Earlier on this week, a new ‘standalone’ national newspaper was launched, the first, it is claimed, in thirty years. The title is called ‘The New Day’, and despite the fact that it sounds like a religious group’s newsletter, its aim is to attract people who have stopped buying newspapers by giving a brief rundown of the day’s news in an easily and quickly digestible format.
Exactly like the i newspaper then.
However, having bought the second issue of the paper, published on 1st March, I can confirm that it is unlike anything else on the market. It’s even completely different to the i, because whereas the i contains news, The New Day doesn’t.
It’s marketed as a newspaper, but in reality it’s anything but. I’ve searched high and low for any news in it and all I can come up with is fifteen one or two paragraph items on pages two and three, very similar in style to pages two and three of the i. But whereas the i will elaborate on a story later on in the paper, these stories just stop there.
Strangely for a newspaper, that is as much news as you’re going to get. And what they do report is not even any decent news either – for example: a woman who recently gave birth goes to the gym; a man denies stalking a newsreader; actor John Hurt will soon be acting; a comedian gets mistakenly arrested whilst only wearing pants.
As for the remaining thirty-eight pages, it’s mostly full of magazine-style, time-unspecific articles. Its leading story about the dangers that paramedics face whilst on duty could have been published anytime in the last ten years and will probably be relevant for the next ten too.
There’s a discussion about racism in politics; statistics about the Oscars; a report about a new bionic leg for one of the people injured in the Alton Towers ‘Smiler’ crash; an argument regarding parents cheating the system to admit their children to good schools.
In fact, apart from three very oddly placed sports pages, split in the middle of the paper on pages 16-17 and 26-27, everything else is not relevant to that day’s news. Or the previous day either. It’s just one magazine article after another.
Most people read newspapers to find out the latest news, hence the reason why they are called newspapers. If I had read The New Day without having any previous knowledge of world affairs, I would still not know what was happening. I’d get more information from reading the bible.
Therefore, until it contains any news, it should not be called a newspaper. It’s a magazine that just happens to be printed on paper. A magapaper perhaps? Or a paperzine?
Looking for a reaction to The New Day’s launch on Twitter, negative comments from the public were countered by questioning the judgement of readers who have only given it just the one issue to form their opinions – just like me, in fact.
Sadly, this is a bit of a shallow argument and also an admission that they have published a rushed and unfinished product. If the quality is going to improve, why publish it now in the first place? Why not wait until it’s made properly?
Launching any new publication is difficult and improvements are always going to be made, but reading one issue certainly gives a flavour of the product. When I read the first issue of the i, I could immediately see that it was a well thought out, well written publication that showed class and quality, all of which can still be said of it now, despite some of the changes that it’s made over the years.
The New Day however – if it stays in its current guise – feels like a half-arsed, careless, disjointed, unfinished newspaper made by untrained staff having a bit of a play.
And for this, we will be asked to pay a regular cover price of 50p. It currently costs a trial price of 25p, but will be doubled in a few weeks. And at 50p, it’ll cost 10p more than the i, its nearest competitor.
Even now, at 25p, it’s not worth the money. At 50p, it’s just daft. I don’t understand who is going to buy The New Day, especially at that price. For less money, you can have the i, a newspaper that people buy because it leaves you feeling informed, enlightened and satisfied at a competitive price. And people read the Metro because it’s free. But 50p for a paperzine that achieves none of the above means that it’ll probably not be around for long.
However, I do hope it is successful though. Given that its remit is to get people reading newspapers again, it cannot be a bad thing.
And if The New Day is successful, it will be great for the newspaper industry; their readers will soon find out that there are other, proper newspapers out there.
And they’ll read those instead.
Anthony Phillips 