Have the Murdoch papers actually (gasp!) changed for the better?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

In the Sun that I angrily tore up (!) today: an enthusiastic article saying how great it is for modern Britain that a gay man won Big Brother and nobody makes any fuss.

In the Times today: a lengthy piece of guff on "rural / urban divide" which nonetheless ends up suggesting a great reduction in farming subsidies and support for farmers' markets and the use of organic methods.

Neither of which would have appeared in those titles 10 or 15 years ago. Which begs the question: have the Murdoch papers genuinely gone in a more progressive direction, or is that dark heart still beating as strongly as ever?

― Robin Carmody, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The Sun didn't back Brian - they'd backed Helen to win - and Brian's large margin of victory made them look a bit stoopid. The Sun always likes to back a winner - they don't love Blair, but they knew he was going to win, so endorsed Labour party in last two elections. Didn't help that The Mirror 'came out' for Brian almost from the start. I suppose pragmatic change is as good as any other, but the rag's hidden seam of racism hasn't vanished despite the fact that they often 'speak out' against racism these days. Perhaps I'm kiding myself here, but British society is (maybe) a lot more tolerant than it was fifteen years go, and The Sun is actually having to play catch-up - but if sales were to dip on the new, liberal Sun I'd be amazed if they didn't adjust the tone accordingly.

Alternative explanation: Murdoch has remarried, to a much younger woman, who might be broadening his outlook somewhat.

Robin, btw, congrats on yr piece in 'The Wire' this month. Have only ever heard the 'White Noise' alb, which didn't totally send me, but you whetted my appetite for more RW and DS.

― Andrew L, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Probably not as simple as liking to back a winner. The key point is that they want to stay "in touch" with their readers. Unlike Robin, most people buy newspapers because they want a pat on the back every morning. They want a newspaper which agrees with them and doesn't tell them they're wrong. By trying to pick the most popular Big Brother contestant (albeit unsuccessfully), the Sun are attempting to share an opinion with most of their readers. It may have been successful - Sun readers could have preferred Helen anyway.

Much has been made of the Mirror supporting Brian in England and Helen in Wales, but less has been made about why they did it - it's not encouraging people in Wales to vote for Helen, but hedging their bets that most Welsh people with an opinion on it will already support Helen, and so will most Welsh Sun readers. If a few others change their minds, so be it. I wouldn't have thought the Sun really cares who wins, as long as there's a story to be written.

Same with the elections - the Sun's called it every time since when? Late 60s-early 70s, I think. As such, they've made a pretty good effort to stay on the same team as their readers and the public as a whole. The public identifies with the paper and carries on reading. Job done.

― Greg, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What Andrew and Greg said, pretty much. On a micro-level, the Murdoch papers shape society by dictating a big chunk of the popcult and news agenda. On a macro-level, though, they reflect it, especially where attitudes are concerned. The Murdoch press could afford to be prejudiced and selfish in the 1980s because a lot of its readers were. So the question is, if I'm right, why has society changed and forced the Sun to?

― Tom, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The New York Post is also owned by Murdoch and it's still a right-wing rag. Same with Fox News. And I haven't noticed any real toning-down of the garbage emanating from either source over the years, to tell the truth.

Maybe they just can't get away with that sort of shit in the UK anymore, but still can over here.

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

What the wise folk above have said, really. Two other things, admittedly not particularly connected w/this thread:

1. Robin, you've been published in The Wire? Blimey, congratulations, etc. I haven't bought this months' yet, but I will tomorrow.

2. Are you ripping up newspapers for your own personal satisfaction or for some other reason?

― Richard Tunnicliffe, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Richard: it's an obituary of Delia Derbyshire which Mark S was originally commissioned to write then, very generously, passed on to me.

Other factors involved here: other media changes in nature so the Sun's attitude towards them also changes, i.e. in Channel 4's early years the Sun would *never* have given such prominence to a C4 programme as they do to Big Brother. Indeed, as the Pinefox recently hinted, the channel became something of a byword for their hated "metropolitan" or "arty" values. Of course there's been a certain amount of meeting in the middle over something like BB, but I think C4 has changed more fundamentally from, say, 1986 to now than the Sun has.

Greg's comment that the Sun just wants to appear to be on the winning side is quite true, but Tom asks an interesting question. At a guess: multiculturalism now more prominent and deep-rooted, 60s liberals now in positions of authority, so "official culture" shifts in such a direction.

The farming thing in the Times (which is followed by a classically sentimental and possibly bogus account of village life which sinks right down to Mail / Telegraph level) is probably down to foot and mouth, which has forced people to ask questions of the existing structure and consider opinions on farming which would have been seen as absurdly cranky in such a paper a few years ago. The paper's slant hasn't changed that much though: it's noticeable that the Times invoked the "beards and sandals" cliche of the Lib Dems in their election roundup, something you'd *never* see in the Guardian / Observer / Independent axis.

― Robin Carmody, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

robin: why were u tearing up a sun in the 1st place? do u mean to tell me u buy it and read it?

― junichiro, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

they still suck in oz

― Geoff, Thursday, 2 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Robin - bit off-topic, but in the Delia Derbyshire obit you mentioned somebody 'deservedly not recognising their own work'! Interesting concept, what did you mean by that?

Bad as the Sun is, the Mirror is even worse. Being hypocritical and insulting is bad enough, doing these things while being desperate, shameless toadies to New Labour is just hilarious, especially when they endlessly try to catch the Sun out on something.

― dave q, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I meant that Ron Grainer was, compared to Delia, a mediocre workhorse so he *deserved* to have the Dr Who theme reshaped to such an extent that he couldn't recognise it. It was a strong tune, but nothing more: 'twas Delia who made it what we know.

It was someone else's Sun, incidentally. And however irritatingly servile to New Labour the Mirror might be, at least it stuck by Labour in the 80s and early 90s. Can't say that for many papers ...

― Robin Carmody, Friday, 3 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

six years pass...

We haven't done this yet have we?

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/2008/07/sun-gotcha.html

― DJ Mencap, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 14:54 (seventeen years ago)

Leg!

― Mark G, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 15:05 (seventeen years ago)

shocking, atrocious, deeply offensive...

how shoddy the photoshopping is lately (first iran missiles now this)

― blueski, Tuesday, 22 July 2008 15:07 (seventeen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.