?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Something that foreigners often find difficult when reading British stories is not knowing the editorial stances of British newspapers. British newspapers seem to be more opinionated than many foreign newspapers, and if you don't know where that paper is coming from, you'll find it hard to deal with any bias. So in the spirit of international brotherhood, here is Philmo Phlegm's Guide to British Newspapers...


The Independent: Everything's shit, and it's all our fault.
Daily Mail: Everything's shit, and it's all their fault.
Daily Telegraph: Everything's shit, not like it was in my day.
The Times: Everything's shit, but you'll have to pay more money to see why.
Daily Express: Everything's shit, and has been since Diana died.
The Sun: "Everything's fab!", says Page 3 stunner Tracy, 36-30-32, from Essex.
The Mirror: Everything's shit, and it's all the fault of the Tories.
The Guardian: Everything's shit, and it's all the fault of the Jews. And the bankers. And especially the Jewish bankers.
The Morning Star: Everything's shit, not like it was in The Soviet Socialist Utopia.
Daily Record: Everything's shit, and it's all the fault of the English bastards.
Daily Star: Simon Cowell's a shit.
The Financial Times: Everything's shit, so thank god you're rich.
Absolutely any local newspaper: Everything's shit and it's all the fault of the council. That, or Londoners who don't understand our local ways.


Interestingly, television news is much more neutral, and coverage of most stories is rarely obviously biased. However, the selection of news stories can be. Sky News uses The Times to decide what is an important story. BBC News uses The Guardian for the same purpose. Channel 4 News uses some combination of the Independent and the Guardian. ITN follows the other channels, except if it has an exclusive.




PS Since this is my 911th post, I felt I had to use this userpic!

Comments

( 21 comments — Leave a comment )
andrewducker
Apr. 13th, 2012 03:27 pm (UTC)
Thank you, that made me laugh.

If it was public, I'd link to it.
philmophlegm
Apr. 13th, 2012 03:39 pm (UTC)
Oh, go on then...
mountainkiss
Apr. 13th, 2012 08:32 pm (UTC)
I never thought that there was a way in which the British press could be coded that would leave me thinking "the only one I can agree with is The Daily Star!"
livejournal
Apr. 14th, 2012 11:00 am (UTC)
Interesting Links for 14-04-2012
User andrewducker referenced to your post from Interesting Links for 14-04-2012 saying: [...] ) A Cut-out and Keep Guide to British Newspapers [...]
cairmen
Apr. 14th, 2012 11:08 am (UTC)
What about the FT?
cartesiandaemon
Apr. 14th, 2012 11:51 am (UTC)
Everything's shit and pink? :)
philmophlegm
Apr. 14th, 2012 12:11 pm (UTC)
Cripples, I forgot the FT!


OK, edit imminent...
cairmen
Apr. 14th, 2012 12:48 pm (UTC)
Given the certainty or lack therof, plus the occasional rather shrill tone in the FT's predictions over the last year, I'd suggest

"You should invest over THERE! No, THERE! No - oh, god, we don't know, everything's shit."
cartesiandaemon
Apr. 14th, 2012 11:51 am (UTC)
LOL. That was very helpful :)
skington
Apr. 14th, 2012 01:19 pm (UTC)
All looks plausible, apart from the Guardian - it's all the fault of the Jews? Really?
strawberryfrog
Apr. 14th, 2012 02:13 pm (UTC)
Yeah this. As a middle-class North London Guardian reader I am appalled at the anti-Semitism displayed here ;)
skington
Apr. 14th, 2012 02:21 pm (UTC)
A comment elsewhere suggests that most of the "anti-semitism" is in fact the Guardian being anti-Israel and especially anti-Likud, with maybe some genuine anti-semitism creeping in at the margins. Still, I wouldn't call it a defining feature of the paper.
kerrypolka
Apr. 15th, 2012 07:12 am (UTC)
It really is quite hilariously anti-semitic (I say this as your very typical knit-your-own-tofu Graun reader). I still have a subscription and read it daily, but yes, and it's not just "anti-Israel". It's splashed with eg stories about "Pro-Israel Business Tycoons" (wink wink, you know what I mean) and there's been some really shocking stuff about "the chosen ones" in the Editorials section over the past year or so (and possibly longer, that's just as long as I've been reading it daily).
wellinghall
Apr. 14th, 2012 05:21 pm (UTC)
I think it was Not The Nine O'Clock News who had this sketch -

"I read the Daily Mail [or whatever] because it doesn't tell me what to think."

"I read the Daily Telegraph [or ... ] because it just gives me the news."

"I read the Express [or ... ] because it doesn't patronise me."

"I read the Financial Times because I a=have a pink bathroom."
philmophlegm
Apr. 14th, 2012 06:57 pm (UTC)
There's also a scene in Yes, Minister that does something similar. I think it involves Jim explaining to Annie who reads which newspaper. I'm doing this from memory, but I think it was something like this:

The Times is read by the people who run the country.
The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country.
The Financial Times is read by the people who own the country.
The Mirror is read by people who think they should run the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think another country should run the country.
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who used to run the country.
wellinghall
Apr. 14th, 2012 07:02 pm (UTC)
Ah yes, of course.
philmophlegm
Apr. 14th, 2012 07:07 pm (UTC)
Some rummaging around on YouTube (search for "yes minister newspapers"), reveals that I was wrong on a couple of things. First of al, it's Sir Humphrey that Jim tells, not his wife. Also:

The Mirror is read by people who think they run the country.
The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country.
The Morning Star is read by people who think another country should run the country.
The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think another country does run the country.
eledonecirrhosa
Apr. 15th, 2012 10:20 am (UTC)
I remember a much longer version of this (not in Yes Minister) that included a lot more newspapers and ended with:

The Sun is read by people who don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
doccy
Apr. 15th, 2012 11:50 am (UTC)
jane_somebody
Apr. 26th, 2012 01:47 pm (UTC)
You can tell you are not a Sun reader, since Tracy's measurments are entirely implausible for a page 3 stunner :-) (Not that I know exactly what would be the requisite measurements except being sure boobs must be bigger, but those measurements are implausible for the majority of women, who generally have hips.)
( 21 comments — Leave a comment )