yes, they’re that bad.
Sorry, I mistook some for British. That’s what I get for not paying attention at checkouts.
I don’t think the UK does anymore, really. I’m 44 now, and I don’t know anyone my age who takes a paper. My dad does, for the sport, but I get my news from reddit like everyone else.
Well, **someone **is buying and reading them, right?
people in hotel breakfast bars trying to look occupied? 
There is no paper that “everybody” reads, and certainly none now that’s considered the “journal of record”. Decades ago the common supposition was summed up as:
The Times is read by the people who think they run the country
The Financial Times is read by the people who really run the country
The Telegraph is read by the people who used to run the country
The Guardian is read by the people who think they should run the country
The Mail is read by people who think their husbands should run the country
The Express is read by the people who think the country should be run the way it used to be run
The Mirror is read by the people who think the unions should run the country
The Sun is read by the people who don’t care who runs the country as long as she’s got big knockers.
There have been some shifts in personality following demographic changes (the Telegraph has become a lot less stuffy and more tabloid-y in style, the Mail has shifted harder right, the Sun has dropped the topless models), but that’s still crudely true.
The more tabloid end trade in punchy, attention-grabbing headlines, which necessarily makes them sound semi-hysterical at times. Everything becomes a row/split/crisis/drama/scandal. Long ago someone once said the ideal tabloid story would be ROYAL CORGI IN SEX-CHANGE MERCY DASH, or some such. People take them for entertainment, nor for dispassionate, considered analysis, but that doesn’t mean they take it all in as gospel - though their impact in terms of broad impressions can be pretty negative (the coverage of the EU and Brexit being a case in point). And when it comes to individuals in the public eye, the numpty columnists can be even more brutally hurtful than the sub-editors (I can remember one female columnist describing a short-lived female MP as looking like the lovechild of Postman Pat and a Cabbage Patch doll). Mind you, even the sainted Guardian has a few specialists in sarky comment (try looking up Marina Hyde).
Isn’t the Daily Mail the one always describing some celebrity bimbo as ‘flaunting’ something, some ‘baby bump’ or body part? ‘Miley Cyrus flaunts her long, toned legs, romping on the beach.’ ‘Jen Whoever flaunts toned abs a week after giving birth.’ Kind of sickening. Also known as the Daily Fail.
I agree that the British obsession with class is a major difference; Americans simple don’t comprehend aristocracy. American celebs don’t receive their status simply by being born…They are usually individuals (not families),and they have to work to create their own celeb status by doing something (usually involving sex and Hollywood.)
But another major difference between England and America is the status of the tabloid press. Americans know that the Enquirer is a joke. The Enquirer carries zero news articles,and it is exclusively a gossip rag. The British tabloids carry some actual facts ( the daily news, the latest sports scores,etc)along with the gossip. So the British tabloids have more influence.
In America, I think the celebs don’t really care about the Enquirer–they care more about publications which have a little bit of respectability,( like People magazine), and whose reporting is also a more respectable than the Enquirer.
Yes, that’s the Mail. See also the Sidebar of Shame on their website.
Problem with the British tabloids is they do actually publish ‘news’ - they have a vast array of journalists employed to dig dirt, so celebs run scared. They don’t generally just make stuff up because our pretty robust libel laws. Of course, that does happen.
But the major issue I have with the tabloids is their political muscle - they have pretty much brainwashed the country into thinking EU=Bad, Boris=Good. God help us.
I would agree with this cultural difference. I was making the same point to a friend regarding Ricky Gervais at the Golden Globes. Say what you will about his comedy and how successful it was, but the foundation that I pointed out was that it came from a place of “taking the piss out of” his targets, and of doing it cruelly. Which I see as a trait that people in the UK find acceptable. In the US, we just don’t have that same fundamental need to take someone down a notch cruelly. Sure, there are common grumbles about someone being “too big for their britches” or “elitist”, but it just doesn’t play out the same as in the UK in the media and public’s narrative.
Parenthetically, years ago when I worked for a respectable business newspaper, one of the staff writers - who later went on to become the paper’s editor - described visiting the newsroom at People. He was very impressed by the thoroughness and professionalism of their fact-checkers and writers. Whatever he felt about what they covered, he said, their journalism was solid.
I don’t think the British tabloids are really THAT bad. Just ask William and Harry’s mom, Diana.
Buzzfeed has a comparison of Daily Mail headlines between Kate Middleton and Meghan Markle about the same events (holding their ‘baby bump’, missing a holiday with the Queen, etc) and how Middleton got fawning praise and Markle got snide shit for the same stuff.
Holy crap. That makes me SICK. 
Hmm…we could have some fun making up our own Kate vs. Meghan stories…
KATE’S SPRINGTIME FROLIC
The Duchess of Cambridge and the royal heirs enjoyed a lovely picnic in the park…
vs.
MEGHAN MARKLE MURDERS MILLIONS
Countless soil organisms perished yesterday, crushed under Meghan Markle’s expensively shod feet as she dragged baby Archie to another photo-op, disguised as a family picnic…
Rita Skeeter wasn’t just a brand new creation of J. K. Rowling. She exemplifies the British tabloid press.
I think you’re mixing up traits here. ‘Taking the piss out of someone’ is what we do to people we feel affectionate about. It’s not a class warfare thing.
Earlier this week Meghan Markle won a privacy case in court against the Daily Mail.
Their unhinged obsession following that decision, her subsequent pregnancy announcement, and interview with Oprah is continuing.
God, I cringe at the middle-aged people who treat her as some evil witch taking away their beloved prince. Ranting in the comments sections, engaging in speculation, raising their blood pressure possibly … over a couple and a family they’ve never met.
But technically, none of that is true. It’s just tabloid nonsense, police error, and desperately looking for someone to blame.
Her messages timed out and were automatically deleted. The police took this as evidence that someone had deleted the calls after her disappearance, took this as suggesting that she was deleting messages, then when it turned out she had been murdered, blamed the press as scapegoats – and that’s all people remember, not that it was a police error. That and journalists ‘hacking’ phone message accounts – where ‘hacking’ turned out to mean ‘using them in the normal way’ after having being told or guessing the pin number.
And another technicality, let’s not forget that it was the German tabloids who were paying big money for photographs of Princess Dianna at the time she was killed.
I’m calling these ‘technicalities’ because I’m not defending the morality of the British tabloid press. I don’t like malicious stories, even about malicious story tellers.