# UK media sources



## maltimad (Sep 30, 2011)

Hello.

I'm not a frequent poster, particularly on the Interchange - as my reasons for visiting AAAC are not usually discussed in the typical threads within this section. That said, I have a question directed to UK-based readers (and to anyone else knowledgeable on the subject), please - in two parts.

Within the political spectrum (Left to Right OR Labour - Conservative), how do the main UK papers/media sources generally present in their reporting?

From my forays thus far, I've gleaned the following:

Guardian (Labour/Left-ish)
Telegraph (Conservative/Right)
Daily Mail (Conservative/Right-ish - but approaching tabloid quality)
The Independent (Contrarian - I like their reporting on stories that are ignored by other sources)
BBC (fairly balanced, it seems - but with a pro-British slant on international matters. perhaps to be expected? I don't know)

Is the above correct? What about other major UK papers/media sources? 

I understand that personal political preferences/philosophy lead to agreement/disagreement with a particular paper/media source's slant. I'm more interested in the quality of reporting/writing, separate from political leanings.

Thanks for your help.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ You greatly flatter the BBC by calling it fairly balanced. It is considered by many to be left of centre. As an organisation it may believe itself to be unbiased, but that is not so. I'm not aware of its outlook being noticeably pro-British, however, but you may be better placed to determine that.

The Times is a reputable source, perhaps similar in leaning to the Telegraph. The Spectator is a very good weekly, again with a Conservative/Right outlook. The New Statesman offers a socialist perspective. The Observer was at one time considered a good paper, but I have not read it for many years and cannot say.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

The BBC is the state propaganda channel. UK citizens are forced to pay a licence fee which funds it if they own a TV.

It is more an establishment channel, rather than straightforward left or right wing. It is full of its own importance and never tires of telling everybody how good it believes itself to be. Its propaganda is usually subtle. Choice of leading news items and omission are more important than outright lies.

"Private Eye" is useful for early warning on stories that will soon break and also for the background infighting in various newsrooms.

"The Independent" is owned by the Russian oligarch Lebedev who owns the free sheet London Evening Standard. It may have had a contrarian image once. It is now struggling; its paper version has ceased and it is now only available online.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> ^ You greatly flatter the BBC by calling it fairly balanced. It is considered by many to be left of centre. As an organisation it may believe itself to be unbiased, but that is not so. I'm not aware of its outlook being noticeably pro-British, however, but you may be better placed to determine that.
> 
> The Times is a reputable source, perhaps similar in leaning to the Telegraph. The Spectator is a very good weekly, again with a Conservative/Right outlook. The New Statesman offers a socialist perspective. The Observer was at one time considered a good paper, but I have not read it for many years and cannot say.


The Times, like the tabloid populist rag/comic The Sun, is owned by the Murdoch News International Empire. It now peddles his particular right wing, anti-monarchist, anti-Europe, pro-whatever Murdoch thinks viewpoint, but, because of it's history, is perceived to be a sensible, reputable news source. The Torygraph now peddles whatever its proprietors (the Barclay twins) imagine to be saleable. It is losing money dramatically, as well as having lost any integrity it may have once had.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ As Chouan suggests, if rather excitedly, newspaper proprietors have been known to take an occasional interest in whatever their titles are printing, and sometimes this is seen by some as an attempt at influencing events and current affairs.

Mention of newspapers losing money reminds me that the Guardian is losing money particularly well - it lost £40 m in 2015, capping a year in which its sales fell by nearly 10%.

Circulation figures for June 2015 showed the Guardian's circulation to be c. 180,000 - the lowest of what were once known as the broadsheets. By comparison the Financial Times sold 210,000, The Times was just under 400,000 and the Telegraph was 480,000.

All newspapers have declining circulation, due to the internet, and quite a number of regional newspapers have closed.


----------



## maltimad (Sep 30, 2011)

Thanks for all the replies, thus far - very informative. In case I wasn't clear enough above, I'm not limiting my query to papers. BBC and other electronic media sources are included, as well. Sky, Channel4, others?

It's interesting that the print newspaper industry is in such a downturn, all over the developed world, and in many parts of the developing as well. And it seems true everywhere that left-leaning/progressive/etc papers have a more drastic reduction in circulation. I wonder if that has something to do with the general age distribution of that demographic. Older folks tend to vote, be, and consume media that is conservative/right-leaning. While younger people tend to vote, be, and consume media that is the opposite. Older folks are also more set in their ways, and less comfortable with newer technologies (generally). Maybe the progressive/left papers' readership are more quick to adopt newer means of news 'reading' (internet, phone apps, and the like)? That may a reason for those papers more drastic reduction in print circulation. I wonder...

