No, we're talking about the Mail- you reckoned its readership are dying out. Check the 2013 against 2012 data, it's even losing less percentage wise than than Guardian and Independent who have a fraction of the readership. Can't you just accept you posted cobblers and admit it instead of needlessly prolonging this relatively uninteresting topic?
You've already shown you are a snob by your previous post which may get approving grins from your peer group but in the wider world show your prejudices. I don't so much sneer at the patrons of the Guardian and the BBC , but I think the Guardian and its readers inhabit a safe cosy overpaid world of well paid civil service and media jobs, mostly immune to the problems that most of the rest of us face. I pay the BBC's wages with my licence fee and their bias is towards a liberal left metropolitan elite view of things. When did you last see a 'right wing' opinion or view point on the BBC news? It's always pro immigration, pro EU, pro windpower, pro London etc Opposing views are marginalised to an unacceptable degree.
I don't understand arguing over Newspaper agendas. Surely a good paper would just report the news without putting some predetermined spin on it? If it's reported with an agenda it's not proper news really is it?
My point is they shouldn't. They should report the news. Then we wouldn't have to have these pointless debates about which is the best agenda. Any agenda is wrong.
So, you're arguing for a more diverse and inclusive BBC, particularly when representing minority viewpoints? I do agree with some of your critique of the guardian's readership BTW. I do however feel that on balance, debate is better represented by the broadsheets, though you need to bear editorial policy in mind. As for the Mail - I don't really see "How Diana contacted me from the other side" as credible or newsworthy, though it probably would make a nice talking point over mid-morning tea and cake in countless suburban conservatories. Newspapers are a dying media anyway, everything is moving on-line and the battle for influence from proprietors will move to that format sooner or later. It is interesting to note that the digital figures for monthly readership of both the Guardian and Mail respectively are a lot closer than the print versions. 6.4 million and 6.8 million respectively. The Guardian across both print and digital media actually is more widely read than the Telegraph. It's a bit daft to compare the Guardian and Mail however. One is 70p, the other nearly double that. They're hardly competing for the same customers at the newsagents. Online it is a much closer run thing. The Sun online readership is barely worth mentioning, though they so sell an awful lot of ex-rainforest up and down the land - even in safe liberal and left-wing constituencies.
The BBC is more like the old Channel 4 than ever these days- certain minorities are dramatically over-represented. Certain majorities- you know, the provincial non trendy ones who pay the taxes that fund the BBC- are under represented. The Mail does at least print political stuff from all sides:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2396382/Lord-Glasman-Ed-Miliband-REAL-Labour-leader.html One of Ed's clique. Loyal as always.
I thought it was the licence fee that funded the BBC, which everyone pays regardless of whether they pay taxes or not bar over 75s & some disabled people.
....and the Guardian list Norman Tebbit as a regular contributor (but is far more magnanimous in it's editorial slant on his writings - i.e no goofy picture or sideways dig or implied ridicule on his specific articles) They actually let them stand!. http://www.theguardian.com/profile/norman-tebbit It was also the Guardian that first publicly absolved Lord McAlpine of any wrongdoing in the North Wales abuse scandal - much to George Monbiot's and the Beeb's detriment - not that the mail acknowledged that, they instead used the guardian evidence (uncredited) in their article whilst simultaneously accusing them of complicity in blackening his name by quoting Monbiot's personal blog instead - Jack-daw journalism at its finest, you must be so proud ! The "gruniad", as you put it, was the only mainstream news outlet to withhold publishing a follow up to that Panorama story until it had investigated the facts for itself. Sneaky bastards that they are! The best "scoop" of recent times for the Mail was their report of Amanda Knox's supposedly failed appeal, replete with crying in the courtroom and vivid descriptions of ashen faces of the defendants - published 7 minutes before their appeals were incidentally (and rather inconveniently) upheld. That was pure class There was also a nice opinion piece recently, written by the ex-druggie, ex-Tory MP and current rock'n'roll WAG Louise Mensch (who obviously took her public role seriously enough to resign and emigrate mid-way through her term) supporting Charles Saachi in his "playful tiff" with "millionaire business-woman Nigella". The "sugar coating " came in the next paragraph when she advocated the hanging of Mark Bridger - which even the most ardent liberal would find difficult to oppose except on principal, but call me wrong - all the spin in the world doesn't make that **** acceptable. If I did that to my lass in private, let alone in public tomorrow night, then by Wednesday I'd fully expect to be on my mate's sofa, crying in my beer with not much sympathy from anyone - including my mate, and that's without the national media having it's pound of flesh as well! Maybe that's what's wrong with the world eh, Asbo?. Women should know their place? You seriously think "The Mail sums up the mood of the nation"? That wishy-washy contrived "morality" is certainly how their "Femail" focus has its appeal limited to an older generation and is largely ignored by younger, independently orientated women who define themselves rather than by their attachment to a Husband, and those of whom whom will never be defined by the narrative of victimisation. It works both ways though, and fair play to "The Times" for not being taken in by Vicky Pryce's attempt to settle a bitter domestic by stitching up her ex-husband too. It stitched them both up instead!. Credit where credit is due, Though it is slightly uncomfortable for me personally to offer the hand of fair play to that "foreign" cancer that is News International - Oh I still have some respect for the Times even though it's editorial line is often polluted by the Australian Right -that's okay though - at least they're brethren, isn't that right? That bloody Murdoch eh? Hijacking our national sport and making the live experience of football at the highest level a middle class enterprise.... In the country that invented the game indeed! Ably assisted by Thatcher's proposed policy of membership only clubs, Taylor's report on Hillsborough, corrupt YWP and a bunch of Neanderthals who couldn't behave in Public. What a bastard state of affairs! I'm still waiting for those documents to be declassified confirming the gentrification of football as government policy in the late 80's and early 90's, but there's enough in the public domain already to put 2 and 2 together.... Still, you can always experience it vicariously by buying one of his subscriptions, and buying the Sun every weekend for the pull-outs if you work hard all week and still can't afford the one luxury our hard-working forefathers once had.... ...at least it's a Crown-Subject getting rich at your expense and not a brown person or ex-commie *cough* Abramovich *splutter* ! Be grateful, what more could you want on a Saturday afternoon than Jeff Stelling and Jim White? ....you might even wanna have a bet or two.... Ching ching! (drunken, snobbish, feverish free-association rant over! I'm calm now, you'll be pleased to know! - though the mail and Murdoch press/sky is still scum!) Oh and **** the politicians too, and, YWP and any big-time-charlie messing with the heritage of my football club without any evidence of a tangible payoff. **** em! **** em all! UTT.
