Talk:Metro (British newspaper)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


"Distribution"

The paper is distributed in Derby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.234.52.34 (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Metro International, a different company, originally planned to launch in the UK but Associated Newspapers effectively beat them to it."

I'm not so sure about that. Metro International did publish a UK freesheet for a brief period (around 1999-2000 - possibly earlier). It was called Morning News and was given away free in Tyne and Wear Metro stations (in fact I think it was called Metro originally, changing its name to Morning News some time after the Newcastle edition of the 'blue top' Metro first appeared). I'm not sure if it was circulated more widely - though there may have been a Manchester edition if I remember rightly. Does anyone know more? AdorableRuffian 23:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can remember a time when there were two free morning papers in Manchester. One of them was called the Manchester Metro but I can't remember the name of the second. At the time some radio advertisements for the the former claimed the latter was London based. Adzz 16:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've added information regarding the 'green' version of Metro International on the Tyne & Wear Metro around 1999 to the section. I'm glad someone else remembers the old green version! Will try and find a reference for it somewhere online. It definately did exist, they published a letter I wrote once! :) BNC85 (talk) 11:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this in the "National" newspapers of the UK? Its coverage is not complete, and is only centred on urban areas. There are many areas of the UK where Metro is not available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.66.190 (talk) 15:39, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section[edit]

Full text of deleted criticism section:

Criticism and accusations of political bias and hidden advertising

Metro claims it is different from most other UK newspapers because it takes a determinedly independent line on political reporting. However this is highly disputed if one examines its daily content and considers that Metro is owned by the same media group as the Daily Mail, which has a strong fiscally conservative, right wing bias. Metro's size and format follows that of UK tabloid newspapers rather than broadsheets with extremely large headlines, large photos and relatively short articles. Metro's editors make very clear choices on which topics it will emphasize on, which information it considers news, and what will be omitted. Comparisons of Metro with tabloids and broadsheets published on the same day will almost always results in Metro's content and style being very similiar to the tabloid.

Often throughout the year, the front page of Metro will feature alarmist media stories on illegal immigration, asylum seekers, large photos of accused (but often not yet convicted) criminals of various non-white ethnic minorities and overt bemoaning of any price increases in goods or services it claims will affect large numbers of people. Space for almost all (non UK related) international news is often limited to half a page within the newspaper and these items themselves are shortened to only a few sentences, while celebrity gossip often covers numerous pages. Metro also has an obsession with over emphasizing the amount of small local violent crime in Britain with its continuous daily articles covering individual cases of Antisocial behaviour, violent assault and murders, which are often covered in the minutest detail. Despite these daily alarmist headlines, often upon closer anaylsis of the actual articles, the reader will discover that the crime itself occured months or even years ago, and the article is instead detailing court or legal proceedings which are in still in course.

In addition to this Metro has been accused of producing advertising disguised as news articles especially in conjunction with upcoming films or new websites. An example of this came with the release of the latest James Bond film Casino Royale in which the newspapers published numerous "news articles" and 2 page "news spreads" on spies, spying, and spy gadgets. Also, in November of 2007 a full page "news" article was dedicated to the pornographic website youporn. Amorfati00 (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion:

The "Criticism" section is unsourced and does not seem a Neutral Point of View. Chemical Engineer (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the newspaper itself. The fact that it owned by a media group that publishes right wing biased newspapers is well documented and is in the intro to the article. The large photos and headlines, short articles and the fact that the editors will decide what items it considers newsworthy are all self evident in any edition of the newspaper itself. The full page article on youporn was published in November 2007. For the other facts mentioned, all you need to do is read all the articles in any UK edition for one week and you'll see them yourself. In each day's edition you can count the number of articles dealing with local murders, assault and crime in general and examine their content to verify if they are recent events, of which many are not. I welcome others to add more specific examples from the newspaper itself.Amorfati00 (talk) 13:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For example: "Metro has been accused of producing advertising disguised as news articles " what is the source for this?. I don't disagree with your opinion, but this is not the place for opinions.Chemical Engineer (talk) 16:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the YouPorn article was a feature about the website, not a news article or an advertisement - all features in newspapers or magazines are about people or products, this was a feature in the MetroSexual section of the paper. And in what newspaper do the editors NOT decide what is and isn't newsworthy, this is certainly not a trait exclusive to Metro! Xvht 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) xthl[reply]

So, let me understand you correctly... you are saying that a full page feature "article", on a blantantly hard core PORNOGRAFIC website, in a FREE newspaper, which is freely distributed to children (if they pick it up) is acceptable ???? Any other respectable newspaper would get an enormous ammount of reader letters criticizing such obvious form of propaganda, but Metro seems to think it is ok?!? Under what criteria (other than advertising) does Metro think this a topic meriting a full page article???? Amorfati00 (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think the paper is 'distributed' to children, and the MetroSexual page is quite obviously aimed at adults. The page is about sex, and the article was about sex, just as all the other articles on the sex page are, week after week. It's a part of life, just like the topics of the other feature pages (green, cars, web etc). And I thought your criticism was aimed at how right-wing/conservative the paper was... not morally corrupt. It does rather seem like this is all your opinion, which is fine (although I disagree). But this is the place for fact, not opinion.

