Originally Posted by Pierre

None.

all papers serve their own agenda,

whether that is a politcal agenda or the main object of selling papers.

Originally Posted by andyl

Some interesting opinions emerging.

Damien, I would have to disagree that the tabloids inform more (on current affairs) because they are wider read. If you want to know whether Coldplay Chris and Gwyneth have had a row then you'll be informed; if you want to know, say, the background to the immigration debate, then you will not (well you'll be highly selectively and often misleadingly informed whereas the right wing broadsheets will put their view into some context).

O/B, your lack of time to read a broadsheet depresses me. It could restrict your world view as, for example, foreign news is noticeable largely by its absence in the tabloids.. Love or loathe The Guardian or whatever will bring new ideas to the fore and provide the background to the major issues of the day.

I take on board those who use t'internet and news channels as sources. I'd be lost without the BBC site myself and the 24 hour channels let you catch up pretty much at your convenience. But the pleasure of sprawling in front of a paper is not one I'd readily give up.

Coggy, I'd personally recommend the Sunday Times. Could sleep a small army under all those supplements over several afternoons (although you devour a rainforest in doing so ;) )

Still not sure I've got too far in getting people to opine on whether the b/sheets are better at informing, specifically on current affairs, than the tabs. If it's celeb rumour and gossip - and sport perhaps - I concede the tabs win hands down, although there's Heat out there too!

C'mon you fence sitters!

Originally Posted by me283

As for the tabloid being good for celeb gossip, sure they have some in there. They also have a problem page. But the broadsheets have obituary columns... and what exactly is the point of that to most of us mere mortals? They rarely mention people who are known to the masses?

Originally Posted by Chris T

Actually you get some very interesting life stories in the Telegraph obituary column, and the fact that often they are people you have never heard of is part of the interest. What drives the selection of people who are featured is normally that they have done, or been connected to, something that you probably have heard of. For instance, I once read in the Tele the obit of the man who invented the font used for many years by the Post Office. Completely random, but strangely interesting. And a few years back, when a friend's dad died, she sent in his details for the regular paid-for obits service, and was phoned back by the Obituary editor (yes, the Telegraph has one!). Her dad was a member of the BEF unit that was sacrificed at Dinkirk to hold back the Germans and allow the rest to escape. He spent the entire war in a PoW camp. The obits editor told my friend that he thought it was about time the story of that unit got an airing, and asked if he could work up her three-line submission into a full story. She supplied a photo of him in uniform and some more biographical detail and it ended up as about 1/3 of a page.

Originally Posted by Chris T

Actually you get some very interesting life stories in the Telegraph obituary column, and the fact that often they are people you have never heard of is part of the interest. What drives the selection of people who are featured is normally that they have done, or been connected to, something that you probably have heard of. For instance, I once read in the Tele the obit of the man who invented the font used for many years by the Post Office. Completely random, but strangely interesting. And a few years back, when a friend's dad died, she sent in his details for the regular paid-for obits service, and was phoned back by the Obituary editor (yes, the Telegraph has one!). Her dad was a member of the BEF unit that was sacrificed at Dinkirk to hold back the Germans and allow the rest to escape. He spent the entire war in a PoW camp. The obits editor told my friend that he thought it was about time the story of that unit got an airing, and asked if he could work up her three-line submission into a full story. She supplied a photo of him in uniform and some more biographical detail and it ended up as about 1/3 of a page.

Originally Posted by andyl

I think Obits do fit within a generally accepted if loose definition of Current Affairs because they feature people who have made a significant contribution to society. They therefore perform a function of informing us of a significant person's death and their life achievements. On the other hand Britney Spears pregnancy....... :)

Originally Posted by andyl

I'm thinking about the political issues of the day - v. pertinent at the moment obviously! - stories like the Rover closure etc. Whilst I appreciate people may well be interested in Britney Spears' pregnancy I personally wouldn't class it as an important news event.

Hopefully that clarifies my reasoning for starting the thread.

As you were! :)

Originally Posted by Chris T

Not at all, sadly. The key to the confusion lies in the fact that you, personally, don't class Britney Spears' pregnancy as an important news event. I would argue that except over the biggest, hugest world events (911, perhaps, or the Olympics), there is no consensus about what is important news. Therefore there cannot possibly be a consensus over which newspaper, or type of newspaper, covers it best.

If you are a 14-year-old girl, for example, Britney Spears is your idol and role model (I think, no idea if that's actually still the case, but you get the idea), and therefore anything and everything that happens in her life is of vast importance. Any newspaper that gives you the details of Britney's latest exploits, will in the opinion of that person, be 'the best'.