4 ms·

I find it actually quite an interesting exercise to compare all their politics headlines [0] with the fact that apparently Kier Starmer is polling numbers like

by roenxi 1y ago

I find it actually quite an interesting exercise to compare all their politics headlines [0] with the fact that apparently Kier Starmer is polling numbers like 73% feeling he is doing "badly" [1] and there is some obscure group called "RFM" who have popped onto the scene and are polling well compared to everyone else (with a strong showing by the Greens) [2]. I mean I'd probably say this for any cat story in politics; but this really does seem like a moment where the British media should be making serious attempts at facilitating a national discourse. The stats suggest something is going wrong in the political system that needs to be talked out. Just eyeballing the politics headlines I'm not convinced the Guardian has their finger on that pulse. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/politics https://www.theguardian.com/politics [1] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-prime-minister-approval https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-p... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Graphical_summary https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_U...

grebc 1y ago
I’d wager most people would rather avoid the hard questions. Much easier to stay calm and carry on;)
- mr_toad 1y ago
  Carry-on complaining you mean. There is lots of political discourse, but no-one has any solutions (unless you count blaming immigrants).
  - lo_zamoyski 1y ago
    If you want to call it discourse. The quality is quite poor. Reason always has an uphill battle in the smog of sophistry, ignorance, unhinged thumos, etc.
michaelt 1y ago
Eh, traditional newspapers will always contain fluff, because the factual current affairs reporting is always so relentlessly negative. Ain’t nobody reporting on a road that doesn’t have a pothole. Nothing unusual about putting in some comics, a crossword, a travel section, a cooking section, a sports section, and the occasional article about a cat.
cjs_ac 1y ago
Originally, newspapers were very profitable, because they were the only mass media other than books. As representative democracy emerged in the UK, they became very politically significant, and so politicians were eager to hand out viscountcies to anyone who owned a paper in order to curry editorial favour. The legacy of this is that there are now too many national newspapers in the UK, and so they all - even the supposedly sober broadsheets - feel a need to sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers.
- gruez 1y ago
  >The legacy of this is that there are now too many national newspapers in the UK, and so they all - even the supposedly sober broadsheets - feel a need to sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers. This doesn't feel like a good explanation. Don't all newspapers want to increase their readership numbers?
  - cjs_ac 1y ago
    Yes, but all the British newspapers are loss-making. You don't take ownership of one to make money, you buy one to buy political influence.
    - gruez 1y ago
      How does that change the reporting compared to newspapers that exist solely to make money? In other words, what's the difference between "sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers [so you can buy political influence]" (UK) and "sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers [so you can make money off subscriptions/ads]" (US) ?
      - cjs_ac 1y ago
        Desperation, and consequently, the extent of sensationalisation.
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago

by roenxi 1y ago

grebc 1y ago

I’d wager most people would rather avoid the hard questions. Much easier to stay calm and carry on;)

mr_toad 1y ago
Carry-on complaining you mean. There is lots of political discourse, but no-one has any solutions (unless you count blaming immigrants).
- lo_zamoyski 1y ago
  If you want to call it discourse. The quality is quite poor. Reason always has an uphill battle in the smog of sophistry, ignorance, unhinged thumos, etc.

michaelt 1y ago

Eh, traditional newspapers will always contain fluff, because the factual current affairs reporting is always so relentlessly negative. Ain’t nobody reporting on a road that doesn’t have a pothole. Nothing unusual about putting in some comics, a crossword, a travel section, a cooking section, a sports section, and the occasional article about a cat.

cjs_ac 1y ago

Originally, newspapers were very profitable, because they were the only mass media other than books. As representative democracy emerged in the UK, they became very politically significant, and so politicians were eager to hand out viscountcies to anyone who owned a paper in order to curry editorial favour. The legacy of this is that there are now too many national newspapers in the UK, and so they all - even the supposedly sober broadsheets - feel a need to sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers.

gruez 1y ago
>The legacy of this is that there are now too many national newspapers in the UK, and so they all - even the supposedly sober broadsheets - feel a need to sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers. This doesn't feel like a good explanation. Don't all newspapers want to increase their readership numbers?
- cjs_ac 1y ago
  Yes, but all the British newspapers are loss-making. You don't take ownership of one to make money, you buy one to buy political influence.
  - gruez 1y ago
    How does that change the reporting compared to newspapers that exist solely to make money? In other words, what's the difference between "sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers [so you can buy political influence]" (UK) and "sensationalise their reporting to attract and hold paying readers [so you can make money off subscriptions/ads]" (US) ?
    - cjs_ac 1y ago
      Desperation, and consequently, the extent of sensationalisation.
lo_zamoyski 1y ago