Which Newspapers Inform Us Of Current Affairs Best?

[Pierre]

Which Newspapers Inform Us Of Current Affairs Best?

None.

all papers serve their own agenda,

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

Even your local rag will sensationalise something beyond all reason if there's a sniff of a good story.

All media do this.

What I can't stand, And it's usually radio news bulletins that do this, is when they pass off speculation as news.

"we may be heading for this" or " scientists advise that its probable" or "a report issued today could change the way we may live in the future"

All bulloocks.

Tabloids are for gossip and innuendo.Broadsheets are great for laying on the lino when you have just washed it... After you have spent Saturday/Sunday afternoon underneath them on the sofa.

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!

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Pierre

None.

all papers serve their own agenda,

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

Or the agenda of the reporter who is writing the story. I read the Times and have read complete rubbish about subjects that I obviously know more about than the pieces author does. This makes me doubt the accuracy/impartiality of the rest of the Times's articles. If this is true for the Times then what hope is there for the rest of the newspapers?

[me283]

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!

Personally I find a lot of sport coverage in the broadsheets is better than the tabloids.

A few years back I used to take the FT and the Sun every day. The FT was for business reasons, but it surprised me how often the Sun had something in the business pages that the FT didn't. I also regularly took the Independent to read on the train at another stage of my life. A very good read.

One remark I would make is that the news as a whole is a vast subject. No single paper covers everything, presumably partly through lack of space. So purely reading a broadsheet might not necessarily give more information. Sure it will IF that particular item is covered, but not every item is.

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 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?

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.

[me283]

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.

Chris, I have no doubt that there is interest in the obits... I was amazed when an old school friend featured (sadly) in there, as I had no idea just how much he had achieved since losing contact. My point was in relation to the fact that different people have different interests. There are a lot of people who are as fascinated by the "celebrity circuit" as there are with the "Society circuit". It's just different interests, that's all.

Very true.

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.

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.......

[me283]

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.......

And I suppose the Society diary in one particular paper enriches everybody's day to day existence?

Why not just be tolerant and accept that different things interest different people? How would you like it if somebody mocked what interests you just because they thought it too low-brow?

Looking at the past few posts I think we're getting a bit sidetracked. In post#1 I asked about which papers kept us best informed about "important news events". Maybe I should have defined that a little tighter - 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 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!

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'.

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'.

Well yes I personally don't regard Britney Spears pregnancy as an important news event, and yes it might be of import to a 14 year old girl. However, I'm not aware of there being many 14 year old girls contributing to CF and in particular to its Current Affairs thread (and where would you post stuff about Britney here - Current Affairs, Entertainment or Lifestyle?). But if you think that it is sensible to equate Britney with, say, the election or Darfur or crime figures, then I guess we should abandon the arbitrary boundaries in the CF Basement and indeed this thread

Today's Guardian, research by Loughborough University..

"...........This sense of drift is also reflected by the extent to which the tabloid press has become less interested in the election as polling day has drawn nearer. Over the past four weeks more than three-quarters of tabloid front pages have featured stories other than the election. Among the red tops, the number of non-election front pages rises to 87%.

"The lack of coverage, particularly in the tabloids, has to be noted as a defining characteristic," Prof Golding said.

"You can point to other stories such as Posh and Becks and the Guildford stabbing, but they have had their equivalents in previous campaigns. The coverage is significantly down and that's not trivial."

The Sun and the Daily Mirror each devoted more than 10 times as many column inches to the Beckhams' marriage than to the leaking of Lord Goldsmith's legal advice on the legality of war in Iraq."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/sto...474748,00.html

[Derek]

I think that is more to do with the general mood being the election is boring with not enough real issues to stimulate a meaningful debate.

Everyone knows the war was sold on a lie and the truth would be massaged to suit whatever agenda had been decided but there is not enough choice out there for it to be a meaningful election issue (Sadly, I'd love to vote for an anti-war party but the rest of their policies are garbage)