I definitely wouldn’t compare it to USA Today, which tends to be punchy and superficial (“a TV show you can wrap fish in,” as one early critic said), but factually reliable and not particularly partisan.
Not exactly, as Fiendish says, it tends to be school kids doing a week unpaid in a workplace to gather insight into an industry. An intern tends to be post graduate, and is a temporary but paid position which might be anything from a month to a year.
Throughout its history, the Express like the Mail has been a vehicle for successive proprietors’ whims and obsessions, as noted above, but always from some branch of a conservative/Conservative viewpoint. I have no idea what their current readership demographic is, but I suspect the old Yes Minister gag about “people who think the country should be run the way it used to be run” is still reasonably valid. Prejudice (I’m a paid-up Guardianista) says it’s the paper for retired sergeant-majors.
I also suspect that in the present climate for print journalism, it simply hasn’t the money for decent (let alone thorough or in-depth) foreign coverage.
Older, reasonably well off people who like the royal family and don’t quite get the modern age? There is probably some truth to that reflected in opinion columns. But news is news and what they print has to be reasonably truthful. Of course they can decide what to focus on… the Royal Family.
Functional as a birdcage liner. (fish wrapping was already taken).
Here’s the demographic (it would seem - I don’t know Hurst Media, but what they say seems credible to me):
- 495,000 readers are aged over 55
- 83% are over 55
- A typical express reader is aged 69
j
Erm… Others not so much.
Lets just be quite clear here that
Fans describe it as: “Well written”, “Informative”, “Interesting” and “Intelligent”.
- are not my words!
j ( 
)
Quite so, I muddled the different Quote options.
I wouldn’t go so far as to suggest a complete link between thinking something is well-written and fascinating, and not quite getting modern reasons it might not be…
Up until recently I would’ve defended USA Today for its infrequent but good investigative journalism.
Then it ran a misleading op-ed earlier this month by Covid contrarian and antivaxer Pierre Kory and an antivax-enabling “investigative journalist”, Mary Beth Pfeiffer about excess deaths in younger people which (nudge nudge wink wink) wonders what is causing this (already provided explanations are rejected), and demands an “investigation”.
I cut newspapers a lot of slack for their Op-Ed pages - marketplace of ideas yada yada yada. The WSJ, for instance, is a great paper in its reporting but has a hard-right Op-Ed page that I usually don’t even waste a glance on.