December ABC figures: it doesn't look good

Sales all down except for Guardian, Telegraph, Financial Times.

The Guardian, FT and Daily Telegraph all ended 2012 on a high note, with small month-on-month circulation increases. But sales of every other national newspaper were down year on year.

Sales of the UK’s top-selling daily The Sun fell by 10 per cent year on year as it competed with cut-price sales from the previous year, while the Daily Mirror kept its rate of decline to half that figure.

Most of the biggest year on year falls in the Sunday market were due to the distorting effect of the closure of the News of the World in July 2011.

Looking at the sales averages for 2012 as a whole, the Daily Mail and the Daily Mirror were among the best-performing titles in relative terms, keeping their print sales declines to 6 per cent and 6.6 per cent respectively.

UK national newspaper sales for December 2012 (source ABC)

National dailies

Average sale

Month/Month

Year/Year

bulks

Daily Mirror

   1,034,641

-0.99

-5.27

                 -

Daily Record

     250,096

-1.39

-8.89

          1,822

Daily Star

     540,548

-3.47

-12.32

                 -

The Sun

  2,277,809

-3.55

-10.00

                 -

Daily Express

     529,096

-1.52

-11.29

                 -

Daily Mail

   1,844,569

-1.44

-7.54

        91,361

The Daily Telegraph

     547,465

0.19

-6.74

                 -

Financial Times

      286,401

1.60

-14.19

        29,815

The Guardian

     204,222

0.31

-11.25

                 -

i

       291,311

-3.66

31.39

       65,239

The Independent

       78,082

-1.25

-34.69

        18,371

The Scotsman

       32,463

-0.83

-16.00

         2,368

The Times

      396,041

-0.82

-3.18

        17,100

Racing Post

       45,372

-1.70

-9.34

              63

 

 

 

 

 

This story first appeared on Press Gazette.

Year-on-year sales were down for December. Photograph: Getty Images

Dominic Ponsford is editor of Press Gazette

Getty
Show Hide image

The Manchester attack will define this election: Broadcasters have a careful line to tread

It's right that the government should be given a chance to respond, but they must not be allowed to use it to campaign.

Every election campaign has its story, its place in the political history of this country. 2017 will forever be known for Manchester and the horror of the attack on Britain's young; and fighting terrorism will be a theme, overt or underlying, of what we see and hear between now and polling day.

The broadcasters have covered the events comprehensively yet sensitively. But they are aware that we're in an election campaign too; and when other news drives aside the carefully-balanced campaign formats, ministerial appearances give them a dilemma.

The fact is that what the Prime Minister and Home Secretary are doing in response to Manchester is newsworthy. It was Theresa May's duty to implement the recommendations of her security advisers on the elevation of the terror alert, and it would have been unthinkable for the news channels not to broadcast her various statements.

But it is also true that, if the bomb hadn't been detonated, Tuesday would have been a day in which the PM would have been under relentless damaging scrutiny for her u-turn on social care. All the opposition parties would have been in full cry across the airwaves. Yet in the tragic circumstances we found ourselves, nobody could argue that Downing Street appearances on the terror attack should prompt equal airtime for everyone from Labour to Plaid Cymru.

There are precedents for ministers needing to step out of their party roles during a campaign, and not be counted against the stopwatch balance of coverage. Irish terrorism was a factor in previous elections and the PM or Northern Ireland secretary were able to speak on behalf of the UK government. It applied to the foot and mouth epidemic that was occupying ministers' time in 2001. Prime ministers have gone to foreign meetings before, too. Mrs Thatcher went to an economic summit in photogenic Venice with her soulmate Ronald Reagan three days before the 1987 election, to the irritation of Neil Kinnock.

There are plenty of critics who will be vigilant about any quest for party advantage in the way that Theresa May and Amber Rudd now make their TV and radio appearances; and it’s inevitable that a party arguing that it offers strength and stability will not object to being judged against these criteria in extreme and distressing times.

So it's necessary for both broadcasters and politicians to be careful, and there are some fine judgements to be made. For instance, it was completely justifiable to interview Amber Rudd about the latest information from Manchester and her annoyance with American intelligence leaks. I was less comfortable with her being asked in the same interview about the Prevent strategy, and with her response that actions would follow "after June", which edges into party territory and would be a legitimate area to seek an opposition response.

When the campaigning resumes, these challenges become even greater. Deciding when the Prime Minister is speaking for the government and nation, or when she is leader of the Conservative Party, will never be black and white. But I would expect to see the broadcast bulletins trying to draw clearer lines about what is a political report and what is the latest from Manchester or from G7. They must also resist any efforts to time ministerial pronouncements with what's convenient for the party strategists' campaign grid.

There might also usefully be more effort to report straight what the parties are saying in the final days, with less spin and tactical analysis from the correspondents. The narrative of this election has been changed by tragedy, and the best response is to let the politicians and the public engage as directly as possible in deciding what direction the nation should now take.

Roger Mosey is the Master of Selwyn College, Cambridge. He was formerly editorial director and the director of London 2012 at the BBC.

0800 7318496