5 ms·
Disclaimer: I'm a Graun reader, make of that what you will. 1) and 2) are largely a definition of a newspaper's purpose, educating their readers on something t
by gjtempleton 10y ago
Disclaimer: I'm a Graun reader, make of that what you will.
1) and 2) are largely a definition of a newspaper's purpose, educating their readers on something they don't know about. They also don't purely blame it on Thatcher, they make it clear that every government since Thatcher's has made this easier. They even single out 2001 as a key year in this process.
I'd also wager a large portion of the population don't know how easy and legal it is to create companies with no traceable actual human being responsible for their conduct.
Private Eye has been banging on about this for years thanks to Richard Brooks, but that's not exactly mainstream. (See "Where there's muck, there's brass plates" https://privateeye.subscribeonline.co.uk/Products/digital-editions https://privateeye.subscribeonline.co.uk/Products/digital-ed... )
- stevetrewick 10y agoI'm aware of their purpose, and I'm not against it. Merely pointing out what a good example this particular article is of them having extracted a reusable pattern. The Guardian has always been an activist paper driving page views with outrage and this model has translated well into the digital age. They're very good at it. PE and Brooks, of course, were famously wrong about e.g. Vodafone who it turned out were in fact tax compliant. Like the Guardian.
- willyt 10y agoI slightly raised my eyebrows when you called the guardian 'activist' because all papers are political in the UK. I would have said that the their news pieces (not the comment pieces obviously), while not free of bias, are amongst the least biased in the UK. Also you say that they drive page views with outrage, all headlines are click bait to a certain extent or they would be crap headlines, but the Guardian is nowhere near as guilty of outrageous headlines and recycled stories as the Daily Mail, Sun, Mirror, Express etc