the license fee and worldwide exports of shows and franchises it has developed and produced; largely yes. Asbo will see the license fee as a "tax" though I'd imagine.
Winchester.ac.uk : The Daily Mail is not widely read by this section of society, as the ABC1 category tend to read broadsheets. Instead the Mail is aimed at the middle categories, namely C1, C2 and D, of whom there are considerably more of in Britain. However, the C2 and D categories are much less likely to obtain their news from a newspaper, as technology has made it much easier to look on the internet, so the Mail includes stories on popular culture to secure the interest of these groups. The Mail is fairly even in terms of male and female bias, although it sells well with females over the age of 55. This is perhaps due to its combination of important news, which informs the reader, and the human interest stories, providing some light relief. The female audience is continually targeted, through the consistent use of female orientated stories on page three and the use of perspective – where many articles are written from a female viewpoint or angle. The advertising also adheres to their target audience, as the most frequently advertised products are from supermarkets or are beauty products. Also: ....In this vain, the Mail has a similar readership to the Daily Mirror, its tabloid equivalent, although I would suggest that the Mail is more aimed at the older reader. Not just me who think this then?
Latest problem for the "Gruniad" is that an affiliate (gay lover) of one of their journalists related to the Snowden leak has been "detained" at Heathrow on the basis of "counter terrorism" legislation, for 7 hours, without a lawyer. What's the betting he got the "rubber glove" treatment? Obviously, in the current post-cold-war climate our national security is at such risk as to take draconian measures at the behest of the Pentagon. Yeah, Europe is the greatest threat to national sovereignty all-right, but it's obviously much better to cow-tow to Washington than have a voice in Brussels. At least then we don't have to deal with veal-eating, port-blockading, gobbldedegook speaking enemies of the past. We just get led in to wars based on paranoia and oil revenue which never actually materialises instead. Oh, and they seriously hate horses - they ****ing eat them, what's that about?!!!! Then again, the lad should probably just be grateful we didn't just shoot him on the tube. He is Brazilian after-all. Here's to a good world-cup! Cheers! Yeah! - U.S.A, U.S.A, U.S.A!
As I made the OP, I'd just like to say: 1/ I thought it was a fair article, as did quite a few others; 2/ It was a sport article and had no political slant, except that I... 3/....did put in that little barb (for Agro).
The dailies on yesterday's game: The Telegraph: Henry Winter thinks there is reason for optimism among City fans. He praised the new signings made by Steve Bruce: "Allan McGregor, a £1.5m signing from Besiktas, saved Frank Lampard’s penalty and later brilliantly kept out Branislav Ivanovic’s header. Ahmed Elmohamady, who was on loan at Hull last season but joined permanently for £2m from Sunderland in the summer, was tidy. Tom Huddlestone, a £5m midweek signing, and Jake Livermore, on loan, were lively substitutes." The Daily Mail: Perhaps a little harsh on City, considering their improved second-half performance. "Hull will have less difficult days than this in the top flight, but they did little to help themselves, giving possession away cheaply." The Independent: Tom Huddlestone and Jake Livermore brought quality to the City side as they rallied in the second half. The two new signings gave "a bit more stability and direction in midfield". The Daily Star's analysis was straight to the point: "Hull never looked like being able to spoil Mourinho’s homecoming bash, and were brought back down to earth with a bump after their promotion party." The Daily Mirror was gushing in its praise of Chelsea, with City, "swept aside with dismissive ease", very much an afterthought. The Times: "The Hull manager knew that his side were always billed as the fall guys in Jose Mourinho’s return to Stamford Bridge, and it was not difficult to see the positives in losing only 2-0 after being under non-stop bombardment in the first half." King Fut: The Egyptian football website named countryman Ahmed Elmohamady their man of the match. "He completed 58/64 passes (15/16 in the attacking third) and 4/4 tackles," it adds. Finally, Gary Lineker praised City’s performance on Twitter: "Despite this being a comfortable victory for Chelsea, Hull have shown enough to make me feel they could do reasonably well." Read more: http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/story-19678122-detail/story.html?#axzz2cPzUVls0
Cheers Stan. If you can be arsed it'd be good to do a round up after every game with who did the article and what they say about us- whether just generic **** (hull and back bollocks) or proper reporting and insight. If you can be arsed
OK Chazz - I'll see what I can do (others will, no doubt, post reports they find) - there'll be a big one in the Eastern Daily Press down here, for the next game.
3 features from today's Guardian - but I'd imagine all the Press reports will be pretty ****y over Jose M....... http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/aug/18/chelsea-hull-city-premier-league http://www.theguardian.com/football/2013/aug/18/chelsea-hull-city-live-report http://www.theguardian.com/football/gallery/2013/aug/18/premier-league-chelsea-hull-gallery
