Which Newspapers Inform Us Of Current Affairs Best?

Originally Posted by dezzo

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)

I'd agree to a point - dreadful election campaign - but that doesn't explain why the broadsheets have covered such issues, which remain important, and the tabs haven't

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

which remain important,

Important, to you. You can't measure everyone by your own yardstick. There are people out there who genuinely think that Beckham's marriage troubles are more important than the election, and Goldsmith's memo.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by punky

Important, to you. You can't measure everyone by your own yardstick. There are people out there who genuinely think that Beckham's marriage troubles are more important than the election, and Goldsmith's memo.

Yep, I know some people who haven't watched the news or read a paper since the election was announced as they are that fed up with it (and politics in general)

How many people do you know who, when an election message comes on TV, say they wish it was all over?

Originally Posted by punky

Important, to you. You can't measure everyone by your own yardstick. There are people out there who genuinely think that Beckham's marriage troubles are more important than the election, and Goldsmith's memo.

But referring back to my previous post (and indeed #1) do Posh & Becks fulfil 'current affairs' criteria. Would you post something about their marriage (not the legal issues raised) in Current Affairs, Lifestyle or Entertainment here?

Are you suggesting pretty much anything can be defined as Current Affairs? Of course we set our own yardsticks otherwise we could not debate. But my yardstick is better than yours, so there!

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

But referring back to my previous post (and indeed #1) do Posh & Becks fulfil 'current affairs' criteria. Would you post something about their marriage (not the legal issues raised) in Current Affairs, Lifestyle or Entertainment here?

Are you suggesting pretty much anything can be defined as Current Affairs? Of course we set our own yardsticks otherwise we could not debate. But my yardstick is better than yours, so there!

Well, I wasn't trying to categorise the Beckham's marriage troubles as anything, but as it is happening now, then surely it would count as current affairs. Not everything fits into one category. If the Beckhams count as entertainment, then If a soccer player murders someone, is that sport? Anything that is recently happened, or currently on-going, is current affairs, despite wether people think they are important than not.

The point I was trying to make (it appears now I didn't need to, sorry about that), was that, in the way you said "important" you seemed to dismiss anyone who thinks that anything else is important, which I thought was a bit unfair.

[cookie_365]

When I read a newspaper for the first time (e.g. an English language paper abroad, local paper in a city I haven't been before, etc.) I look for the following:

• Is there a clear line drawn between editorial and reporting? In other words, can I tell when it's going beyond the facts and moving into opinion?
• Are the facts supported by cross reference - names with quotes, clear references to studies so I can check them myself if I want to?
• Do the opinion pieces address contrary arguments and come to a conclusion, rather than simply pretend that there's an easy answer?
• Does the paper avoid assuming that you agree with its editorial opinion?
• Does the paper regularly run editorials by different writers with conflicting viewpoints?

On that basis I read The Times, but I also like to occassionally read The Mirror and The Sun to keep a different viewpoint in mind. I used to read the Guardian and occassionally the Telegraph but in the last couple of years they've started to assume that their readers share their views about everything - I don't like that in a paper.

BBC News is generally good, except on Iraq; they seem to be still trying to adopt a 'we were right all along' attitude, which I don't find convincing.

Strangely, there don't seem to be any Sunday papers at the moment that fulfill all my criteria; the Sindy used to a few years ago but it's always been so poorly written (nothing to with the opinions, just the actual 'getting your point across in words' side of things).

What I find particularly odd is that the News International dailies tend to be pretty good (The Sun is exceptionally well written too) but their Sundays are really poor; I'd like to see Sunday editions of the Times and Sun - not the ST or NOTW which don't hold a candle to their daily equivalents.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by andyl

I'd agree to a point - dreadful election campaign - but that doesn't explain why the broadsheets have covered such issues, which remain important, and the tabs haven't

The Sun - Strongly supported the war in Iraq, hence won't give much coverage to anything which portrays the war, or the decisions leading up to the war, in a bad light (such as the AG's advice etc etc).


The Mirror - Was strongly against the war (under Mr Moron especially), but...it's a traditionally Labour-supporting paper, & we're heading up to an election. So, although the legal advice & other stuff is relevant, I think they've chosen not to cover it much as it's not good for Blair & the Government.

Originally Posted by Matt D

The Sun - Strongly supported the war in Iraq, hence won't give much coverage to anything which portrays the war, or the decisions leading up to the war, in a bad light (such as the AG's advice etc etc).


The Mirror - Was strongly against the war (under Mr Moron especially), but...it's a traditionally Labour-supporting paper, & we're heading up to an election. So, although the legal advice & other stuff is relevant, I think they've chosen not to cover it much as it's not good for Blair & the Government.

That's an explanation. But what about the lack of coverage of other election issues that this research reveals? To ignore, or at least not provide effective coverage of a General Election campaign does kind of highlight a) how divorced from the importanvce of politics people seem to have become and b) what a sham our democratic system has become (and that's without talking about proportional representation!). As an aside, TV news audiences also drop at election time.

[Seti]

Originally Posted by cookie_365

• Is there a clear line drawn between editorial and reporting? In other words, can I tell when it's going beyond the facts and moving into opinion?
• Are the facts supported by cross reference - names with quotes, clear references to studies so I can check them myself if I want to?
• Do the opinion pieces address contrary arguments and come to a conclusion, rather than simply pretend that there's an easy answer?
• Does the paper avoid assuming that you agree with its editorial opinion?
• Does the paper regularly run editorials by different writers with conflicting viewpoints?

On that basis I read the Indie becasue it does reflect different opinions and has some valid points in its editorials. They allow contrary arguments for i.e., the war in Iraq etc., and also give thourough news coverage.


I read a paper becasue I enjoy the way it reports things. I don't want to read a paper that glories in celebrity lifestyles, they do not interest me.


The election decline in readership and viewing figures is interesting. I seem to watch more news casts and buy less paper during the election. Maybe its becasue I find a viewable opinioneasier to digest and think about than a readable one ?

Sian.