« Threat to Newport Jobs | Main | Readers' revolt »

May 16, 2007


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Flynn

Thanks Janet,

Look forward to future messages.

A fellow MP has sent a letter from one of his constituents that the Argus refused to publish. I do not know the person but the letter makes serious points underming the Argus' new campaign on miners. I have very doubts about this (see past blogs) and refusal to print very fair criticism suggsets that the Argus is running the campaign as circulation gluttons not as friends of the miners.


The first comment endorsed Paul's view that David Davies breaking wind gets a higher profile than a Newport politician campaigning for Newport's jobs.

The second comment removed simply asked why the other comments had been removed.

I didn't keep the original post but will copy all my other posts in future, knowing they have an outlet on this thread/blog/comments or whatever it's called!


I have found the Argus to be highly inaccurate, often unable to get the most basic facts correct. In a recent tribute to Rosie it had the wrong school, and I have seen it lable Mr. Flynn as the MP for Newport East on regular occasions. It is time they checked their facts.

marcus warner

I dont think it is talking out of turn to see that the argus has a right-wing bias...

As someone who regularly puts out press releases to the argus, and getting to know a few staff there, i cant really have any complaints with regards my own work. However, it has been prone to printing inaccuracies and leaving out crucial information, but that is life.

On the surface it does appear that David 'two and half jobs' Davies gets a very high press release to story ratio though.

Any paper must be willing to utilise the internet and accept the beast as it comes, a very double edged sword is the medium formally known as the information superhighway, and the argus must at the very least be consistent.

Welcome to the blogsophere Mr Flynn...

Paul Flynn

Dear Jim,

Could you let have copies of your comments that were removed by the Argus?


There's something fundamentally wrong when it allows all the racist comments to stay on the site in the name of free speech, but removes comments that simply question its standards or politics. The net is already eroding its monopoly on Newport news and long may it continue.

Paul Flynn

That's fascinating Stardust and Jim.

I know they cut letters critical of themseleves of -in my case- edit them to take out key comments or punchlines. Perhaps we can have a section on my site of messages removed by the Argus. It should be interesting.

Contributions warmly welcomed.


Yes I've noticed this too. I posted twice today on two separate stories both of which have now been removed. In fact the story this blog focuses on has had all the posts removed and you can no longer comment on.

Puts paid to the statement that the Argus does not monitor comments.


Another string to the Argus bow is that they regularly remove any comments criticising their editorial standards from their website - as this one has been. Fair enough, it's their website after all, but they will allow libellous comments about everyone else like the police, council and private businesses to remain for their "thousands" of web viewers.

The comments to this entry are closed.