Anyway, thanks again - keep the replies coming, if anyone feels like commenting further.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

The BBC, which receives vast sums of money from the compulsory TV licensing system in the UK, has come under fire for its very extensive web-based news services, which have undercut both traditional news media and also alternative web-based news sources. The danger (hypothetical, at the moment) is that eventually there may only be a single, government-funded news source in the UK, if the current decline in independent news media continues.

As for print newspapers, I think it's true to say that here conservative/right-wing politics have always been far more significant, in terms of number of titles and circulation, than the left. The Guardian, Observer and Daily Mirror (and New Statesman) are I think the only left-leaning titles, ignoring for example the Socialist Worker and Morning Star (official organ of the Communist party).

I'm not sure that statistics bear out the commonly aired view that older folk avoid the newer technologies. Just look at the number of geriatrics posting on here for instance ...


----------



## maltimad (Sep 30, 2011)

Langham said:


> . Just look at the number of geriatrics posting on here for instance ...


This made me laugh - in a good way. Touche, but i did say (and if I didn't, I certainly meant) generally speaking. My experience, though, may completely differ from yours. Among the older people in my circle, many are perfectly adept at using computers and smartphones to communicate, work, etc.

However, for one reason or another, news in electronic form is not their preference. I've heard the reasons to be 'reading anything for that long on a computer screen hurts my eyes' to 'I like the permanence of print media - I don't trust anything that can be erased and completely re-written'.

But that aside, not having ever lived in the UK, I find the fact that the majority of media (and least print media) leaning Right (or at least, right) to be interesting. Pardon my continuing questions, but in your (and again, not just Mr. Langham, but anyone who would want to comment) mind, why is this? I'm curious.

Thanks.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

maltimad said:


> This made me laugh - in a good way. Touche, but i did say (and if I didn't, I certainly meant) generally speaking. My experience, though, may completely differ from yours. Among the older people in my circle, many are perfectly adept at using computers and smartphones to communicate, work, etc.
> 
> However, for one reason or another, news in electronic form is not their preference. I've heard the reasons to be 'reading anything for that long on a computer screen hurts my eyes' to 'I like the permanence of print media - I don't trust anything that can be erased and completely re-written'.
> 
> ...


Essentially because news media proprietorship requires significant amounts of money, and the people who have sufficient money to buy and own the news media tend to have political views that are to the Right. Look at your Fox News, part of News Corp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp ), formerly News Corporation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation ) whose British subsidiary News UK ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_UK ) own the populist "Sun" in the UK and the formerly respectable "Times". The proprietor's populist right wing viewpoint is very much the agenda of his British based News media. Others, such as the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily Express" are owned by people of similarly populist right wing political views. Indeed, the grandfather, and proprietor of the paper, of the current owner of the Daily Heil was an ardent supporter of Hitler and Fascism until the outbreak of war in 1939, as well as being an anti-semite https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm .


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

How the UK gets its news is none of my concern but are their any in depth articles written on left wing media types and their Stalinist sympathies? A man who probably butchered as many, if not more, of his fellow human beings as Hitler?

Or are 80 year old Fascist affiliations of men who are long dead the only ones worth bringing up?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> How the UK gets its news is none of my concern but are their any in depth articles written on left wing media types and their Stalinist sympathies?


Find me a mainstream British news media concern that ever supported the USSR and soviet communism and we can discuss them. You'll have a hard job! 
There were, of course, individuals who wrote Stalinist copy, but rarely, if ever, for mainstream newspapers, and they were openly members of the communist party, so are hardly a mystery.



SG_67 said:


> A man who probably butchered as many, if not more, of his fellow human beings as Hitler?


Your point being?



SG_67 said:


> Or are 80 year old Fascist affiliations of men who are long dead the only ones worth bringing up?


As their descendant still own the newspaper, and still writes populist rightist stuff, it is indeed worth bringing up.

In any case, the question was asked of the members to explain why most of the UK news media is politically of the right, which question I answered, so I'm not sure of what you are trying to say here..


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I simply asked a question. If there are no newspapers that had a leftist slant and sympathized with the USSR in UK history then so be it. 

As for you last comment, should be sins of the fathers be visited upon the children?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I simply asked a question. If there are no newspapers that had a leftist slant and sympathized with the USSR in UK history then so be it.
> 
> As for you last comment, should be sins of the fathers be visited upon the children?