Oh, and if readers didn't complain, doesn't that mean that maybe they thought it was ok? Xvht (talk) 10:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not just about a general adult topic. Its about ONE specific website which does NOT merit a full page article. My criticism is not soley based on the political orientation of the paper but also on claims of hidden advertising, and that is follows a strict tabloid format with tabloid-like "news" articles. Amorfati00 (talk) 13:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it follows a tabloid format, it is a tabloid newspaper - what format do you think it should follow? I fail to see how calling a tabloid a tabloid is a criticism. Regarding the YouPorn article, maybe you think one website doesn't justify a full feature, but there are lots of features out there about Facebook or Google. It might not be what you personally want to read about, but it is not advertising (no more than a theatre review is an advertisement for a play), nor is it a news article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xvht (talk • contribs) 15:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, Metro is not distributed to children in the same way that it is not distributed to adults. However, Metro is distributed on stagecoach buses and are stocked in the morning before the bus goes out (as you'd expect), depending on the county, many of these buses may also fulfill a school bus role in the morning. I cannot speak for every school/bus/newspaper, but in derbyshire, on my particular bus journey, picking up one of these newspapers was a normal thing to do. So much so, that the bus had none left when we arrived. This was the same for every other metro carrying bus i knew. SO the only easily accessible (and likely to be paid attention to) news source for children is the Metro newspaper... for derbyshire anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.51.47 (talk) 00:30, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Metro v Daily Mail[edit]

The Metro chooses to run a lot of stories that have clearly been re-worded from the Daily Mail including identical photographs to accompany the articles. To claim the Metro is centrist is false because it is clearly a right-wing paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.39.48.238 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Political alignment[edit]

I've deleted the claim of no political allegiance. The only source for this appears to be the Associated newspapers own claim of editorial independance, the same claim they make for the Daily Mail and Evening Standard. Mighty Antar (talk) 00:46, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on (fairly) regular casual reading over the last couple of years, it definitely does seem to me like a "Daily Mail Lite" - rather demotically right-wing and padded out with "celebrity" gossip. I'm frankly surprised at the high claimed ABC1 readership level. It's certainly worth what you pay for it... --Kay Dekker (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It probably does have quite a high ABC1 readership level, but thats simply because its handed out free to everybody who boards a train in the morning, and when you're bleary eyed, on a train at 06:30 heading for work, and pretty much bored in a packed carriage you tend to just read whatever is handy. For that reason, Metro is the perfect propaganda tool - you can just drip-feed the message day after day, and it will slowly worm its way into people's minds. You don't even have to worry that they might not buy the thing....unless you have the purpose of mind to refuse a copy, and most don't, the machine will work.

Suggest addition to the article[edit]

I happened to be looking for an answer to the question of who owned the metro and wiki seemed like an obvious choice but this info seemed to be missing.

As it happens I think the addition of this information would serve to answer and resolve questions/disputes about bias by pointing out in a neutral way who owns the paper. It's also impossible to argue that the information is irrelevant.

Metro is owned by DMG media, sources include the metro website http://metro.co.uk (in the footer) and the DMG site http://www.dmgmedia.co.uk/about-us (in the body of text). Note that on the DMG page where it discusses ownership of the brand it also relates ownership of some other well known titles.

Suggest creation of an "Ownership" section with a short piece of descriptive text citing the above links as evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.225.89 (talk) 10:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Agree Many other newspaper articles have sections for ownership where one parent company/group or individual(s) own a large number of titles. SamanthaFinmore (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Metro (British newspaper). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Metro (British newspaper). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Metro (website)[edit]

Redirected, feel free to merge anything in that merits mention, I could not actually see anything. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Not notable on its own, for lack of independent WP:SIGCOV, but there is some salvageable content in the article to place into the main Metro article. TheMagikCow (T) (C) 15:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue the topic Metro_(website) does belong in an article:

(1) Developments in the news market in the last few years - most importantly the decline in print revenues and the rise of smartphones - have seen the closure of printed newspapers across the world, and the simultaneous rise in importance of online news publications. Sites that began as web supplements to printed papers in the early days of the Internet have now matured into titles in their own right, with their own organisations, content and styles of communication. Some (like independent.co.uk) have grown to entirely supplant the print title they used to accompany, joining web-only titles like Buzzfeed, Mashable and TechCrunch as self-sustaining publications. The proposal to fold Metro (website) into Metro (British newspaper) reflects the former state of things. Metro.co.uk is a separate entity from Metro (British newspaper), with a different staff, editorial line and character. There is no co-ordination between the two titles. For comparable examples, see the individual articles for I_(newspaper) and The_Independent and the articles for Mail_Online and the Daily_Mail, which are likewise separate titles.

(2) Metro.co.uk is now (16 June 2017) the 6th most visited UK news website, with 2.2 million readers a day. This makes it important enough for an article.

(3) I'd dispute the idea that the article lacks independent WP:SIGCOV supporting its notability. A full set of independent, reputable references is provided to attest the facts covered in the article, including several articles solely dedicated to the topic. Andfinally (T) (C) 18:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, but the other way around. It's just the website of the already established newspaper, it shouldn't be separated. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Metro_(British_newspaper)&oldid=1208301149"