# Brits - Explain the English newspapers **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [January 3, 2010, 8:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501 "2010-01-03T08:26:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/21 "2010-01-03T12:48:44Z")
Two further comments. The Guardian may be lefty liberal but it most assuredly is not into woolly, hippy, new age thinking. Quite the opposite. It is decidedly atheist and runs popular science/scepticism articles regularly. One of the reasons I like it. The Independant I used to read when I lived in the UK but I understand that it may have changed since then. I thought it was very high quality, very analytical and intellectual but it (rightly) has a reputation for just being Too Much. Reading their weekend edition would have taken me more hours than there are in a weekend, even for a single person without committments (as I then was). It was just exhausting. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 12:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/22 "2010-01-03T12:50:15Z")
Provincial papers carry very little weight these days. The views of the _Yorkshire Post_ or the _Western Mail_ would scarcely be picked up by any of the nationals. Increasingly these regional papers are dying, killed off by the flight of advertising to the internet. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 12:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/23 "2010-01-03T12:58:28Z")
A question which I haven’t been able to answer with a quick google: I thought that one of the papers almost never mentioned royalty, as a quite deliberate stance that they are or should be unimportant. Is it the Independent or Guardian or am I misremembering? ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/24 "2010-01-03T13:20:32Z")
That’s the _Indy_, which made virtue of it for a while. “_Mr. C Windsor marries Miss D Spencer, see p.94_” ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/25 "2010-01-03T13:28:43Z")
One thing that should be noted is that it’s possible to tell whether something is a national newpaper or a local one by whether it has any geographical reference in the name that Brits usually use for it. Thus _The Telegraph_, _The Times_, _The Guardian_, _The Independent_, _The Sun_, _The Mail_, _The Mirror_, and _The Express_ are national papers since their name has no geographical reference in them. When an American refers to _The Times_ as _The London Times_ that’s considered slightly weird since Brits don’t consider the word “London” to be part of its name. I believe that all the local newspapers have some geographical reference in their name specifying the region where they are distributed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Punkyova](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@The\_Punkyova](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Punkyova)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/26 "2010-01-03T15:04:47Z")
This is informative, thanks. I sometimes see references to “The Grauniad.” (I think I spelled that right.) Where does it fit in? ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/27 "2010-01-03T15:21:25Z")
That’s a joke based on the Guardian’s perceived poor editorial quality (typos, misprints, etc.). There’s also smaller, though nationally circulated newspapers, that haven’t been mentioned. For instance, the Morning Star, a newspaper with close ties to the British Communist Party. Further, there’s papers that get national circulation in Scotland, but not in the rest of Britain, for instance, the Daily Record is a tabloid (no idea of its political stance), whereas the Scotsman is the Scottish broadsheet (and I think has an editorial bias toward the SNP). Note that all the national papers differ where they are circulated: there’s a Scottish Sun, Scottish Times, etc. and I think some national newspapers even tailor their content to specific areas of England (I’m pretty sure that there’s a NW England version of some of the nationals). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/28 "2010-01-03T15:36:02Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > That’s a joke based on the Guardian’s perceived poor editorial quality (typos, misprints, etc.). > > There’s also smaller, though nationally circulated newspapers, that haven’t been mentioned. For instance, the Morning Star, a newspaper with close ties to the British Communist Party. Further, there’s papers that get national circulation in Scotland, but not in the rest of Britain, for instance, the Daily Record is a tabloid (no idea of its political stance), whereas the Scotsman is the Scottish broadsheet (and I think has an editorial bias toward the SNP). Note that all the national papers differ where they are circulated: there’s a Scottish Sun, Scottish Times, etc. and I think some national newspapers even tailor their content to specific areas of England (I’m pretty sure that there’s a NW England version of some of the nationals). Yes, I didn’t mention the Morning Star tabloid because even though I’ve heard of it, I can’t remember seeing it in shops or seeing anyone reading it. There’s also the Metro