Talk:Chester Chronicle

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Newspapers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Newspapers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Newspapers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NewspapersWikipedia:WikiProject NewspapersTemplate:WikiProject NewspapersNewspapers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Chester's Guide to...[edit]

Hmm. I remember the campaign well and I'm curious to know what these 'false statements' were. Here [1] is the article in question - please use it to verify your statements. Ericatom 17:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practically all assertions of the campaign were false. It was not a pedophile's website. It was not a real guide to child abuse. What they had found was an article intended to be humourous. I'm going to translate the German article. --Eldred 09:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Eldred 09:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Chronicle article again. It doesn't say it's a "paedophile's website" (ie. a website owned by a paedophile), it says it's a "paedophile site" (ie. a site about or related to paedophilia). It doesn't say it's a real guide to child abuse. Chester's Guide may be "intended to be humourous" but it isn't. It's just sick. Censorship isn't the answer but if you're going to pick on newspapers for over-reacting to stories they don't really understand, why start here? Ericatom 10:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My interpretation of "paedophile site" apparently was an English weakness on my side, the classification is still misleading. The article does depict the text as a real guide or at least strongly suggests this by stating "amongst its contents are: Tips on (...) Guidelines on (...) How to (...) How to (...)". Chester Chronicle didn't stop at giving an opinion on that website. --Eldred 11:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the fact the newspaper misunderstood the content of the site and took it seriously doesn't mean the campaign was based on 'false statements'. As such, I've removed that - I've also added a little balance. Ericatom 18:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality.[edit]

Since they sacked the editor who won all those newspaper awards, the Chronicle has really gone down hill. Something that should be mentioned in the article. It is just full of adverts and copy-paste press releases. The variety section is a joke. The top two lines are changed to say something about it "coming to Chester" the rest is just some agency copy. There is no more local news or court stories affecting the city, just lots of banal regional crap you can read in any Trinity Mirror publication throughout the same week. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.182.108 (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree. Appalling paper, just a shadow of what it once was. The demise has all the hallmarks of the, once powerful, Daily Express. If you ever see a DE copy from the 1960s it's incredible, like the New York Times. Nowadays it's just a tawdry rag owned by the pornographer Richard Desmond. Although the Chronicle, has not sunk that low, it still is a really shit paper. There is nothing to make it local. You used to be able to pick up a copy and read about people you knew, nowadays it's just tat put together by second rate hacks, as all the good ones have moved on because the pay is so bad at Trinity Mirror!! For instance, the front page this week (26 April 2012) is the startling revelation that a lawyer from the area is representing the family at the inquest of the dead spy (found in a holdall in London). Yeah I have to agree it's embarrassing, truly embarrassing. I would not be surprised if it closed shortly. I mean who honestly buys it nowadays!?109.150.45.11 (talk) 11:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree more. The shite from Cheshire West council is just printed without a single bit of journalistic ability. The paper is now just a local authority version of Prada. You ring up to complain only to get some smarmy fella talking double speak to you. How they can justify the price when it's just full of adverts on every page is beyond me!? I remember when it was a broadsheet and packed with news, now it's just another shitty generic Trinity Mirror offering. Won't be surprised if it closes down soon. No idea who buys it nowadays except those wanting to look at the property section (the only thing worth reading).31.53.165.98 (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Those comments are spot on. It might be almost 10 years but they proved to be correct! In 2019 the new owners Reach closed the paper offices for good in Chester. It's just a title in name now. At least the Chester Standard publishes local news. The website for the Chester Chronicle is now called cheshire-live, it clumps together all the news from Crewe, Natwich, Macclesfield, Northwich, Frodsham etc and calls it local news. The demise of the Chronicle is the epitome of what has happened to local journalism nationally. The writing was on the wall a decade ago, should be described as a former newspaper because its pages go unread considering the number of unsold copies I see everywhere nowadays.87.242.223.122 (talk) 12:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chester Chronicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160312083127/http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/47570544.pdf to http://www.abc.org.uk/Certificates/47570544.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]