What will happen if the Daily Mail buys the Telegraph?

haha according to the marketing people at some Telegraph Student Press thing I went to the Telegraph is already v. liberal and progressive, so it wouldn't be a u-turn obv.

when they claimed that I was tempted to mention that they only stopped employing Auberon Waugh because he died

'Look at the bazookas on her' becomes a standard headline for military fetish pieces for the old colonels.

damn, matt dc on some visionary shit in this thread.

Insider news on how Telegraph science journalism has now gone down the same shithole as the Mail:
http://www.badscience.net/2009/01/the-telegraph-misrepresent-a-scientists-work-on-climate-and-then-refuse-to-correct-it-when-he-writes-to-them/#comment-23593

The telegraph has been flogging the it's cold so that climate change is a load of old rubbish then" line recently as well. Depressing. Still love their weekend crossword.

Has the Telegraph's demographic changed much over the last three or four years? My assumption would be that you see it a lot more around universities and so forth these days, but I've no idea if that is correct. Still, I fear I may have been a little complacent with all that 'lol retired colonels' stuff.

If you read the letters page I think it's still mostly populated by them. There have always been a lot of closet tories at universities but I haven't seen them this active since the glory days of Thatch and the Hang Mandela brigade. Judging from the recent fancy dress scandal they've learnt precisely nothing about PR since then.

Has the Telegraph's demographic changed much over the last three or four years? My assumption would be that you see it a lot more around universities and so forth these days, but I've no idea if that is correct. Still, I fear I may have been a little complacent with all that 'lol retired colonels' stuff.

― Matt DC, Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:24 PM (41 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it's hard to say. if you looked at their paper (or especially website) you'd have to say yes, especially since the last round of slayings. but at the same time they're losing sales, so it's possible they're *trying* to get a new demographic by traducing their brand, *and* failing. sacking craig brown and keeeping bryony gordon is a statement of intent.

but that said, yes i think they have changed their demographic to some extent. if you read tory blogs you'll see a lot of the old guard (which is a broader church than ret'd colonels) are fed up with it, say it's too pro-brown etc. (they aren't wrong from a tory pov.)

^ Yeh, this is pretty much dead on. It's basically now just a marginally less swivel-eyed version of the Mail; it's got a fucking good web presence, and gets a lot of hits from people searching for celeb/gossip stories etc BUT that hasn't (and won't!) translate into a new demographic or loyal band of readers.

What that means for the future is anyone's guess. In the medium term, it'll carry on as the dumbed-down oddity it is.

Private Eye has a wonderful little tale this week about Simon Heffer's increasingly forlorn-sounding "for fuck's sake, people, be less shit" staff memos. There are some HOWLING mistakes appearing in the web stories, certainly.

Did he send the memo to himself?

torygraph worse than the daily mail?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4975163/Stop-pandering-to-enemies-of-our-way-of-life.html

Show apostrophe s?

http://i42.tinypic.com/21aweuq.png

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/5146087/Ariana-Page-Russell-The-human-Etch-A-Sketch.html

Well done Telegraph dudes. Well done well done well done.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/science/5818138/British-Psychological-Society-Miss-Sophia-Shaw.html

Owing to an editing error, our report “Women who dress provocatively more likely to be raped, claim scientists” (June 23) wrongly stated that research presented at the recent BPS conference by Sophia Shaw found that women who drink alcohol are more likely to be raped. In fact, the research found the opposite. We apologise for our error.

hmm, maybe this is what happens when you sack all your science writers.

i enjoy that she is "miss sophia shaw" in the title, like she's some regency-era younger daughter whose pride has been piqued and not a research student whose work has been misrepresented.

Sebastian Faulks offends muslims, apologises, Telegraph readers show themselves to be bunch of cocksure heathens:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6083338/Sebastian-Faulks-The-book-I-really-cant-put-down.html

... and the original piece in which he called the koran "the rantings of a schizophrenic" has been removed, craven cowards.

http://www.mediawatchwatch.org.uk/2009/08/25/faulks-back-pedals-on-koran-criticism/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tomchivers/100008064/dr-evan-harris-no-stranger-to-principle/

o_O at the comments

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100038685/the-best-result-of-the-election-lets-rejoice-that-lib-dem-evan-harris-has-lost-his-seat/