which is a free paper distributed in city centres - it doesn’t have the highest editorial standards but it’s actually quite good, very readable and covers the news fairly well. I don’t think either the Morning Star or the Metro would get mentioned on TV though, I’ve never heard them mentioned anyway. As far as the local papers go, while they are generally becoming a bit irrelevant, there are local papers in cities that still have a lot of influence: the Liverpool Echo is influential, partly because no one in Liverpool reads The Sun after their coverage of the Hillsborough disaster (see above). And the London Evening Standard, which has recently become a free paper, can have quite a bit of influence on politics in Westminster. But the national papers do dominate the newspaper business really. ---
**Author:** ![Dervorin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Dervorin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dervorin)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/29 "2010-01-03T17:29:15Z")
> [@The\_Punkyova](#): > > This is informative, thanks. I sometimes see references to “The Grauniad.” (I think I spelled that right.) Where does it fit in? Not to keep dragging Yes, Minister into it (but of course I’m going to), but there’s a great scene where Lucy Hacker is reading from a report in the Guardian, which claims that “The badgers have dwelt there for generations” and Jim Hacker takes the newspaper from her and says “What it actually says is that the bodgers have dealt there for generators”. I think the Guardian has tightened up its editorial standards quite a bit, but it used to be a running joke that they had lots of mistakes. I don’t see too many these days, either in the print or the online editions. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/30 "2010-01-03T18:00:22Z")
> [@amarone](#): > > The News of the World is a Sunday-only tabloid that specializes in sex lives and indiscretions of celebrities (and others), hence is sometimes called “Screws of the World”. Or “News of the Screws”. The Independent, over the last few years, has become increasingly geared towards left-leaning campaigning, or pointing out general issues on its front page - usually a single story with a statistic, like a graphic of how few people have access to clean drinking water, or how much money goes to arms dealing rather than medicine, that sort of thing. While I think it’s laudable in many ways, it also puts me off buying the thing, as I find the approach very dry, dull, and overly worthy. I want decent, accessible reporting of a wide number of stories. It should also be noted that, despite the political bias of the newspapers, the broadsheets tend to keep the opinions to comment pieces and editorials (“op-ed” in US parlance) and are relatively impartial in reporting straight news stories. Though obviously the choice of stories to cover reflects the bias. ---
**Author:** ![casdave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/c6cbf5/32.png) [@casdave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/casdave)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/31 "2010-01-03T18:32:30Z")
The Independant is known for its journalistic photography, not too many images but it does seem to carry the standards, in addition, it has a policy of going into great depth about certain issues, it will pick some topic and then analyse it in detail, but unlike the Daily Mail does not bang on about the topic for an inordinately long time unless the matter is continuously relevant. The Sun, The Mirror, and The Star are mainly for entertainment, rather than news, the Star is probably less inihibited in this aspect- they are intended to be read at work in break times, so thats maybe 10 to 15 minutes in themorning, and maybe a look duriing the dinner break and this limits the level of analysis possible.You get lots of X-factor, big brother and other TV trash, along with plenty of celebs you never heard of, but it has to be said that it works and sells. The Guardian in particular is also known for its website, especially the education section which often links to many research articles and journals. Anyone involved with teaching or academia will regularly check the websites of Guardian, Telegraph and Independant to use as signposts to other academic work ---
**Author:** ![yastobaal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/258eb7/32.png) [@yastobaal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yastobaal)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/32 "2010-01-03T18:36:43Z")
Here is a recent comedians view of the British Newspapers: [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/Hq5_joo5l5I/hqdefault.jpg "Russell Howard on the Papers - Mock the Week - BBC Two") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq5_joo5l5I) (Russell Howard on Mock the Week) ---