If the man is happy to inherit the heritage, the estates, the money, the title, the proprietorship of the news media that supported Hitler, that still makes him money, then yes. 
If one's grandfather, or great grandfather made their fortune through the slave trade, and one inherited that fortune, then one is associated with the slave trade, as one has directly profited from it.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I simply asked a question. If there are no newspapers that had a leftist slant and sympathized with the USSR in UK history then so be it.


Are you implying that a newspaper with a leftist slant must necessarily sympathise with the USSR?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

By implication and the links you provided those papers who lean right are also somehow bound to fascism. 

Again, I'm not implying anything. I simply asked question.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

SG_67 said:


> I simply asked a question. If there are no newspapers that had a leftist slant and sympathized with the USSR in UK history then so be it.


'The Morning Star' was the Communist newspaper. Very low circulation. You never saw anyone reading it. The Communist party in the UK eventually decided to pack it in and call it a day I believe. I think they were too keen on the good life.

'The Socialist Worker' is a bit more prominent. You often see it on sale and its banner on demonstration placards. Tends to have very brief articles with little depth - more sloganeering than anything. Socialist Worker members are often very good judges of decent ale for what it is worth.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

In fairness, 'the Socialist Worker' has very good coverage of industrial disputes that the mainstream media ignore. Hence its prominence at Trades Union conferences etc.

https://socialistworker.co.uk/


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I don't think you should read too much into the political leanings of newspaper proprietors. In my experience they are more interested in publishing papers that make money, than anything else. How one chooses to characterise the political inclinations of the British newspaper-buying public is a slightly delicate matter, but more of them appear to support the Conservatives than Labour, and some of them, I might concede, are even right-wing.

Incidentally, I consider myself a very good judge of real ale without requiring the assistance of the Socialist Worker.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Langham said:


> Incidentally, I consider myself a very good judge of real ale without requiring the assistance of the Socialist Worker.


It is just an observation - not a recommendation that you seek their assistance down the pub.

I do remember bumping into one Socialist Worker I know in Moorgate, on the day the police killed that news vendor Ian Tomlinson. I thought he might be anticipating the imminent fall of capitalism, but he was more sanguine. He was a very useful source on internal company politics though and gainfully employed himself.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ I was just joshing.

As a student, I took both the Socialist Worker and Morning Star for a while. I now can't explain that episode in my life, even to myself.


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

Langham said:


> ^ As Chouan suggests, if rather excitedly, newspaper proprietors have been known to take an occasional interest in whatever their titles are printing, and sometimes this is seen by some as an attempt at influencing events and current affairs.
> 
> Mention of newspapers losing money reminds me that the Guardian is losing money particularly well - it lost £40 m in 2015, capping a year in which its sales fell by nearly 10%.
> 
> ...


The Guardian's declining sales are bolstered by the BBC buying thousands of copies every week. Over 80,00 in 2014.
https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guar...-corporation-corrects-inaccurate-foi-response


----------



## Odradek (Sep 1, 2011)

maltimad said:


> From my forays thus far, I've gleaned the following:
> 
> Guardian (Labour/Left-ish)
> Telegraph (Conservative/Right)
> ...


Guardian (Labour/Increasingly far left, and delusional, promoting all sorts of SJW and pan-sexual nonsense)
Telegraph (Nose-diving in sales and quality. Has lost it's conservative readership and lost all standards. Now a more upmarket Daily Mail)
Daily Mail (Generally tabloid trash, which pretends to be somewhat conservative, but still has an editorial policy at variance to it's readership. i.e. Fiercely anti-UKIP)
The Independent (Dead in the water. Ceased publication and now online only. Tries to be more leftwing than the Guardian.)
BBC (Anything but balanced, and getting worse. It's editorial stance is essentially set by The Guardian. Manipulative, and it censors by omission.)

SKY News is the other main TV news and although I haven't owned a television for years now, it seems to be competing with the BBC in it's editorial slant. Years ago I used to think it was very "right-wing", and a bit like a UK Fox News. Seems to have changed it's tune. Lots of funding coming from Qatar and other dubious locales.

Breitbart London is limited, but one of the few places to get real news about what's currently going on in Europe.
Guido Fawkes and Going Postal for current politics.