:D at the comments, o_O at the article

hahahahaha fuck i MET that dude at a thingy last year, he seemed quite nice!!!

have fbook walled his daughter. they live in a house once occupied by my great-uncle/aunt. she was at uni with me. a nice gal. but cripes almighty

'it's no big deal, he has to make a living'

the max gogarty of the pony club, binkie west:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/royal-wedding/8341490/Wedding-Day-Countdown.html

Noted humourist Simon Heffer on "The Left" and comedy:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/8484434/You-cant-have-a-laugh-with-a-Lefty.html

Funny, then, that a nation almost entirely without humour – Germany – was responsible for the most notorious genocide in history, while we, the supposedly racist jesters, were the people who fought against it.

Funny ha ha or funny peculiar?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/29/joking-david-cameron-socialists-humourless-leftwing

But even today it can offer us Josie Long and Jon Stewart, Mark Thomas and the great American activist/comic Reverend Billy. Or Mark Steel...

erm

David Cameron is wrong to say socialists are humourless.

No shit. End of article.

only thing worse than the heffer article is the telegraph comment crew

This is bad even by the Telegraph's standards o_O

Ian Cowie on why only tax payers should have the vote:

Why don't we restrict votes to people who actually pay something into the system? No, I am not suggesting a return to property-based eligibility; although that system worked quite well when parliament administered not just Britain but most of the world.

Today, income would be a much better test, setting the bar as low as possible and perhaps including everyone who pays at least £100 of income tax each year.That minimal requirement would include everyone who gets out of bed in the morning to go to work and could easily be extended to include, on grounds of fairness, several other groups. For example, all pensioners – because of the fiscal contributions to society they are likely to have paid earlier – and mothers, because of their contribution to defusing the 'demographic time-bomb' of an ageing population.

This modest proposal would, however, exclude large numbers of people who have no 'skin in the game' and who may even comprise the majority of voters in some metropolitan areas today. Their contribution is not just negative in financial terms – they take out more than they put in – but likely to be damaging to the decisions taken by democracies.

If ever there was an article not to click on or read the comments it would be that one. Ian Cowie - not just 'someone who works as a cunt'.

lol @ pensioner + mother exception for fairness. why doesn't he just restrict the vote to telegraph subscribers and be done with it?

Presumably if you don't pay taxes, and therefore don't vote, you can opt out of the laws of this country whic you have no part in shaping as well?

It's so obviously batshit crazy surely he's just trolling, right? I daren't look up any of his other stuff.

i'm probably most irritated by his allusion to "a modest proposal", as if he thinks swift really believed that the irish should sell their children as food for the wealthy, were it not for a few niggling practical and PR difficulties.

i mean, he is trolling but with the opposite intent to swift

That is awesome. I always find it refreshing to be reminded that assholism not only exists in other countries but has its own distinct flavor, too.

do you think guardian writers imagine themselves to be writing for the barely sentient retired teachers and social workers mumbling about about banksters and zionists btl

I suspect that those people are constantly in the back of their minds somewhere but yes they are hardly going to be the audience they see themselves as writing 'for'.

his argument is that they should not actively defraud their readers, which is a more basic standard

Is just refusing to publish something actively defrauding them? I don't know. Certainly commissioning a lot of HSBC apologism would be worse than just pretending the story wasn't there. I'm sure that a blind eye has been turned to many a public-interest story over the years, for reasons not explicable by mere ideological biases, but this one was clearly too big for any paper to ignore. It is spectacularly short-sighted and inept treatment of the story either way.

(Conrad Black was also producing newspapers during a much more benign period for the industry and for the advertising market, but that's neither here nor there).

the refusal to publish anything negative about an oligopoly of national importance is something like fraud, the term is used sententiously but it's not unreasonable either; fraud is something more than negligence or minor venality, it requires an active willingness to misrepresent things for personal or corporate interest, and this has been going on for years....

the advertising market is a lot harsher to other publishers without the long term profitability, the reader loyalty or the print base of the telegraph, if anything they should be least in need of advertorial revenue

Press Gazette was told by another well-placed source that the picture painted by Oborne was entirely accurate. Oborne claimed that negative stories about HSBC have been discouraged at the Telegraph since the start of 2013.

The source said that the division between commercial and editorial on the paper had "completely broken down" and that it was now normal for commercial staff to attend news conference and then talk to reporters directly about stories, emphasising which companies are major advertisers.

