Help the Star
Fantastic local magazine, The Salford Star, is so strapped for cash that there’ll be no Christmas issue and they can’t print until they get more cash. Sadly the council refuse to fund them – <irony>after all it’s wrong to spend council tax-payers’ money on a publication that isn’t ‘balanced’</irony>. Why not show your support by bunging them a bob or two?
http://www.salfordstar.com/p/donate.html
You could even pay for a subscription and guarantee them a little income:
http://www.salfordstar.com/p/subscribe.html
The City’s independent and authentic media needs you.
8:59 pm on November 24th, 2008
Any chance anyone can lend me a fiver for my blog’s upkeep?
9:04 pm on November 24th, 2008
You can blog for free – the answer is no.
9:24 pm on November 24th, 2008
Okay serious question now…
Any idea how much the Salford Star needs in regard of its immediate financial concerns?
I am minded to slip Mr. Kingston a wad but in all honesty I’d need to feel reasonably confident that all of the monies required would come in on time – otherwise I might be giving my money to no avail (and that’s not my style). I’m willing in principle to donate to the Salford Star, despite the fact that I don’t endorse all (or even much) of what I understand its Editorial political persuasions to be, simply because what I do like is its integrity ‘heart-on-its-sleeve’ journalism, but I am not going to hand over money only for it to be lost in a ’so-near-and-yet-so-far’ scenario.
Nobody wants John Merry to be deprived of his favourite magazine – especially the Christmas issue – so I do hope the Salford Star can keep going. If people don’t want to talk about saving the mag in public then you can drop me a line on email [those who know, know] because I would like to help IF the magazine’s future is viable (but I’m not chucking good money away casually).
9:34 pm on November 24th, 2008
No idea of the amounts needed – see here: http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-west-media-features/special-features/penniless-salford-star-on-hold,-as-kingston-slams-life-200811244087/
9:47 pm on November 24th, 2008
Mmm… ta for that link Steve. I do agree that something needs to be done. It especially brings home the ‘natural justice’ of saving the Salford Star when one considers the issue side by side with John Merry and Salford Labour’s appalling and cynical propaganda rag Life in Salford.
9:29 pm on November 29th, 2008
Steve,
I’d be interested to know by how much a Lib Dem run Council would be willing to subsidise the Salford Star?
Take it as a given that the Star would treat the Liberals or Tories, if they ever got into office, with no more respect than they do Labour at present.
It would be churlish of me not to say that the Star does have it’s positive aspects. However the question remains: why should a Council of any political colour spend public money propping up a publication that is incredibly negative about Salford in general, and the Council in particular?
Tom.
2:03 am on November 30th, 2008
Tom,
Why should taxpayers’ money be spent on the Council’s Life in Salford magazine, when it is clear for all to see that it is:
(A) Labour Party propaganda, [and is consequently]
(B) Full of useless crap?
Let’s face it, we could probably get the readership of Life in Salford into John Merry’s front room… at least people want to read the Salford Star (and also the Advertiser, and the Lindley, Carvath and Cooke blogs).
Why is Salford Labour spending £175,000+ of taxpayers’ money on a magazine that only John Merry reads? He gets a bigger readership with Private Eye… perhaps John might better spend our money for us in that publication?
___________________________
P.S. Here’s John’s 15 minutes of fame in Private Eye:
“Merry Dance”
“Another council bigwig who has his spending priorities sorted is Salford’s Labour leader, John Merry. He wants to spend £175,000 increasing the size and frequency of the council’s pisspoor propaganda sheet, LIFE IN Salford, which is rightly consigned to the recycling bin by most residents as soon as it arrives. Part of the dosh is meant to come from ‘a redirection of spend on recruitment and public notices advertising’ – ie freezing out any independent publications that do not toe the council’s line.”
“Merry’s claim that LIFE etc is ‘politically neutral’ has been blown away by the resignation of Lib Dem councillor Steve Cooke, who complained that it was nothing but ‘a propaganda vehicle for the cabinet… an often misleading… relentlessly and unjustifiably upbeat publication.’”
“Opposition Tories ‘called in’ the decision and overturned it with an 8-1 majority at a scrutiny committee meeting, only for Merry to plough on by taking it to full council later this month… where Labour’s inbuilt majority will enable it to be forced through.”
[Private Eye, page 11, issue 14-27 Nov 2008]
9:09 am on December 1st, 2008
For the record the actual figures are a saving of 30k off the advertising budget and a cut in the cost of salford life of 25k. not that I expect the truth to get in the way of Richards little rant.
9:33 am on December 1st, 2008
Tell us the total [direct and indirect] annual cost to the public purse of the Life in Salford magazine for the first year (post expansion) please… You might care to provide an accurate breakdown of the total sum so we can see exactly what is included (or not, as the case may be).
