newspapers: all shit?

I buy the Guardian sometimes. But generally I just don't bother my arse reading papers. Despite me being a journalism student.

I read the Post. I realize that all papers will be slanted, but of all the media I've read it's definitely one of the best dailies. They spend quite a bit of time in their articles explaining the necessary mechanics and procedures of government ... how govt. agencies, bureaucrats, the executive branch, the judicial etc. go about making the choics they do in everyday life. And I think that's an important aspect of a paper -- to familiarize its readership with the machinations that control their world.

At the same time, while the national/foreign front page is huge and very well-written, the local section is skimpy in comparison and doesn't delve nearly as deep into the issues that residents here face. Most of the local news is very consumerist-oriented, a la where to shop, where to eat, what is hip ... although it does a good job of highlighting art shows and various free events going on that you might not have heard about.

So, while no paper is perfect, the Post is definitely the best I've read. Going home to Orlando recently for the holidays, I was appalled at just how fluffy the Orlando Sentinel was in comparison -- it scanned like a child's Weekly Reader. Poorly written, absurdly simple and condescending prose, lack of depth or insight, it was like a USA Today there were so many colours and graphics ...

British papers are generally poor. Their coverage of international affairs in particualar is pitiful. For all its flaws The Guardian is still probably the best imho, though I rarely see The Independent these days.

i know that all areas of society are inlfuenced by the media that they consume obv. but in the case of the guardian, it often seems to be a particular section of society that thinks it is above such influence, and dont seem to want to admit that theuy are being manipulated as easily and obviously as the readers of the sun (conservative (labour supporting?!?) tabloid) or the telegraph (old school conservative broadsheet) are.

generally i hate editorialising or comment sections of a paper anyway; i know that any journalism is going to betray certina influences, but it seems to me that the goal of a decent NEWSpaper is to keep that to a minimum. course its not possible seeing as everything is owned by x or y media baron who wants their slant reflected in the journalism, but there you go.

the guardian, on the other hand, doesnt have this sort of ownership influence, unlike some of the others, and yet its pretty shameless about its editorialising.

The editorialising or comment sections are often the most honest parts of any paper. A stranger wanting to know where a certain paper was coming from could do no better than read, say, Richard Littlejohn for The Sun or Hugo Young for the Guardian. The completely objective, neutral, value-free news you apparently seek, doesn’t exist.

Search: The Scotsman. A bit too right wing for me, but still the best broadshett newspaper I've read. Also Scotland on Sunday, which I once had a cute little piece about the Titanic printed in.

Destroy: See above, also the Scum and News of the World are pretty detestable.

Other papers are too long and make a mess all over our front room though.

I think the paper which is easily the best at what it does at the moment is The Metro. Easy to read conlourful tabloid written by essentially newcomers on the jornalism front who -because it is a free paper - appear to have no strict editorial policy except "keep it simple". It is also surprisingly good on international news (cf "fingerknob")

Speaking from the POV of someone who has written for several papers, my favourite to work for was the Observer because of pay and editorial slant combining nicely; the Guardian don't pay enough, the Women's pages are just as annoying as the Mail's in their own way, and they make really stunningly bad appointments (D Aitkenhead/C Raven aaaaghhhh). The Times was fun to work for because of the relationship I had with the nice editor commissioning me (but fuck me if I know how Lisa 'I Dated N Gallagher For A Fortnight' Verrico stays in work). The same 20 or so editors do the rounds on ALL the papers and would probably never support a rightist cause, but for people I know who went to work at the Telegraph I'm interested to know how long that will last.

Alright, both of 'em.

People carrier + minicab driver = the perfect fun filled end to an evening.

The breadth of coverage, news wise, is the first reason. No TV or radio news gives you as much news. Secondly, the comment, I never read editorials but the comment gives me somehting to argue about of a morning.