Speaking in London in April last year, Telegraph editor in chief Jason Seiken spoke about how an editor must break down the "sacred divide" between commercial and editorial departments "helping to devise new revenue streams, nurturing and developing relationships with advertisers and partners but always ensuring and protecting the editorial integrity of the institution and the journalists".

there's another leak on the worst blog in the world not to be affiliated with isis, a sony email to the telegraph saying 'activity and support across editorial, promotions and media has been truly outstanding and the enthusiasm, creative thinking and hard work by all the team has made it such a success' in relation to the promotion of films

https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/fury.jpg?w=480&h=101

The average age of a Telegraph print reader is now 61, all the loyalty and integrity in the world won't make that a long-term business model, which is why both its the treatment of advertisers and its digital transition seem so desperate.

Like all newspapers they are struggling with rapidly changing patterns of consumption, and loyalty to one masthead will very soon be a thing of the past if it isn't already, and they don't seem to have any easily identifiable digital niche, unlike the Guardian, the Economist or the FT. That said unless you are planning to make serious £££ off stories about women with three breasts, it seems idiotic to run the print version down any more quickly than they have to.

the old readership and the natural conservatism (indifference to novelty) and loyalty of their readership is exactly why it has a residual print demand that could still exist for years; 61 yr old upper middle class people are mostly still going to be here in 20 years time

they are still heavily profitable for the industry so this cannot be explained as desperation

The Telegraph Media Group (TMG) made an operating profit of £55m last year, according to unaudited figures leaked to the Guardian. That represented a £6m fall on the previous year's operating profit but should also be seen in the context of one exceptional item, an £8m digital investment.19 Jan 2015

20 years is highly optimistic given nearly half of their readers are over 65, but yes a lot of them are likely to continue buying the physical paper every day until they die, in a way that even the most loyal Guardian reader probably won't.

They are profitable because they are still comfortably the biggest-selling broadsheet in the country, and their readership is largely wealthy and attractive to advertisers, but I wouldn't take that profitability for granted moving forward. Plus at least some of that profit can presumably be attributed to slashed production costs and of course coddling of advertisers. Their readership is still declining at a slightly faster rate than most of the other broadsheets, although a readership spike around the time of the expenses scandal should really point the way to ameliorating that slightly.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/02/19/despicable-me-telegraph_n_6711088.html

so they may possibly cease to be as profitable in the future, whereas most of their competitors are already unprofitable? this is all ancillary to the primary concern here which is that their editorial corruption (as revealed by an insider rather than private eye innuendi) should be highlighted

firstly so that its readers can make the informed decision not to be lied to and withdraw their revenue (the only thing aidan barclay cares about) and secondly because this is a threat across the industry

Rose-tinted pomposity aside, he was entirely right to publish. In fact I am surprised that no one blew the whistle earlier. And yes, "tax-evading bank attempts to manipulate free press" is a vastly more important concern than "will the Telegraph Media Group be profitable in five years time?"

Either they were complacently assuming this wouldn't come out, although they have taken the call that the financial benefit is worth some damage to their reputation, or they are just inept. Either way I'm sure it was informed by mounting panic about the future, because virtually every print media owner is feeling that panic. That and sheer greed obviously.

Our newspapers have by and large had a destructive effect on British democracy over the past 30+ years, but the Telegraph has to its credit usually been largely transparent about its political affiliations and agenda, which is more than can be said for the Murdoch press. I would be interested to see whether they row back from this, and also whether HSBC pulls its advertising from the Mail.

I suspect the Telegraph is far from the only guilty party here, even if others have been more subtle about it. If our national press is compromised to such an extent there are additional questions about the future of investigative journalism in the UK, outside of the Guardian, the somewhat weakened Panorama and a few other outlets. A lot of the investigative heavy lifting in the Leon Britton/Dolphin Square story does not appear to have been handled by mainstream media.

Either way I'm sure it was informed by mounting panic about the future, because virtually every print media owner is feeling that panic. That and sheer greed obviously.

― Matt DC, Thursday, 19 February 2015 18:57 (1 minute ago)

this might be the more proximate cause for why they suddenly got very protective of hsbc in particular...

