Paper Monitor
12:50 UK time, Thursday, 19 February 2009
A service highlighting the riches of the daily press.
Back in October, Paper Monitor discussed the tying of the knot between Starbucks and the Guardian. The cappuccino conquistadors evidently felt liberal was the way to go, dropping the Times as their paper of choice and consummating their new relationship with a series of free coffee offers for Guardian readers.
So did the appearance of the company's logo on the front page of today's Guardian trumpet further frappuccino freebies? Alas no - it was merely to draw readers to the Guardian's treatment of a story featured in most of the papers detailing Lord Mandelson's reported four-letter rebuke of Starbuck's chairman, Howard Schultz, who had given a dismal review of the UK's economy: "Latte Wars" read the enticing promo.
Inside, on page six, Mr Schultz's comments - that of all the countries Starbucks operates in, the economy of the UK is causing the company most concern - and Lord Mandelson's football-fan riposte (reportedly "who the f*** is he?"), are used as a jumping-off point for a two-page spread analysing the relative economic performance of the countries the company is present in, and the fall-out from the spat.
What's going on here? A more cynical reviewer than Paper Monitor might raise an eyebrow at the number of prominent Starbucks' logos featured in the large cross-page graphic (eight) and the relative importance given to the story (two full pages).
Paper Monitor has lost its column inches tape measure, but by way of rough comparison: the recently jilted Times restricts itself to a short precis of the story, buried on page 19. The Daily Telegraph gives ever-so-slightly bigger billing on page 10.
Meanwhile a less cyncial reviewer than Paper Monitor might ponder that the Guardian went the extra mile in fully reporting this story, exactly because it wanted to demonstrate it was editorially robust enough not to be swayed by commercial interests.
Being neither more nor less cynical than those particular reviewers, Paper Monitor naturally (actually) has no view. But is very amused that, whether it wanted to cosy up to Mr Schultz or not, the Guardian managed to spell his name wrong. Twice.
The 