Here's a site where you can view the front pages of most national newspapers every day.
https://suttonnick.tumblr.com


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Odradek said:


> Guardian (Labour/Increasingly far left, and delusional, promoting all sorts of SJW and pan-sexual nonsense)
> Telegraph (Nose-diving in sales and quality. Has lost it's conservative readership and lost all standards. Now a more upmarket Daily Mail)
> Daily Mail (Generally tabloid trash, which pretends to be somewhat conservative, but still has an editorial policy at variance to it's readership. i.e. Fiercely anti-UKIP)
> The Independent (Dead in the water. Ceased publication and now online only. Tries to be more leftwing than the Guardian.)
> ...


Curious view of the Guardian, which I would view as centrist and Blairite/New Labour, so not Left at all. 
The BBC seems to me to be running scared of the Tories, so pretty much follows the Tory line. Again, certainly not Left by any stretch of the imagination. However, as I don't watch television, unless there is decent rugby or football being broadcast, I'm not so sure about television news, however, I do listen to Radio 4 on a daily basis, and they are very definitely not following the Guardian line!


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Guido Fawkes is a right wing blog. Handy for reading about Labour scandals - but little else.

Most British national newspapers now rely on click bait to boost their revenues and the Daily Mail even boasts about its US news coverage to extend its readership. The Sun had to remove its paywall recently to compete.

London commuters have free sheets available in the morning and also in the evening. Previously the two evening free sheets would last about two stops( mostly basic headlines plus gossip about Amy Winehouse and other celebs). Now The Standard lasts a lot longer than that; although it is bulked up by a property supplement, which I don't read, on one day.

'Private Eye' is the only publication I would pay for.

https://www.private-eye.co.uk


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> Guido Fawkes is a right wing blog. Handy for reading about Labour scandals - but little else.
> 
> Most British national newspapers now rely on click bait to boost their revenues and the Daily Mail even boasts about its US news coverage to extend its readership. The Sun had to remove its paywall recently to compete.
> 
> ...


Indeed, the only news publication that I buy, that offers a balanced view and criticises all parties.


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

I used to watch Channel 4 news as an alternative to BBC. I had to give up when it became agitprop on behalf of Syrian asylum seekers and the economic migrants based in Calais. Krisnan Guru Murphy used to hold court at lunchtime at a caff in Grays Inn Road that I used. Also saw Jon Snow from time to time - colourful ties. No TV news presents a case for stopping the migrants. They all pretend this is impossible.

On that same street we bumped into former ITV newsreader Sir Trevor McDonald who said 'hello' to my companion (who did not know him personally). Possibly some sort of black 'brother' thing?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

I suppose it could be worse. I remember watching CNN on ski holidays - one of the few English language channels available. A tedious fifteen or twenty minute loop, with the loathsome Richard Quest at the Davos conference.

The Israel Lobby ganged up to get fat newsreader Jim Clancy the sack.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> I used to watch Channel 4 news as an alternative to BBC. I had to give up when it became agitprop on behalf of Syrian asylum seekers and the economic migrants based in Calais. Krisnan Guru Murphy used to hold court at lunchtime at a caff in Grays Inn Road that I used. Also saw Jon Snow from time to time - colourful ties. No TV news presents a case for stopping the migrants. They all pretend this is impossible.
> 
> On that same street we bumped into former ITV newsreader Sir Trevor McDonald who said 'hello' to my companion (who did not know him personally). Possibly some sort of black 'brother' thing?


I have only very rarely watched Channel 4 news recently, but when I did I used to think it the most balanced. Indeed, I urged my politics students to watch Channel 4 news and Newsnight on BBC 2, and to ignore the rest.


----------



## maltimad (Sep 30, 2011)

Chouan said:


> Essentially because news media proprietorship requires significant amounts of money, and the people who have sufficient money to buy and own the news media tend to have political views that are to the Right. Look at your Fox News, part of News Corp ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corp ), formerly News Corporation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_Corporation ) whose British subsidiary News UK ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_UK ) own the populist "Sun" in the UK and the formerly respectable "Times". The proprietor's populist right wing viewpoint is very much the agenda of his British based News media. Others, such as the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily Express" are owned by people of similarly populist right wing political views. Indeed, the grandfather, and proprietor of the paper, of the current owner of the Daily Heil was an ardent supporter of Hitler and Fascism until the outbreak of war in 1939, as well as being an anti-semite https://spartacus-educational.com/Jmail.htm .





