If Virgin has to sell all newspapers to its customers, then all newspapers should have to run a range of opinions

Does the Daily Mail offer its readers the freedom to choose from a wide range of views, or show tolerance for those it disagrees with? Of course not

Richard Branson’s decision to reverse Virgin Train’s recent exclusion of the Daily Mail from its roster for its West coast rail customers will be seen by many as a victory for freedom of speech. This was certainly how it was presented by Branson, who wrote that the “decision to no longer sell the Mail has not been seen to live up to principles… of freedom of speech, freedom of choice and tolerance”.

It is certainly a victory for the Daily Mail, who used their considerable influence to put pressure on Branson, accusing his company of “censorship”. But it leaves many asking the question: how is it that the Daily Mail ends up being associated with “freedom of speech, freedom of choice and tolerance”?

One of the many ironies of this story is that the Daily Mail supported the rail privisation that made Virgin’s original decision possible. Had the railways remained in public ownership, the matter would never have arisen. A private supplier like Virgin, on the other hand, can (and do) choose to stock whatever they like.

Indeed, to force private train companies to carry a particular newspaper selection would be just the kind of state interference the Mail so often rails against. The Mail steadfastly resists any attempt to regulate newspapers, so it can hardly argue that the state should intervene in its favour and oblige a private company to stock it.

Stymied by a privatised rail network, the Mail was, ideologically speaking, well and truly hoisted with its own petard. Sensing a chance to make this point the Mail’s bête noir Jeremy Corbyn immediately committed to reversing any such bans in a future nationalised railway network.

But it is worth pausing for a moment to reflect whether the Daily Mail itself practices “freedom of speech, freedom of choice and tolerance”. Does the Daily Mail offer its readers the freedom to choose from a wide range of views, or show tolerance for those it disagrees with? Of course not. The 4^th Viscount Rothemere is free to appoint whoever he likes to edit the Mail, and that editor (Paul Dacre) is free to promote his right-wing views by favouring certain stories. That is how both would interpret the phrase “freedom of the press”.

The Daily Mail has a strong anti-immigration and pro Brexit editorial policy. The former journalist Liz Gerard has documented in comprehensive detail the sheer volume of the paper’s anti-immigration coverage. In 2016, the Daily Mail and the Express “printed 1,768 pages that included at least one such story, making an average of more than three per issue for the Mail and two for the Express. If every page were laid side by side, they would stretch for a third of a mile”. Needless to say, the coverage was “overwhelmingly negative”.

In much the same way, the Daily Mail, along with most other Brexit supporting newspapers, offers its readers a highly partisan account of politics or public affairs. But whether on the EU, immigration, taxation, privatisation or the environment, the Mail reguarly fails to offer its readers a choice of all the facts or opinions.

So how is that a train company making a political choice to choose some information over others is branded with censorship, while a newspaper that excludes stories that do not align with its ideology becomes the epitome of a free press?

The answer usually given at this point is that people can choose to read a more balanced paper if they want. Except they can’t – amongst mid-market national newspapers at least, the only other option is the Express, which is as editorially right-wing as the Daily Mail. And the overall political colour of our national press is tilted firmly to the right.

The truth is that the most of our national newspapers reflect, first and foremost, the views of their editorial standards, not public opinion. If newspapers can decide what stories they want to run, why can’t train companies decide what newspapers they wish to sell?

A version of this piece first appeared in The Conversation.