Theresa May has announced a review into the future of the newspaper industry, warning that the closure of hundreds of titles was a "danger to our democracy". In a speech in Manchester, she warned that the decline of "credible" news providers left the public "vulnerable to news which is untrustworthy". The review will look into sustainable funding models for the printed press at national, regional and local level. The prime minister said high-quality journalism was a "force for good". "Good quality journalism provides us with the information and analysis we need to inform our viewpoints and conduct a genuine discussion," she said. "It is a huge force for good. But in recent years - especially in local journalism - we've seen falling circulations, a hollowing-out of local newsrooms, and fears for the future sustainability of high quality journalism." The review, whose chair will be announced in due course, will consider whether content providers are receiving a fair share of digital advertising revenue and how their data is collected and distributed by social media platforms such as Facebook and Google. There is speculation about further consolidation in the sector, the Mirror Group is currently in talks to buy the Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star from Richard Desmond's Northern & Shell. Last year there was also speculation that The Daily Mail was close to financial meltdown. The modern age suggests that less and less people are buying print copies when they have access to on-line news. However I do think that many people do not have Internet connections, and rely on TV. The press in France is very different to the UK, and with far more regional newspapers they do not print nearly so much political comment. Will newspapers become like glass milk bottles, or the coal man with his horse and cart? Will the power of the press barons lose their voices and influence with politicians? Just where can you get information that it not biased?
One of life's little pleasures is having breakfast and reading the morning paper. Don't get the chance much these days but always something to be enjoyed. You also don't see many people reading national dailies on the tube in the mornings. Everyone seems to be looking at a tablet or reading the metro. Not even many books on display. Still, each to their own
I doubt first of all whether there is any information which is entirely unbiased. How do we get more people to be aware of bias and to be more critical in the analysis of what they read, whatever the source, is a more important question for me. I have a daughter who has worked for the Express group for more than a decade and a relative who has just retired from 30+ years at the Guardian. Both have been expected to do twice the amount of work for the same money for several years. One consequence of this is that more information is lifted from elsewhere and less original journalism finds its way into print. I'm not convinced a review will dream up ideas to make newspapers profitable which the newspapers haven't already considered.
"Theresa May has announced a review into the future of the newspaper industry, warning that the closure of hundreds of titles was a "danger to our democracy". Well she's got a bloody cheek - it's her and her ilk who are the dangers to our democracy. Thirty seven national daily newspapers in Scotland, thirty six of which are owned by major donors to the Tory party, every one of which dances to her tune by, in company with BBC Scotland and STV, heavily attacking the Scottish Government, the SNP and the Scottish Greens on a daily basis with a mix of the sin of omission, ridiculous spin and downright lies. There appears to be no place for 'proper' journalism anymore. "The prime minister said high-quality journalism was a "force for good". "Good quality journalism provides us with the information and analysis we need to inform our viewpoints and conduct a genuine discussion," she said." What she omitted to say was that the 'force for the good' she mentions is actually her own party and no other. Her definitions of the terms 'high-quality' and 'good quality' journalism undoubtedly differ from the true definitions. She's absolutely correct in saying that it's necessary to inform viewpoints with information and analysis, and promote genuine discussion. That, however, simply does not happen - what does happen is that the media here are the rats to her Pied Piper. Genuine discussion, fuelled by accurate information and analysis, is simply impossible thanks to the misinformation and flawed analysis that she sanctions. You're correct about falling sales figures - numbers are dropping, in Scotland anyway, year upon year. Two of the worst hit are The Scotsman and The Herald - both notoriously pro-Union. Rather than access on-line versions of the papers, I think people are being a tad more discerning in how they access news - and do so via social media and blogs, as well as doing their own research. And, of course, issues such as Brexit and Independence see more and more attending political rallies and meetings.
Actually Dave, in some cases it's tomorrow's news. Many a press baron 'create' stories, feeds them to pet politicians and TV/Radio, who then run with them ad nauseum the next day - bombarding the airwaves whilst the politicians bombard social media, whilst the press do their bit via sensationalised offerings to their readers. Of course, when such stories are proven false, hardly noticeable retractions follow later & politicians simply clam up. Damage done, move on to the next story please...
A load of local papers are owned by groups - even the Jersey Evening Post and Guernsey Daily Press are owned by the same company.
If rags like the Sun and Mail cease to exist and their billionaire owners lose influence over ordinary people in this country I have to say it can only be a good thing. I don't suppose for one second TM has been influenced by the rich press barons in this. Apart from that, the horse has already bolted - paid for print papers can only ever continue to decline.
I think that in Britain the influence of newspapers will decrease even more in the near future. For the 'digital' generation the search for information is more targeted, simply by googling a particular theme, which means they are often not exposed to the complete span of what a newspaper has to offer. On the plus side this means that our youth are not as exposed to the trash the Sun and the Mail dish out. I somehow think that Britain has a surplus of tabloid newspapers, and a surplus of freelance journalists so desparate for stories that even Victoria Beckham's wardrobe becomes newsworthy. In contrast Germany has too many lawyers all desparate for work ! On the other side newspaper sales are increasing in countries where internet access is not so common. The best form of media was when the horseman rode into your village and pinned the news to a tree That way everybody would gather, and the literate would interpret for the illiterate, the tall relay info. to the short, and real communication would take place.
I do hope that you are using the term 'googling' as an 'all encompassing' verb & not encouraging everyone to use Google. Using Google will almost certainly produce information that is tailor-made for you - but the worry is, who is the tailor?
the BBC would point out that other search engines are available Ah - but what "news" did he pin - I am sure it was mostly the news of the landowners and their like. Unbiased - I doubt. Now in later days when leaflets could be printed and distributed by such as the levellers you may have had a degree of genuine free press.
I think the papers "died" as soon as we had 24hr news on the TV The only way they can keep circulation is by shock journalism that appeals to a certain mentality ie the people who watch and appear on the Jeremy Kyle show