The owners of the Daily Telegraph secured a £250m loan from HSBC for a struggling corner of their business empire shortly before the newspaper’s reporters were allegedly “discouraged” from running articles critical of the bank, the Guardian has learned.

The timing of the loan deal for Yodel, a loss-making parcel delivery firm owned by the Barclay brothers, raises fresh questions over the influence of commercial considerations on the Telegraph’s editorial coverage of HSBC.

The deal was completed on 14 December 2012, company documents show. The paper’s former chief political commentator Peter Oborne alleged this week that there was a sea-change in its editorial treatment of the bank from early 2013.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/feb/19/telegraph-250m-loan-hsbc-editorial-changes-yodel

Haha yes I was coming here to post that.

Yodel, a loss-making parcel delivery firm owned by the Barclay brothers

should be

Yodel, an awful, just fucking terrible loss-making parcel delivery firm owned by the Barclay brothers

maybe the patronage model can work for newspapers and other newspapers will just have to pick up the slack criticizing the patron

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/11423912/The-Telegraphs-promise-to-our-readers.html

This newspaper makes no apology for the way in which it has covered the HSBC group and the allegations of wrongdoing by its Swiss subsidiary, allegations that have been so enthusiastically promoted by the BBC, the Guardian and their ideological soulmates in the Labour Party. We have covered this matter as we do all others, according to our editorial judgment and informed by our values. Foremost among those values is a belief in free enterprise and free markets. ...

Trot rags like the Daily Mail, they mean?

Once again it's the Guardian bravely leading the charge to uncover shocking levels of lavish hospitality at the highest levels in Government:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/feb/20/cameron-chequers-queen-claudia-schiffer

Cost of entertaining the Queen, model Claudia Schiffer and other guests at grace and favour home revealed for the first time.... 29 guests having been entertained, the average spend per head was around £64.

Telegraph editorial makes no effort to contradict Oborne directly

Or you could say, a lot of effort has gone into crafting something grand and that tries to take the moral high road without contradicting Oborne directly.

I wonder how many draft versions the editorial went through.

it's pretty transparently ducking the substantial issues but probly good enough for a section of their readership i guess

A substantial section of their readership will just mutter "bloody commies" and turn to the cricket section.

If they are saying they would have covered HSBC in exactly the same way had they not been a client and creditor, the credibility of that claim can be easily determined by looking at how they've covered other banking and/or tax avoidance scandals. If they are claiming that they can no longer afford full editorial independence, as the second half of the piece gestures towards, then that reinforces Oborne's argument, even if they are entirely unapologetic.

Wouldn't recommend turning to the cricket section today, tbh.

Given that the Economist and the FT and the Wall Street Journal and other notoriously Bolshevik publications have been covering this story in depth, the ideological consistency defence doesn't really hold, so they presumably are taking their readers as a bovine herd who won't really care, or at least won't care enough to damage them. Circulation figures will tell whether or not this is true fairly quickly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11426319/Times-publisher-News-UK-launches-internal-investigation-after-suicides-of-two-members-of-its-commercial-staff.html

oh they're doing a bang up job keeping a lid on this

nasty stuff making the daily mail look a superior paper

cash for access lands conveniently via daily telgraph (& c4)

Revealed: The drinks you didn't know you could order at Starbucks

There are over 87,000 different drink combinations at Starbucks, according to the coffee retailer’s website… but how many of them do you know? From flu remedies to Harry Potter-inspired beverages, we highlight the weird and the wonderful brews and infusions.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/may/19/capital-lbc-owner-global-radio-hsbc

Hmm.

https://twitter.com/TelegraphNews/status/642812826097094656

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/issue-1406/street-of-shame

The prospect of an arms dealer buying the Telegraph is on one hand a comically glorious match made in heaven but the political implications are grim, even if no one takes it seriously any more.

He's not really an arms dealer, is he? He made most of his money in construction iirc and played a role as a "fixer" in the Al-Yamamah as he was friends with the key Saudi princes and Thatcher. Al-Yamamah was clearly bent as a nine bob note though.

this is some gold-standard polly filler material right here:

The day my husband was caught on The Apprentice with another woman

Rosa Silverman

5 October 2017 • 12:27pm

It was something of a Blow-Up moment. The 1966 Antonioni film centres on a photographer who unwittingly captures a murder on film. In a (sort of) similar vein, producers of The Apprentice unwittingly captured my husband in a Brixton hipster hang-out in the first episode of the new series.