**Author:** ![blindboyard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blindboyard/32/2833_2.png) [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/33 "2010-01-03T19:19:27Z")
I think the Sun is probably most popular in large part because it’s cheap and heavily advertised. The celeb gossip and so forth will help of course. It’s known for it’s right wing views, being owned by Murdoch, and for it’s way with headlines, such as the infamous “Super-cally-go-ballistic-celtic-were-atrocious”. Doesn’t sell well in Liverpool, partly due to local left wing sentiment but almost entirely due to their accusation after the Hillsborough disaster that Liverpool fans had urinated on and stolen from their fallen fellows. The Daily Mail is second most popular, mid-brow, several decent columnists such as Craig Murray and Andrew Jennings. Mostly notorious for large amounts of fictitious content and claiming that everything under the sun causes cancer, especially swan-roasting Romanian paedophiles and asylum seekers. Perceived as being read by middle-class housewives. Third in popularity is the Mirror, a traditionally more left-wing version of the Sun. Otherwise there’s the People, Sport and Star, low budget, low readership tabloids which are possibly even worse than the sun. Then there’s the other mid-brow paper the Express, known for it’s pro-fascist headline “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” and for currently being owned by a pornographer despite it’s prudish moralising. Broadsheets, there’s the traditionally right-wing Telegraph, known for celebrating exam results time with pictures of cheerful blonde school girls, currently owned by a reclusive pair of billionaire brothers and engaging in the regular poaching of staff from the Mail. Perceived as being read by crusty old grandees with pipes and carpet slippers. The Guardian is normally considered left wing, but I would recommend finding a pamphlet called “50.000 issues of the warmongering, imperialist, hate-filled guardian newspaper” which is on the web somewhere. Owned by the theoretically not for profit Scott trust, the true purpose of which is to avoid inheritance tax while keeping the paper under the control of the family. The Times is a bland newspaper which tries to be the newspaper of record and fails. The Independent is approaching bankruptcy, unpopular and expensive to buy, and is owned by a Thatcherite Irish billionaire. Supposedly left wing, joined the Mirror in opposing the Iraq war. An honorable mention for the Evening Standard, which I’ve never seen but which gets treated as if it were national because it’s local to London. Unpleasant, right-wing, owned by a Russian billionaire who owes several billion to the taxpayer owned RBS, but doesn’t seem iinclined to pay. I write as a subscriber to Private Eye and the Socialist Worker. As for the “Anchors”, I think the success of Natasha Kaplinsky put paid to the idea they need to be journalists. It’s a bit different on the radio and Channel 4, of course. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 7:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/34 "2010-01-03T19:24:30Z")
The distinction between ‘tabloid’ and ‘broadsheet’ is one of style rather than physical configuration these days, as only the _Telegraph_ and the _F.T._ stick to the broadsheet size now. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/35 "2010-01-03T20:11:21Z")
There is no way in hell that the Sun doesn’t sell in Liverpool because of a left lean by Scousers. Hillsborough is the only explanation. The majority of Northern socialists are extremely social conservative anyway, just like the Sun, and the Sun sells plenty in the towns around Liverpool. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3ec8ea/32.png) [@The\_Great\_Philosopher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Great_Philosopher)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/36 "2010-01-03T21:53:26Z")
> [@blindboyard](#): > > I think the Sun is probably most popular in large part because it’s cheap and heavily advertised. The celeb gossip and so forth will help of course. It’s known for it’s right wing views, being owned by Murdoch, and for it’s way with headlines, such as the infamous “Super-cally-go-ballistic-celtic-were-atrocious”. Doesn’t sell well in Liverpool, partly due to local left wing sentiment but almost entirely due to their accusation after the Hillsborough disaster that Liverpool fans had urinated on and stolen from their fallen fellows. > > The Daily Mail is second most popular, mid-brow, several decent columnists such as Craig Murray and Andrew Jennings. Mostly notorious for large amounts of fictitious content and claiming that everything under the sun causes cancer, especially swan-roasting Romanian paedophiles and asylum seekers. Perceived as being read by middle-class housewives. > > Third in popularity is the Mirror, a traditionally more left-wing version of the Sun. > > Otherwise there’s the People, Sport and Star, low budget, low readership tabloids which are possibly even worse than the sun. Then there’s the other mid-brow paper the Express, known for it’s pro-fascist headline “Hurrah for the Blackshirts” and for currently being owned by a pornographer despite it’s prudish moralising. > > Broadsheets, there’s the traditionally right-wing Telegraph, known for celebrating exam results time with pictures of cheerful blonde school girls, currently owned by a reclusive pair