Langham said:


> I don't think you should read too much into the political leanings of newspaper proprietors. In my experience they are more interested in publishing papers that make money, than anything else. How one chooses to characterise the political inclinations of the British newspaper-buying public is a slightly delicate matter, but more of them appear to support the Conservatives than Labour, and some of them, I might concede, are even right-wing.
> 
> Incidentally, I consider myself a very good judge of real ale without requiring the assistance of the Socialist Worker.





Odradek said:


> Guardian (Labour/Increasingly far left, and delusional, promoting all sorts of SJW and pan-sexual nonsense)
> Telegraph (Nose-diving in sales and quality. Has lost it's conservative readership and lost all standards. Now a more upmarket Daily Mail)
> Daily Mail (Generally tabloid trash, which pretends to be somewhat conservative, but still has an editorial policy at variance to it's readership. i.e. Fiercely anti-UKIP)
> The Independent (Dead in the water. Ceased publication and now online only. Tries to be more leftwing than the Guardian.)
> ...





Kingstonian said:


> Guido Fawkes is a right wing blog. Handy for reading about Labour scandals - but little else.
> 
> Most British national newspapers now rely on click bait to boost their revenues and the Daily Mail even boasts about its US news coverage to extend its readership. The Sun had to remove its paywall recently to compete.
> 
> ...


Thanks for taking the time to comment, all - it's nice to read all your thoughts on this matter. Thanks, in particular, Mr. Odradek, for the website link. I will certainly read up. Interesting about Breitbart London. My familiarity is with Breitbart's US website, which I would not call balanced in any way. It's very much to the Right, and in a muckraking way - and loose with facts, too. Maybe (hopefully) the London counterpart is different.

In any case, it's nice to be now more informed about the UK media. I'm already tired of US media's myopic focus on the presidential and primary elections, so other Anglophone countries' media is my refuge.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

You might find it of interest that the current government has been seeking to bring the BBC under government control, with much encouragement from the Murdoch owned "Sun" and "Times", who, clearly have no agenda here, apart from the fact that Murdoch owns "Sky" and sees the BBC as a dangerous rival media organisation.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-bbc-haters-halted-next-europe-david-cameron


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> You might find it of interest that the current government has been seeking to bring the BBC under government control, with much encouragement from the Murdoch owned "Sun" and "Times", who, clearly have no agenda here, apart from the fact that Murdoch owns "Sky" and sees the BBC as a dangerous rival media organisation.
> https://www.theguardian.com/comment...s-bbc-haters-halted-next-europe-david-cameron


Indeed the BBC is a highly dangerous media organisation. It is lavishly funded by us all whether we wish to or not, and is entirely relieved of the commercial responsibilities borne by all other media organisations, whom it undercuts mercilessly, threatening the very existence of any alternative news and political narratives than its own overly metropolitan and left-friendly brand.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> Indeed the BBC is a highly dangerous media organisation. It is lavishly funded by us all whether we wish to or not, and is entirely relieved of the commercial responsibilities borne by all other media organisations, whom it undercuts mercilessly, threatening the very existence of any alternative news and political narratives than its own overly metropolitan and left-friendly brand.


+1,000.

The BBC should become a subscription service or, better yet, abolished.

(For posters who may be unaware, if you watch any live TV in the UK - irrespective of whether or not it is a BBC channel - you must pay a licence fee to the BBC of approx. £145 per year. It is a criminal offence to watch live TV without a licence.)


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

BBC breakfast news has degenerated this last few years into a programme seemingly aimed directly at mothers, an almost ceaseless fare of items about inoculations, still births, access to schools, cost of childcare, ad nauseum.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

I picked up a copy of Private Eye recently, enjoyed it enormously, and wonder why I ever ceased to read it. Perhaps the last bastion of published truth in England?



Kingstonian said:


> The BBC is the state propaganda channel. UK citizens are forced to pay a licence fee which funds it if they own a TV.
> 
> It is more an establishment channel, rather than straightforward left or right wing. It is full of its own importance and never tires of telling everybody how good it believes itself to be. Its propaganda is usually subtle. Choice of leading news items and omission are more important than outright lies.
> 
> ...


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

As I indicated above, the Right loathe the independence of the BBC, they hate the idea of a public owned news media system that isn't controlled by the government of the day, especially if the government of the day is Tory. They'll also do pretty much anything that the Dirty Digger tells them to do.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Shaver said:


> I picked up a copy of Private Eye recently, enjoyed it enormously, and wonder why I ever ceased to read it. Perhaps the last bastion of published truth in England?


Indeed. Well worth a subscription.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

What a surprise which side of the fence Chouan sits when it comes to the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation. Ah, well.


----------