So what? At the time of filming, we lived in the area, very close to where the scene was filmed. I wasn't watching, but a particularly sharp-eyed friend quickly took a screen-grab and sent it round to a number of us, excitedly pointing out that my husband, myself and our baby were in shot.

Except it wasn’t me. It was a woman with long dark hair who could have been me, had she not been wearing someone else’s coat and been much better groomed. It was, therefore, Another Woman.

Now, I have every confidence that if my husband were to have an affair, it’s unlikely he would pick a location so close to our house, take our baby along as a prop, and conduct the whole thing in broad daylight.

And yet I couldn’t identify the woman - and neither could he.

There they were, sitting at a table together, drinking coffee and deep in conversation. Who was she?

“Err, I’m not sure that’s Rosa. Awkward,” wrote another friend, who’d seen the still.

It could indeed have been. The incessant photographing and filming of modern life means that privacy died out around the time social media was invented. Engage in anything untoward in public these days and you risk being captured by the lens of a smartphone - or even reality television - camera and exposed to the world. Just think of all the people exposed for behaving badly on Google Street View. Even if you’re just sitting at a picnic table, having a coffee with a friend, it seems you are not safe.

For this, it transpired, is what my husband was doing. After some time, he finally remembered: the Other Woman was in fact one of our mutual pals. He had further photographic evidence from the day itself to prove it. Not that I ever doubted him, naturally.

“Panic over,” I told my friends. “We’ve identified her.” (To which one helpfully replied: “Why is the panic over just because it’s one of your friends? It’s still perfectly possible he’s cheating on you.”)

As for our baby, I’m just glad she’s started her TV career young. I can only assume a cheque from the BBC is in the post.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/family/day-husband-caught-apprentice-another-woman/

One of the most disgusting headlines I have ever seen.

https://i.imgur.com/vO2P5i1.jpg

Every cloud...

save the DPP money and it hasn't negatively affected housing prices. hail lord covid

they don't mention the amount of disabled people it has killed who have also been disproportionately hit by covid. But *knowingly taps head* if you don't mention it - then it hasn't happened

seems like some kind of reckoning is chasing down one of the barclay twins lol

actually the other one is already dead lol lol lol

ooh tell me more

guardian story abt frederick's divorce and its aftermath

mmmm I was just fancying some schadenfreude for elevenses

Sir Frederick Barclay, who along with his twin brother was once one of the UK’s richest men, is relying on his nephews to fund his divorce battle after being evicted from his luxury flat, a court has heard.

I literally LOVE to see it

ppl have pointed out that this may entirely be him hiding his money so he doesn't have to pay his wife -- and this may succeed! -- but even so the tactic is clearly one which causes him discomfort so hahaha fvck you sir fred b

my 77 year old mum gets the DT for the crossword.
so, a few months ago she forwarded to me their freebie digital sub offer.
have been hate reading it for free.
their never ending war on 'woke', WFH, and everyone under the age of 50, is next level weird.
their insane opinion columns where all the faults of this cuntry are cos of labour is next level weird.
and the complete denial of the realities of brexit is an absolute joy to watch.
even as a prime target audience candidate (house owning 55 year old), i just read it in total disbelief.
and then ... there are the comments BTL.
i genuinely think the whole setup is worse than the Mail.

Exclusive: Lloyds Banking Group  has threatened to put the owner of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph into administration after the breakdown of talks with the Barclay family, the owner of the newspapershttps://t.co/PFkfND8PDq

— Richard Fletcher (@fletcherr) June 6, 2023

Very funny to read this in the Telegraph.

https://archive.ph/5BczT

as per my previous post i get access to the DT online via my mums sub.
(honest guv).
to say the commentators both paid and BTL have gone off the deep end today is an understatement.
the sacking of cruella and todays judgement has been one of the few times i was glad my mum pays for her daily crossword.

loving the full on chaos/breakdown re the telegraph columnists/readers at the moment.
every single thread of comments is just stuffed with 'vote reform' junk, whether the article is relevant or not

Piece on the weirdo Barclays brothers and where The Telegraph is at.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v47/n06/daniel-cohen/kippers-and-champagne

i think its f^cking obvious now that they really really, REALLY, hate Rayner.