The papers

[Spoonsky]

Being in Britain the last month I was struck by the abundance of national newspapers relative to the United States - we only really have the New York Times, and at a stretch the Washington Post or USA Today. On the other hand our local papers are probably much larger.

So - what do you read, and why? I was largely won over by the Times while I was there (they basically made Theresa May PM), but I don't really have much of an idea of the histories or ideologies behind most of them aside from the Sun or the Guardian.

[Baz]

I only read newspapers when I'm on holiday so then it's just what's available. Usually The Mirror or The Times.

I don't understand the snobbery towards some papers though, they're all full of the same rubbish.

[Giggles]

The red tops basically run England.

[Reg]

I read the Guardian sometimes but basically just the sport. I'm much more likely to read online. As a kid I used to like the colourful two page spread with the predicted football lineups.


I only read newspapers when I'm on holiday so then it's just what's available. Usually The Mirror or The Times.

I don't understand the snobbery towards some papers though, they're all full of the same rubbish.
They're really not. You reckon the Sun has the same content as the Telegraph?

[Boydy]

The Guardian mostly. It being free online helps. It's getting a bit clickbaity these days though.

I bought The Times about a month back and quite liked it. I don't really want to pay for just a website though and I'm not really in a shop every day to get a physical copy. I probably wouldn't get time to read it either, until the evening anyway and by that point it's basically old news, isn't it?

[GS]

The Guardian and the Observer both adhere to your standard metropolitan liberal lines, usually topped-up with anxious middle-class hand wringing and faux environmentalist concern. It's a Berliner size, making it difficult to read on a commute and packed so full of annoying columnists (Gerry Adams' internationalism, lads) that my blood would be boiling by the time I've finished reading it, if I didn't just lol at the state of them. Polly Toynbee, Owen Jones and Michael White are always good for a laugh - especially in this age of Conservative dominance.

The Times is centre right, but benefits from being tabloid size and therefore a solid choice for a commute. It tends to be my newspaper of choice for plane journeys and so forth, solely based on size. The Telegraph is my preferred newspaper of choice generally - it's more of a right wing newspaper than the Times, but it has good columnists and likes to bash Trots, where possible.

The Mirror is incapable of detaching itself from a Trot agenda, and was the only newspaper (the Morning Star doesn't count) to continue advocating Labour in 2010. It tends to take a strong anti-Tory line irrespective of what the policy actually is, considering anything to be uttered or ever supported by any Tory to be evil. Margaret Thatcher is considered to be Satan incarnate on earth. It's to be found in households across Liverpool, where the superior Sun newspaper is discredited. The Sun at least benefits from knowing its audience - Murdoch never backs a loser, so it's an excellent bellwether for what's going to happen in an election. See: every election or referendum ever.

[Lewis]

Being in Britain the last month I was struck by the abundance of national newspapers relative to the United States - we only really have the New York Times, and at a stretch the Washington Post or USA Today. On the other hand our local papers are probably much larger.

So - what do you read, and why? I was largely won over by the Times while I was there (they basically made Theresa May PM), but I don't really have much of an idea of the histories or ideologies behind most of them aside from the Sun or the Guardian.

I can't remember who said it (it might be a common notion), but apparently we have 'balanced' (boring and shite) television news, and lively and politicised newspapers; and America has the opposite. It sounds about right from what I can see, and probably the natural product of such a massive country.

The Telegraph was the don of newspapers, but these days it's basically BuzzFeed for women with two surnames, so I don't bother with a regular one.

[Spoonsky]

Yeah, that's spot-on, although the NYT definitely isn't as balanced as the BBC is (is it possible to be balanced with Trump?).

[Byron]

I usually read the Independent if I'm picking up a newspaper, or the Quite Excellent Private Eye.

[Boydy]

I usually read the Independent if I'm picking up a newspaper, or the Quite Excellent Private Eye.
You haven't picked up a paper in a while then. The Independent's been online only for months now.

[Byron]

Yeah, truth be told it's been ages since I bought a copy, so I didn't know they were online only.

[Lewis]

I like how they still knock a front page up every day to convince themselves they're better than a blog.

[Bartholomert]

Yeah, that's spot-on, although the NYT definitely isn't as balanced as the BBC is (is it possible to be balanced with Trump?).

Yes, it is possible to balanced with both the candidates of the two major parties for President when the two are nearly tied.

[Jimmy Floyd]

The obvious reason we have more national newspapers than America is that we're a smaller country. You can probably live a pretty solid life in America never paying attention to anything outside your own state.

[Lewis]

The Yorkshire Post misses a trick by bothering with external affairs. If it was all Stalinist about the outside world its circulation would double.

[GS]

I like how they still knock a front page up every day to convince themselves they're better than a blog.

It's a bit tragic. The Guardian ask every visitor to the website for money, and were basically trying to crowd source their coverage of Chilcot.

There probably isn't a market for the metropolitan liberal echo chamber beyond self-congratulatory Twitter exchanges.

[mikem]

We never needed or really had national newspapers in the US growing up in the 70's - 80's. The local papers were good, had both international and local coverage, and local competition. The decline and consolidation of newspapers and radio behind a couple of holding companies and the corresponding rise in national tv media has to be one of the worst things that has happened in the US since I was a kid.

[GS]

I assume state or municipal newspapers in the US would cover federal news of interest anyway, and at least have some smattering of relevant international news. It'd probably be sourced from AP or similar, but it's not as if you'd be living in a bubble reading a non-national newspaper.

[mikem]

There are no state level newspapers. Reduce it to a smattering of both federal and international and you are nearer the target. I doubt that anyone would look to get anything but local coverage from their local paper though. The bigger problem is that most people get their news from some form of tv that sections everything to 2 minutes to 30 second chunks per story to fit in 4 minutes of coverage between commercial breaks. Repeat four times to make a half hour newscast with at least the last segment covering entertainment / sports / human interest and pretty soon nobody knows anything beyond what they agreed with already.

[Spoonsky]

Yes, it is possible to balanced with both the candidates of the two major parties for President when the two are nearly tied.

That's not what I mean. Regardless of what their respective chances are, the NYT shit-talks Trump pretty constantly. But I don't think it's possible to be neutral about him, except for stats-focused places like 538.

[mugbull]

In all honesty, "balanced" and "unbiased" in reporting is overrated. I want to read what other people think; I feel like i'm smart enough to independently discerb my own opinions. What I don't like is when papers or journals are doctrinaire, as in you know what position they're going to take on every issue before you even read the article. That's why i stopped reading the Economist. Clearly they have smart, knowledgeable people doing the reporting, but the organization is so fucking stubborn.

[Lewis]

That lot have been in existential MELTDOWN since Brexit. :cool:

[GS]

They have. It's been somewhat pathetic.

[Panda Bear]

I'm pretty jealous.

Canada has a few national papers, but local papers rule the day. Unfortunately, most local papers have been bought out by major companies, which means there has been a homogenisation of coverage.

In Edmonton, where I live, there are two local papers which are both owned by the same parent company. Of the two national papers in circulation, one of them is owned by the same owners as the locals.