Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Chris T
'Best' in this context is impossible to answer objectively. What's best for a well-read university graduate is not best for someone who left school at 16 with no GCSEs and has spent his life since then tacking up plasterboard on building sites. For example, if you argue persuasively in favour of the razor-sharp political analysis of the Telegraph, you may be right (somehow I doubt you would do that though   ), but the Telegraph is no use to someone who hasn't had the training necessary to follow the development of an argument over the course of 1,500 words. Far better for him might be a column penned by Trevor Kavanagh of the Sun, who works for a paper that has a deliberate policy of explaining things concisely and with a reduced vocabulary.
Note that I am not necessarily speaking in favour of either the Sun or the Tele, simply demonstrating the folly of calling something the unqualified 'best'. |
That a very fair argument to a point, but there is nothing to stop the tabloids including more information within their news stories and presenting it in a concise and easy to understand way. But, generally they don't. I have said before that I think that The Sun, for example is exceptionally well written and brilliant at what it does, for example, but what it and the other tabloids do not generally do is inform us in any great detail or useful way about current affairs.
And I'm not asking people to say one paper is better than another, but whether one type of paper is better than another in covering current affairs.