Crosswords1 min ago
What papers do you read?
I read the other day that which newspaper a person's reads is a good guide to their beliefs. Is that true ? Gromit claims to read the Telegraph but I would think the Morning Star was more likely. Sorry Gromit if that's wrong but that's the impression I get.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by modeller. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think most papers DO endorse particular parties as a matter of fact, particularly at election time. The Independent, as far as I am aware, does not. Of course that doesn't mean that it doesn't have lots of opinions expressed within. Maybe the majority of those are left of centre - I don't think they try to be balanced - just independent. There's a difference. If they come across as left of centre then I think that is by accident.
Papers might back a horse at election time, but most of them won't explicitly make a party political point outside of that - they're usually more interested in their bigger-picture ideology. Or sometimes they'll just refrain from doing it when they don't need to because their 'horse' holds policies they've been critical of in the past. Or that seems to be the case among the 'quality' press anyway. As far as I can remember, the Mail, for instance, doesn't tend to back any particular party - it seems pretty critical of all the major ones (though it's not critical of all them equally to be fair), but it is a very right-wing paper. The Independent really isn't much more independent than the rest of the press is. Which isn't to say it's a bad paper or anything, just that it's a fairly normal one. And yes I think it does tend fairly unambiguously towards the centre-left. I'd be interested to see if other ABers agree with me, but that's certainly seems to be the perception among commentators on the media:
If the Church of England is (or was) the Tory Party at prayer The Daily Telegraph is the Tory Party in print!
The Mirror supports Labour, the Sun the Tories, having temporarily signed up to New Labour. The Express previously supported Labour but I'm not sure they even know which are the main political parties any more (The Madeleine McCann and the Princess Di parties perhaps :-) )
The Morning Star used to be the paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain, but is now independent while still of course very much left wing.
The Independent prides itself on being "above all that" which is a laudable objective and I am pretty sure does not tell its readers who to vote for at elections. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the paper as seems to adopt a rather "tabloid" mentality to many issues. I remain to be convinced that it comes across as left of centre on a regular basis and I am certain that it is the intention of its editor, in keeping with previous editors, that it should not be. Its owner of course is Russian - and he would certainly know all about trying to maintain an independent stance in a difficult environment given his experiences of newspaper ownership in his own country.
The Mirror supports Labour, the Sun the Tories, having temporarily signed up to New Labour. The Express previously supported Labour but I'm not sure they even know which are the main political parties any more (The Madeleine McCann and the Princess Di parties perhaps :-) )
The Morning Star used to be the paper of the Communist Party of Great Britain, but is now independent while still of course very much left wing.
The Independent prides itself on being "above all that" which is a laudable objective and I am pretty sure does not tell its readers who to vote for at elections. Personally I'm not a huge fan of the paper as seems to adopt a rather "tabloid" mentality to many issues. I remain to be convinced that it comes across as left of centre on a regular basis and I am certain that it is the intention of its editor, in keeping with previous editors, that it should not be. Its owner of course is Russian - and he would certainly know all about trying to maintain an independent stance in a difficult environment given his experiences of newspaper ownership in his own country.
Last year it did quite openly profess (admittedly limited) support for the Liberals:
http://www.independen...e-missed-1962527.html
You can also check out this MORI poll of newspaper readers during each election from 1992 to 2010 - while not completely, it seems Independent readers do swing to the left a little on average:
http://www.ipsos-mori...922010.aspx?view=wide
I take your point about red-tops, but I'm not sure the high-end press are quite as partisan as you're making out. The Times isn't particularly partisan, but is slightly centre-right. Though I guess what you're saying is true of the Telegraph. But I still think my point stands. A paper backing a horse at a general election is fairly common (and kudos to the Ind for refraining by and large), but what I mean is consistent 'x party is AWESOME' vs 'x party is TERRIBLE' themes in papers. They tend to be fairly critical of all parties which don't meet whatever their political ideals are even if they usually support them at elections - as, for instance, the Guardian would often do with Labour.
http://www.independen...e-missed-1962527.html
You can also check out this MORI poll of newspaper readers during each election from 1992 to 2010 - while not completely, it seems Independent readers do swing to the left a little on average:
http://www.ipsos-mori...922010.aspx?view=wide
I take your point about red-tops, but I'm not sure the high-end press are quite as partisan as you're making out. The Times isn't particularly partisan, but is slightly centre-right. Though I guess what you're saying is true of the Telegraph. But I still think my point stands. A paper backing a horse at a general election is fairly common (and kudos to the Ind for refraining by and large), but what I mean is consistent 'x party is AWESOME' vs 'x party is TERRIBLE' themes in papers. They tend to be fairly critical of all parties which don't meet whatever their political ideals are even if they usually support them at elections - as, for instance, the Guardian would often do with Labour.
Kromovaracun:
Yes it is unusual for a paper, esp a "quality" one, to go hammer and tongs for one particular party. Perhaps the Indie feels justified in backing a party, however coolly, when there's an actual election on.
At the risk of being too controversial, I'd say that the so-called quality papers probably assess their readers as being more intelligent than do the "red tops" their own readers and maybe consequently the latter feel more justified in trying to influence their readers more. I often wonder if this applies in particular with the Daily Mail (lights blue touch paper and retreats :-) )
Yes it is unusual for a paper, esp a "quality" one, to go hammer and tongs for one particular party. Perhaps the Indie feels justified in backing a party, however coolly, when there's an actual election on.
At the risk of being too controversial, I'd say that the so-called quality papers probably assess their readers as being more intelligent than do the "red tops" their own readers and maybe consequently the latter feel more justified in trying to influence their readers more. I often wonder if this applies in particular with the Daily Mail (lights blue touch paper and retreats :-) )
That's true, but there is absolutely stacks of evidence suggesting that the structure of the news industry is stifling to the degree that reporters are often incapable or unwilling to check their facts - hence the high proportion of news stories which are simply recycled from PR agencies or newswires.
If you'd like an extensive catalogue of this evidence, I refer you to 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies (ignore the rather sensationalist title - the research in it seems pretty solid). Alternatively if you'd rather not shell out for a book and are willing to tolerate slightly iffy lip-sync, you can see Davies give a lecture on the subject at GoogleTalks which gives an overview of much the same ground:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiE1_Z74cBs
If you'd like an extensive catalogue of this evidence, I refer you to 'Flat Earth News' by Nick Davies (ignore the rather sensationalist title - the research in it seems pretty solid). Alternatively if you'd rather not shell out for a book and are willing to tolerate slightly iffy lip-sync, you can see Davies give a lecture on the subject at GoogleTalks which gives an overview of much the same ground:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiE1_Z74cBs
modeller - a distant relative was killed in a car crash. The complete rubbish some of the papers printed about the cause of death - that the person had been 'frightened to death' - before there had even been a PM - shocked me, as I hadn't realised that they just made things up if there wasn't much news that night and they wanted to have a sensational headline to sell the maximum number of papers. I must point out that some of the papers presented the facts sympathetically and sensitively - especially the local paper and the paper in the nearest city.
Jonny think you will find they have stopped printing The Sport
http://www.editorsweb...sport_say_goodbye.php
http://www.editorsweb...sport_say_goodbye.php
