Last week the South Wales Guardian used its front page to expose the Council's attempt to financially cripple the independent weekly paper for publishing a couple of articles mildly critical of County Hall. (See South Wales Guardian blacklisted by Carmarthenshire Council)
As the story spread nationally, the council, (as it does), hi-jacked its press office to attack the paper and its editor, Mike Lewis. In the bizarre tirade, the council claimed its decision to withdraw advertising was purely for 'commercial reasons' due to the low circulation of the paper, but went on say that the critical comment piece, which appeared to have sparked the ban, was the latest in a long line of 'biased and unbalanced' articles.
Mike Lewis has this week hit back at the council and published an email mistakenly forwarded to the paper by council staff, it confirms the council withdrew its advertising back in July and had nothing to do with 'commercial reasons'.
He says;
In a further article the defiant editor challenges the council's statements and also suggests that the 'beef' with the paper does not, as many suspect, originate from the council's press team itself.
He says;
Mike Lewis also includes an opinion piece in which he questions the council's obsession with negative stories and the low threshold of tolerance, shown by County Hall to any criticism, however mild;
![]()
As the story spread nationally, the council, (as it does), hi-jacked its press office to attack the paper and its editor, Mike Lewis. In the bizarre tirade, the council claimed its decision to withdraw advertising was purely for 'commercial reasons' due to the low circulation of the paper, but went on say that the critical comment piece, which appeared to have sparked the ban, was the latest in a long line of 'biased and unbalanced' articles.
Mike Lewis has this week hit back at the council and published an email mistakenly forwarded to the paper by council staff, it confirms the council withdrew its advertising back in July and had nothing to do with 'commercial reasons'.
He says;
"... the authority’s press manager Debbie Williams ordered colleagues to pull advertising following a Guardian story describing town council fears that the Quay Street regeneration works would not be completed by Christmas.
“Due to the continuing negative publicity by the Guardian,” she said. “I do not think we should be placing adverts with them until this issue is resolved. Please could you cancel the ad Diane had planned in the meantime.”
That comment leaves little doubt that the decision was not a commercial one."
In a further article the defiant editor challenges the council's statements and also suggests that the 'beef' with the paper does not, as many suspect, originate from the council's press team itself.
He says;
"We anticipated County Hall’s response to last week’s front page – and did not have to wait long.The county council’s statement– which can be read in full on this week’s front page – describes the notion of an advertising blackout as “nonsense”.But where’s the beef? Where are the hard facts to support this bizarre 565-word tirade?The council says it is “astonished to have read so many incorrect statements on the front page of the Guardian”.
List them.
Biased and unbalanced coverage in a long list of articles?
Name them.
Numerous complaints and many discussions with myself?
Then show us the correspondence or e-mails to illustrate this supposed litany of conflict.
Never managed to establish any kind of working relationship with the Guardian under my editorship?
Wrong again – the Guardian actually has a very good relationship with the local authority’s press team, all of whom are experienced journalists and one or two I count as personal friends.
Like me, they will find the notion of council press officers quaking at the prospect of another call from ‘The Ogre of the Guardian’ – this fearsome and ruthless individual dedicated to shining his torch of truth into the darker recesses of County Hall – highly amusing..."
Mike Lewis also includes an opinion piece in which he questions the council's obsession with negative stories and the low threshold of tolerance, shown by County Hall to any criticism, however mild;
".... wouldn't its energies be better spent tackling the enormous challenges our county faces, including education reorganisation, the off-loading of public amenities and the future of social care?I'm pleased to see the overwhelming support for the paper in its letters page today, (not online). There is also a lengthy missive from Council leader, Kevin Madge. He describes the paper as 'politically biased' and its reaction to the Sainsbury's press release as 'hysterical', and he again accuses the Plaid MP and AM of being complicit in the destruction of 250 job opportunities. Mike Lewis responds strongly to the accusation of political bias and reminds Cllr Madge of their previous excellent working relationship, he says;
Let’s be honest, the two recent articles that raised their hackles were hardly the stuff of Fleet Street! The July article on town councillors’ concerns about the major redevelopment of Quay Street was a straightforward account of a town council meeting.
Our September 19 editorial highlighted the council’s much-criticised Sainsbury’s press release, which resulted in council leader Kevin Madge being reported to the ombudsman...."
"The furore surrounding that bloody Sainsbury's press release appears to have changed all that. I haven't seen or heard from Kevin since. So, as he's clearly mislaid my number, perhaps he can address a question I have been repeatedly asked in the past week...how can he continue to remain silent while his home town paper is being damaged by the actions of County Hall?"