Life in Salford is now going to cost the taxpayer how much? (And kindly don’t swindle anybody with talk of ‘advertising revenue’ if it’s coming from a public sector [taxpayer funded] source). The Labour Party might back the magazine but does anybody else in Salford? Whatever the cost, we all know it’s an appalling waste.
10:09 am on December 1st, 2008
gone from a lttle rant to a big one I see! I will explain very simply. The advertising has to be paid for whether it goes in life or annother publication. This is advertising that we legally have to do . if it goes in life not only does it reach more people but it saves us money . All the figures for life were given at the full council meeting.
2:43 pm on December 1st, 2008
I’m not a councillor and I wasn’t present at the meeting of full Council at which the propaganda magazine was considered and voted upon. Therefore I will defer to any opposition councillor (or Labour councillor) with all the figures and a direct witness of the full council proceedings to argue over the figures and their significance with you on this blog, if indeed any councillor is willing to do so, given such persons’ consideration of the prudent use of their time and energy, since the decision has already passed and there has already been plenty of blog debate on the propaganda magazine.
I defer to Steve Cooke or Iain Lindley or any other councillor who wants to ‘go for glory’ with an in-depth analysis of the minutiae of the figures as given at full Council; I wasn’t there, I can’t comment to best effect.
12:54 pm on December 3rd, 2008
I’m currently swamped with work, casework and a dissertation, so I’ll respond briefly. Firstly, the figures are far from clear, so it’s hard to make reasoned judgements about them (and, as with the pink rink decision they seem deliberate obscure). However, my objection is far more to do with the content of the publication and the hypocritical approach to other media outlets. Secondly – I’m pretty peeved right now that commitments made by cabinet members during the debate that other council publications would be scaled down and have their content moved into Life so as to cut costs and avoided duplication are already being denied. The Council’s rag is often as much about persuasion and influencing opinion as it is about informing residents. The latter I don’t mind – the former I object to.
In response to Tom: I’ve said to Stephen Kingston, that I value free and independent media, whether it’s saying nice things about me or not. An independent press are a vital part of a functioning democratic society. Secondly, the council seems to have reacted to negative coverage out of spite: changing rules and moving to make information more difficult to obtain, which is pathetic.
As far as I’m concerned – the Star may be negative about Salford and the Council (and justifiably so in many cases), but it is extremely positive about Salfordians, and it accurately represents the view of a huge number of people in this City.
And just a as a final point: council funding appears to be helping to people to become ‘community reporters’ via new media outlets through the Salford Innovation Forum. The council joined with the University in buying the Forum, and John Merry chairs the New Deal for Communities board which funds the room the ‘Social Media Centre’ works from. That group is part of the ‘People’s Voice Media’ group.
So why is it OK for the council to fund dozens of in-house magazines and publications; to approve funding for community groups to produce newsletters and magazines; to fund a local radio station (by providing office space and £210,000 of funding); to fund new media outlets like PVM, the Social Media Centre and the council’s own service provision for community groups, and yet at the same time deny funding to the Mary Burns’ Community Group?
Why is it OK for the Hazel Blears to bleat on about how important an independent media is for democracy and at the same time watch from the sidelines as the City’s only ever independent magazine struggles to pay for a print run?
The City’s cultural strategy is all about making big noises about the creativity in Salford – but it looks very much like that creativity must be sanitised before it’s allowed to flourish.
I have no problem with a council refusing to fund a publication – so long as the playing field is level; so long as the rules are consistent; long as it isn’t saying one thing and doing another; and so long as decisions are not motivated by narrow political agendas.
10:46 pm on December 3rd, 2008
please withdraw the last comment . I do not chair the new deal board nor have I had a hand in deciding the tenants of the forum. Which council pubcations are you refering to in your statement? Really steve not for the first timeyou should check your facts.
9:22 am on December 4th, 2008
My mistake – you are deputy chair of the NDC Partnership Board. The bottom line is media outlets are being funded directly and indirectly by the council.
Which council publications? Life IN Salford, On IN Salford, Business IN Salford, LifeTimes Link, and the numerous community committee newsletters etc.
There must be a special school that politicians go to where they teach you to avoid addressing substantive issue through distraction and focussing in on the most minor parts of an argument.
12:01 pm on December 4th, 2008
I thought we had made it that the community newsletters would not be incorporated into life and indeed the financial savings we have identified are not dependant on that. I am not trying to obscure the issue but the council has not to my knowledge received any specific examples of bias in life nor have you taken advantage of an offer to come in and discuss the issues . The lib dems have said they wish to retain the seat on the editorial board so I am at a bit of loss as to whether your resignation is personal or on behalf of your party.
12:20 pm on December 4th, 2008
Now you are getting yourself in a a muddle:
1) the subject of repetitious content from community newsletters and other publication was raised at the council meeting by your cabinet members and it was specifically said that there were plans to draw together as much content as possible into one publication.
2) The Lib Dems have said no such thing about retaining a seat on the board: I have made our position clear – we want nothing to do with it in its current utterly pointless form.