Why the gaurdian? I like the writing. I read the independant from issue one, but as I grew up I found the writing very boring, even though the photography can be up to national geographic standards and consistantly good. I like the writers in the gaurdian, particularly some of the columnists (Roy Hattersley, Francis Wheen, George Monbiot), although not others (Polly Toynbee, Charlotte Raven, julie Burchill)

The Observer Rocks

The Economist I think is required reading. I started reading it for 'know your enemy' type reasons but found it to be a whole lot better than that. Its line on globalisation is that theres no point going ablong that route unless you can bring the people of the world along with you. It has a very libertarian and civil libertarian line. there's lots to disagree with but its still a very good read.

Ooh, and 'people carriers' are known as 'Toorak tractors' (after a Melbourne suburb) in Oz. Basically because wealthy matrons who nip down to the gym and then pick up the kids from school later are the chief users of the vehicle, causing havoc on the roads in the process, as these massive cars cause innumerable potholes (explaining the roadwork outside my house half the year, in the early hours).

can't help thinking blurring the distinction between professional hacks and bloggers might in the long run not be to the papers' advantage.

It seems like the future is online, but is there a way to make money out of it? Until there is, let's just keeping making websites and we'll bribe people to buy our paper with DVDs, the thinking goes.

the web 2.0 revolution has taken the telegraph in a strange new direction:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/ukcorrespondents/weirdwiredweb/february2008/evenmorehuq.htm

Simon VOICE OF REASON Heffer's not going to like this.

Newspaper owners: all shit?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7763356.stm

A Glasgow-based newspaper group has made all its journalists and publishing staff redundant and invited them to re-apply for their jobs.

The Herald and Times Group, which publishes The Herald, Sunday Herald and Evening Times, informed up to 250 staff of its decision on Wednesday.

Roughly 210 are likely to be rehired if they agree to new terms and conditions.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) described the move as a "brutal attempt at forcing changes".

In a statement, the Herald and Times Group said it would merge certain newspaper staffs under new editor-in-chief Donald Martin to increase efficiency and make full use of state-of-the art news production technology.

Managing director Tim Blott said: "We are creating an efficient operation fit for the 21st Century which will provide even more compelling and unique content for readers of all three titles and our websites.

"We are committed to producing vibrant and relevant newspapers and websites and see a bright future for The Herald, Sunday Herald and Evening Times and their digital versions.

"Regrettable industrial action this week by members of the National Union of Journalists at the titles makes the need for radical change even more urgent as we work to secure the future of the business and as many jobs as possible."

The NUJ's Scottish organiser, Paul Holleran, said: "This is a brutal attempt at forcing changes which can only cause major problems in these titles.

"There are changes taking place across the media industry, with redundancies and new technology being introduced.

"Every other media employer in Scotland is working with the union to try to handle these changes in a civilised manner.

"No-one in the workforce will be surprised that this is the first action of the new editor-in-chief, Donald Martin. To say he's getting off on the wrong foot is the understatement of the year."

Mr Holleran added that no industrial action had taken place at any of the titles this week but that the union had been due to meet with management on Wednesday.

Grimly, stet to thread (counting to 10 before each post obviously)

Fuck.

It's certainly fucked and i'm surprised it's legal.

I'll tell you what's all shit, trying to find a Scottish newspaper at 1pm in London WC1! Newsagents just don't have them and they most certainly do not have the fuggin' Scotsman! I was told by one newsagent that the Scotsman is no longer delivered to this area of London during the week... meanwhile every Irish paper under the sun is available. We really are an insignificant lot.

I'm going to make the same post here, because I've never seen anything like it, let alone in such a high profile place, but the Chicago Sun-Times published a 2025 summer reading list, and a huge number of the titles literally don't exist and were clearly generated by AI:

https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:54h2bzeryohyebzibw57tx6z/bafkreidi6rb5auxyp2btolysdtplsnixeo2tu5bt5wmjlb7qvjuyll2vfe@jpeg