Which Newspapers Inform Us Of Current Affairs Best?

OK, this was sparked by comments on another thread regarding the relative merits of newspapers in keeping us, the hoi polloi, informed about important news events. I have argued that the tabloids do not serve this purpose as well as the broadsheets (and now compacts). I contend that the tabloids focus on populist agendas with little coverage of background issues, whilst the broadsheets, of whatever political hue, provide more in depth and reasoned coverage.

To get a snapshot picture I have looked at all the main dailies today and below is either their front page leads (where I can determine them) or the lead domestic story on their website. I've focused on domestic stories purely because it's difficult to tell on some sites what is the overall lead, but it's usually a domestic story.

Daily Express http://www.express.co.uk/ Labour Threat To State Pension

The Times http://www.timesonline.co.uk/section/0,,169,00.html Parties Warned Against Inflaming Race Tension

Financial Times http://news.ft.com/home/uk/ UK Consumer Inflation Highest For Seven Years

Daily Mirror http://mirror.co.uk Caught Again! (Rio Ferdinand and Chelsea)

Daily Telegraph http://telegraph.co.uk Howard Pledges £1.7bn Pension Boost

The Guardian http://guardian.co.uk Blair Retreats From EU Vote

The Sun http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2...410028,00.html Why Was He Out? (Hobson Case)

The Independent http://independent.co.uk Immigration May Cause Race Riots, Howard Says

Daily Star http://megastar.co.uk Doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t actually appear to have any current affairs coverage!

Daily Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk Mother: Jackson Fooled The World


Headlines are not an ideal way of determining the validity or otherwise of coverage, but do give some idea of the agendas being followed.

So, tabloids or broadsheets folks?!

[ian@huth]

Different newspapers have areas of strengths and weaknesses in the subject matter they contain so there is no "best" newspaper. Political affiliation and personal agendas also flavour the news dependent on which paper you are looking at. Front pages can change throughout the night as editions change and new stories emerge.

These days I tend to hardly ever buy a newspaper. Last one I bought was for the free CD given away with it. The internet and television has brought instantaneous news to us, usually before the papers have even gone to print.

[philip.j.fry]

What was the headline on the sport?

Originally Posted by ian@huth

Different newspapers have areas of strengths and weaknesses in the subject matter they contain so there is no "best" newspaper. Political affiliation and personal agendas also flavour the news dependent on which paper you are looking at. Front pages can change throughout the night as editions change and new stories emerge.

These days I tend to hardly ever buy a newspaper. Last one I bought was for the free CD given away with it. The internet and television has brought instantaneous news to us, usually before the papers have even gone to print.

But would you make a call on broadsheets versus tabloids in the specific arena of current affairs coverage?

'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'.

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

What was the headline on the sport?

Well I've checked the website but it wasn't too much help! I'm guessing they've gone with a picture story which, unless they've got a truly sensational scoop, does not feature any of the three main political party leaders!

[orangebird]

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'.

I buy the Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World every Sunday - I am neither a uni graduate, nor a plasterer. Which category would you put me in?

[BBKing]

who works for a paper that has a deliberate policy of explaining things concisely and with a reduced vocabulary.

...and in a manner that favours its proprietor. Many years ago I heard Kavanagh on the radio being asked who his personal hero was - 'Rupert Murdoch' came the answer. However tailored to the intellectual level of its readership, if the facts aren't given, or are twisted or downright contradicted then the journalism is poor. Case rested.

We could approach this on a basis of papers most often caught talking rubbish - this isn't easy to do though, as they don't tend to admit it much. The Evening Standard's "45 Minutes From Attack" screaming headline is an obvious example - in fact, comparing the reporting of particular stories is another interesting way to compare journalistic aptitude. I'll dig around.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by andyl

But would you make a call on broadsheets versus tabloids in the specific arena of current affairs coverage?

I am too out of touch with the content of newspapers these days to really comment. Having spent a number of years working with the newspaper industry through its transformation from hot metal and getting free copies of all the newspapers every day it never seemed right to have to buy them when that phase of my life ended some ten years or so ago.

[Nugget]

I buy The Mirror on a Saturday (but that's pretty much purely for the football section ) and The Observer on a Sunday.

For a Sunday paper, I personally feel that The Observer is very good in reporting but, through conversation with a few people over time, the least-politicised (or, at least, the most-rounded) is The Telegraph. Having read it only very rarely, I can't really comment but, at the end of the day, I personally don't think it matters particularly which of the bunch informs us best - most people will just stick to the paper that they've always read.

Having said that, I wish that I could get my folks out of buying the Mail on Sunday, but that's just my opinion

Originally Posted by orangebird

I buy the Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World every Sunday - I am neither a uni graduate, nor a plasterer. Which category would you put me in?

I wouldn't presume to categorise you OB. I took two extreme examples by way of showing that different people have different needs.

Actually your example just further serves my point I think. People want different things from different papers, making it even harder to say which is 'best'.

If there is such a thing as the best paper, it is the one that most successfully matches its content to its target audience. If you take sales as an indication of that, News of the Screws is the 'best' paper.

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.

[philip.j.fry]

Originally Posted by andyl

Well I've checked the website but it wasn't too much help! I'm guessing they've gone with a picture story which, unless they've got a truly sensational scoop, does not feature any of the three main political party leaders!

Whoops, now I've got a mental picture of the three party leaders involved in the kind of situation the Sport likes to write about

Originally Posted by orangebird

I buy the Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World every Sunday - I am neither a uni graduate, nor a plasterer. Which category would you put me in?

Ah, but do you buy the NOTW for its current affairs coverage? That's what I'm getting at. Not that some papers are better at sport, entertainment or whatever.
__________________

Originally Posted by philip.j.fry

Whoops, now I've got a mental picture of the three party leaders involved in the kind of situation the Sport likes to write about

Write?! The Sport is, erm, a picture led title!

Originally Posted by andyl

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.

I think 'tabloid' and 'broadsheet' are too imprecise as definitions of what type of paper is best, and not just because the Inde and the Times are now tabloid, and I still think your question is too imprecise. When you say 'best' or 'better than', do you mean 'contains most detail', 'gives the best analysis' or 'argues its editorial line most effectively'?

The big problem in this context is that our newspapers are partisan so it's hard to know whether you're getting a truly balanced view of any particular event.