

Whilst signalling on Britain's railways is fragile and unreliable it's good to see virtue signalling thriving.

Very kind of Branson to help his customers decide which newspaper they should read.

The Daily Mail hasn't been banned from his trains. Those who wish to read the hate filled rag can still buy one before boarding.

Does that include top-shelf magazines too?

:D Does anyone still buy those when it's so freely available online?

:D Does anyone still buy those when it's so freely available online?

For the record, I don't read the Mail, or the Sun, Morning Star, Railway Magazine, The Beano etc etc but I'd defend to the death the right of anyone who wished to, wherever they choose to, whether or not I agree with the content or the readers.

Doesn't that comment also apply to the Daily Mail then?

Good point Chris. Also applies to The Guardian too which is losing money hand over fist.

Newspapers often supply free or heavily subsidised copies to large organisations who wish to give them to customers. The theory is of course that some of those customers will like the free newspaper and purchase copies in future.

For the record, I don't read the Mail, or the Sun, Morning Star, Railway Magazine, The Beano etc etc but I'd defend to the death the right of anyone who wished to, wherever they choose to, whether or not I agree with the content or the readers.

It also appears on the official circulation figures for the paper that justifies the advertising rates.  So the deal was they probably had to deliver it.

Up to a point. The ABC is very precise about how it counts freely circulated copies (https://abcstandards.org.uk/free-copies/free-requested-delivered-copies), and advertisers are presumably not easily fooled.

ABD list lot of different kinds of free copy, but as far as I can see none of them applies to national newspapers, for which this is the reporting standard (https://abcstandards.org.uk/images/National_Newspapers_Reporting_Standards.pdf).

However, that doesn't appear to exclude all free copies by defining them, only by not including them where ABC has a definition elsewhere that does. So, for example, Waitrose don't give you free papers, but a discount off your bill equal to the paper's cost. I've always assumed that was a way of getting those copies into ABC figures, but does that trick really work?

You're quoting a standard, and I'm quoting a defined term. Let's call the whole thing off ;)

When ABC figures are published (whether for national or, to the extent that such things still exist, local newspapers) the figures are usually simplified into 'paid for' and 'free' circulations. I'm sure if you paid the ABC's fees and read their full report (which you would, if you were an advertiser), you'd get all the details of the various nuanced forms of free circulation; even Waitrose's apparant leger de main.

Anyway, fascinating though all this is it will be as relevant as the telephone box in a few years.

And I'd defend to the death the right of any retailer to chose what they stock. And their right to say why they've chosen not to.

Hmmm - if only the press (Indy included) would report that it wasn't a bail-out of VTEC.

Been to Liverpool & tried to buy the Sun?

Guess you're unsupportive of that ban then?

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 .

If a major chain of news agents refuse to sell a popular newspaper, then that IMO is getting a bit too like censorship.

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

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.

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, 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.

 

.........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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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.

...a cartoon in one of his newspapers that likened a chimpanzee to President Obama?

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

I wasn't suggesting you were. I was referring to the false equivalence between Virgin's approach to the Mail, and the Guardian's Branson story.


Really? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_McMurtry

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/virgin-trains-daily-mail-richard-branson-twitter-newspapers-sell-policy-a8159446.html

Well that lasted along time didn't it  :D :D

Virgin Trains to resume Daily Mail sales

Virgin Trains is to reverse its decision to stop selling the Daily Mail on its West Coast services.

Virgin Group boss Sir Richard Branson said he instructed the firm to restock the paper while a review takes place.

Virgin Trains had said the decision came after "feedback from our people". But Sir Richard said he was unaware of the move and the operator must never be seen to be "censoring" customers.

The Daily Mail said it welcomed the "support for freedom of speech".

In November, Virgin Trains staff were told in an internal memo "considerable concern" had been raised about the Mail's position on issues such as immigration, LGBT rights and unemployment.  The memo added the paper was "not compatible" with the company's beliefs.

Last week, Virgin said it regularly reviewed its on-board products and it had never sold the newspaper on its East Coast trains, which is under the management of Virgin and Stagecoach.  Virgin West Coast services run between London, the Midlands, the north-west of England and Scotland.

In Sir Richard's statement, he said the chairman of Stagecoach, Sir Brian Souter, was also not aware of the decision.  "Brian and I agree that we must not ever be seen to be censoring what our customers read and influencing their freedom of choice.  Nor must we be seen to be moralising on behalf of others. Instead we should stand up for the values we hold dear and defend them publicly, as I have done with the Mail on many issues over the years."

Sir Richard added a full review of Virgin Trains' sales policy would be carried out but this should not "single out individual media titles".

A Daily Mail spokesman said it welcomed the "support for freedom of speech, which is a cornerstone of our democracy, and his decision to instruct Virgin Trains to restock the Mail.  "We are sure the many Mail readers who travel on Virgin Trains will be delighted."

The paper described the original decision as "disgraceful" and suggested it had been taken for "political reasons".  It had said it "may be no coincidence" the other titles remaining in stock were "like Virgin owner Sir Richard Branson... pro-Remain".  The Mail had taken the opposite stance during the EU referendum.

The decision by Virgin Trains had also attracted criticism from Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who described it as "censorious and wrong".

When asked about the issue, both a Downing Street source and Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said they backed a free press, while noting the choice of products sold by Virgin Trains was a decision for the company.

,it's gratifying that Beardie has acknowledged his error and reversed his position.

Not his error. The 'error' was on the part of more principled managers, with a better moral compass, at Virgin Trains.

The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.

Schenck v. United States