3) I will not be taking up any offer to come and discuss things because I have a) made our position clear, b) raised concerns before, and c) have no faith whatsoever in a willingness to listen for change in the Cabinet.
11:04 pm on December 5th, 2008
norman declined at the council meeting to give the place up . in view of what you have now said I will be seeking clarity as to whether you or Norman speaks for the lib dems on this matter. if you wish to give it up I will then offer it to the tories and after that to Cllr Ainsworth.
I note the continuei absence of any specific examples of bias and you could of course take any issues to the Chief Executive rather than the Cabinet. Accusations that we won’t listen are a little hollow if you won’t talk and I understood that you wish to make proposals for the reform of the editorial board.
it seems that the accusations of bias gained ground as the financial arguments by the opposition crumbled.
11:09 pm on December 5th, 2008
Oh and by the way we made it clear at the council that following aconsultation in which there was currently little support for incorporating community newletters into life we would not be doing so. Further proof that we listen
12:26 am on December 6th, 2008
Well Mr.Merry as we don’t receive the Community Committee Newsletter or indeed any Salford Rag it appears you don’t really want to communicate with residents in Salford.
The councils website is woefully out of date, minutes and agendas for meetings are never published,a breach of the Council’s publication scheme, and you think your experts in communication.
I very much doubt any party would want a seat on an editorial board, which has refused to listen to the will of the people.
Give the communication job to the STAR I say
8:17 am on December 6th, 2008
I have thought about your failure to receive the magazine and the only possibility I can think of is that you live in a block of flats and that the post office wrongly are delivering them to a communal area. I did invite you to tell us about your problems but you chosd not to communicate with us! ln contrast I had a good dialogue with the vertical village residents group who do not always see eye to eye with me and we have arrange to meet. Why not follow their example?
8:21 am on December 6th, 2008
You may not be aware that the Tories are on the editorial board already. I will offer them an additional seat if Norman and Steve can agree they want to give it up. .
10:19 am on December 6th, 2008
Oh and you make assumptions to Mr.Merry I dont live in a block of flats, and if you are paying Royal Mail to deliver propaganda then they are required to deliver them to the individual letterbox, just as much as you have a duty to ensure that they are being delivered.
Still silent on the lack of minutes and agendas on the councils website for last weeks East Salford Community Committee aren’t we.
I hope you enjoy the dialogue with Vertical Villages what a shame you haven’t supported other schemes such as Adelphi. Vertical Villages have no mandate to say they represent residents. Perhaps you could ensure residents have a copy of their constitution, which has been denied. I am all in favour of the Youth Offending Team moving into the former local office, no NIMBYISM here
12:46 pm on December 6th, 2008
I agree they should deliver to all I was just trying to work out why you were not geting it. Not aware that I have not supported Adelphi. I have no idea why the minutes and agenda were not on the council website I do know every member of the committee was notified.
7:48 pm on December 6th, 2008
Not every member was notified more blatant lies. By not publishing the minutes and agenda and indeed the location you kept the meeting closed to other local groups, al ittle political clique.That is not the point there is a legal requirement for all minutes and agendas to be published and as Leader I would have thought you would have been interested, but of course your not. But these Committees are just an extension of this undemocratic council and ever more political.
I just hope that £18,000 is given to an undemocratic group when Adelphi has been asking for years for similar support.
3:24 pm on December 7th, 2008
if you have evidence that a recognised group was not notified then provide me with the evidence but please don’t call me a blatent liar when I have nothing to do with the notification. if there is a problem shall we try and fix it?
4:48 pm on December 7th, 2008
Are you now saying that Community Committees are only for recognised groups? Surely not they are meetings opened to the general public and as such have to be advertised. If you as Leader of the Council are unable to ensure that this is the case then I give up. I have already made my view known and perhaps an article will appear in the next STAR about the whole set up.
Perhaps if you wish to fix it ask the officers to update the web site and ensure it is done regularly thereafter
5:37 pm on December 9th, 2008
Steve,
I agree with you about the need a free and independent media in a democratic society; however would point out that most free standing publications in the media work on the basis that they will be a commercial success – either via advertising revenue or sales. If the Star cannot manage this, why should it continue? As Tony Benn put it – if you can’t find money for your ideas, then you really should give up before you’ve begun.
On your second point, I disagree completely. The Star is very negative about Salfordians in general – often premising its interviews with questions that border on the abusive; in one article assuming that theft from Salford Precinct was a past time that most Salfordians would approve of!
It does make a few valid points and can be creative in its presentation, but the overall tone is “everything round here is crap – let’s all blame the Council” – which is not only intellectually lazy journalism, but a slur on all the great men and women who built this City in the past, and those that make it the unique place it is today.
Please don’t even get me started on the irony of the remarks about narrow political agendas – if the Star didn’t have a very narrow agenda of it’s own it might find it much easier to get backers who would fund further editions.
Tom.