Talk:The Morning Star
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Morning Star is also a name for Lucifer, or Satan. In a poem? In a book? Where? Wetman 05:02, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- That's what "Lucifer" means, isn't it? (Metaphorically, anyway) Adam Bishop 05:03, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
-
- "Lucifer" means light-bearer, but the Morning Star" reference is all over the place. I did a Google search with "Lucifer" "Morning Star" and got 9800 hits. Of course, not all of them apply, but you might take a look at http://www.fortunecity.com/greenfield/bp/890/lucifer.html RickK 05:10, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Folk theology again. Lucifer = absinthe, etc. No matter. Wetman 05:18, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Its concise and wide-ranging reports of foreign and national news often cover events overlooked by the mainstream media, but it is entirely free of the celebrity gossip and other trivia that infest all the other national dailies to varying degrees.
was changed to
Its reports of foreign and national news often cover events overlooked by the mainstream media.
with the message "removed POV".
The fact is that the articles are concise (the whole paper is rarely longer than twelve "tabloid" sides) and they are wide ranging (e.g. today's paper carried reports about a riot by poultry farmers in China, a court case involving Greenpeace in the USA, and news from Uganda and Venezuala as well as the usual headline stuff about Iraq and Palestine). It is also a fact that the paper is entirely free of celebrity gossip and trivia. It is a further fact that all the other national dalies do go in for celebrity gossip and trivia, to varying degrees. These things are all true. If somebody can come up with a way of saying those things without appearing to be praising the paper, please do so. Meanwhile I am restoring the original wording, except for the word "infest", which I concede was POV. GrahamN 03:55, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] bankrolled by the KGB
Is there a source for this statement? I wouldn't be surprised if (in fact I'd expect that) the Soviet Union made donations to the Star, but saying it's the KGB isn't fair, IMO. Dafyddyoung 19:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Odd fact?
The only daily socialist newspaper in the world? Surely those countries with socialist governments have dailies? --Oldak Quill 01:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
Well, actually, what about News Line? Probably most Morning Star readers disapprove of it, but it is undeniably a newspaper, it seems to be published daily, it is certainly in English, and it's hard to see how you could say it wasn't socialist. I'm adding a qualifier to the article. GrahamN 03:21, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Editorial line
"Formerly Communist". Formerly? The article says that "in elections the party endorses the Communist Party of Britain". Consequently, the paper can only be considered formerly Communist if the political party is also so considered. (By the way, does the M Star still refer to North Korea as "People's Korea"?) I know its strapline says it's "for socialism", but Communist parties and papers have always described themselves as socialist - there's nothing new about this. In fact the countries that we call Communist countries always denied being Communist states, because according to Leninist ideology they were socialist states (merely on the transition to Communism), not Communist ones. -86.134.53.173 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually the strapline is "For Peace and Socialism". This is a slogan that was also widely used by the Communist Party of Great Britain and has been the strapline of the Daily Worker/Morning Star throughout it's history.
- Ecadre 15:38, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
As regards your first point, you may well be right. I've seen it argued that the CPB aren't really communists at all, but reformist social de
mocrats who have usurped the imagery and jargon of communism. But in any case the paper is by no means a mouthpiece for the CPB. There are as many articles by Labour politicians, Greens, Scottish and Welsh Nationalists, Friends of the Earth types and even (annoyingly) various species of clergy, as there are by people who label themselves "communists", whatever they (or you) may choose understand by that emotive word. If you are determined to judge people, its far better to judge them according to what they actually say and write than according to what they choose to call themselves. Don't you agree? GrahamN 02:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
- I've edited the "Editorial" section to more accurately represent the relationship between the Morning Star and the Communist Party. It's a rather complicated area and the previous description was not correct in saying that there is no connection. For instance, by tradition, the Editor of the Morning Star sits on the Political Committee of the Communist Party.
- Ecadre 12:35, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The reporting of the news never refers to North Korea as "People's Korea", nor does it do the same thing for China, Cuba or Vietnam. The comments sometimes come from a Communist who is sympathetic to these countries, but such pages are supposed to be opinionated; that's their whole raison d'etre.
[edit] JamesE edit
It has been said that the reasons for why 11th September was on page 2 are incorrect. However, I get the Morning Star delivered everyday, and it is true that foreign news is always on page 2 and 3 and on 4 for Saturdays. What's wrong with this?
- The reason for my edit is that I actually work at the paper and have done for several years, so was able to get a denial of this straight from the editor, deputy editor _and_ foreign editor. It's true that foreign news is always on pp2-3, but this doesn't mean it's never on the front page - Saddam Hussein's capture went on the front, for instance. September 11 didn't go on the front for various trivial technical and production-related reasons - nothing to do with some imagined disrespect towards America, which was why I have taken the claim out again. JamesE 23:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