of billionaire brothers and engaging in the regular poaching of staff from the Mail. Perceived as being read by crusty old grandees with pipes and carpet slippers. > > The Guardian is normally considered left wing, but I would recommend finding a pamphlet called “50.000 issues of the warmongering, imperialist, hate-filled guardian newspaper” which is on the web somewhere. Owned by the theoretically not for profit Scott trust, the true purpose of which is to avoid inheritance tax while keeping the paper under the control of the family. > > The Times is a bland newspaper which tries to be the newspaper of record and fails. > > The Independent is approaching bankruptcy, unpopular and expensive to buy, and is owned by a Thatcherite Irish billionaire. Supposedly left wing, joined the Mirror in opposing the Iraq war. > > An honorable mention for the Evening Standard, which I’ve never seen but which gets treated as if it were national because it’s local to London. Unpleasant, right-wing, owned by a Russian billionaire who owes several billion to the taxpayer owned RBS, but doesn’t seem iinclined to pay. > > I write as a subscriber to Private Eye and the Socialist Worker. > > As for the “Anchors”, I think the success of Natasha Kaplinsky put paid to the idea they need to be journalists. It’s a bit different on the radio and Channel 4, of course. Quite a lot I’d disagree with here. The Sun isn’t “known for its right wing views” at all. In fact it supported the left-leaning Labour government at the last 3 elections. Is the Daily Mail really notorious for “fictitious content”? Loony right wing views maybe, but I wasn’t aware it had a reputation for making things up; no more than any other tabloid anyway. The idea that the Guardian is not left-leaning is a bit ridiculous. I don’t see why The Times is “bland” at all. You admit you’ve never even _seen_ the Evening Standard, let alone read it, yet you think you’re in a position to call it “unpleasant” and “right wing”? How many of these papers do you actually read? You say that you subscribe to Private Eye; your post certainly sounds as if you’ve made sweeping judgments against the entire British newspaper industry on the basis of a few of the snipes you’ve heard about them in Private Eye. ---
**Author:** ![Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Uosdwis\_R.Dewoh](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uosdwis_R.Dewoh)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/37 "2010-01-03T22:39:04Z")
> [@yastobaal](#): > > Here is a recent comedians view of the British Newspapers: > [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq5\_joo5l5I](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hq5_joo5l5I) > (Russell Howard on Mock the Week) Unfortunately the BBC blocks me from seeing your clip. [Here’s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_ETfYdPmyg#t=7m36s) a clip of _Mock the week_ where they’re talking about the British baby boom and how different newspapers covered it. Hopefully it’s not the same clip you linked to. ---
**Author:** ![An\_Gadai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d6d6ee/32.png) [@An\_Gadai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Gadai)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/38 "2010-01-03T22:51:46Z")
The “Grauniad” does indeed still have plenty of typos in it. ---
**Author:** ![Rayne\_Man](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/df705f/32.png) [@Rayne\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rayne_Man)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2010, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/39 "2010-01-03T22:57:41Z")
It was the _Mail_ that ran the headline “Hurrah For The Black Shirts”, not the _Express._. Mind you nowadays the _Express_ is very right wing and seems to have an obsession about immigrants. ---
**Author:** ![Cardinal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cardinal/32/4000_2.png) [@Cardinal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cardinal)\ **Post date:** [January 4, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501/40 "2010-01-04T01:08:13Z")
Ah, Private Eye. I’ve seen a good number of HIGNFY, and I’m intrigued by Ian’s magazine. I went to the web site and considered subscribing even over here, but decided that most of the allusions I wouldn’t understand. I know about three names of MPs and of course Boris, but all these government officials and footballers and “celebrities” like contestants on Big Brother just sail past me. I like to think for a moment that I’m well informed about Britain because of all the tv I’ve seen, but that’s just compared to average people here. (It’s very hard to find anyone who even knows of Stephen Fry. All of his shows have been on public tv at best, here, and most of them not at all.) Then I remember all the references that go past me even on a show like Top Gear, which I lurve. What is PE like? If Ian’s any indication, it’s not afraid to point out the facts that public people are trying to keep quiet. Is this its main point? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/brits-explain-the-english-newspapers/523501.md?page=3)