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.
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.
>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?
That’s news to me. And without advertising, sales and subscriptions have never covered the cost, and advertising has a strong effect on what is published, or more often, what is not. Belloc describes this in his book “The Free Press” [0].
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.
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.
As it didn't name the programme: https://www.channel4.com/press/news/david-baddiel-champions-...
Related?
Larry (cat) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44462947 aug-2025 74 comments
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
[1] https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/trackers/keir-starmer-p...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_U...
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.
>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?
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.
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)
?
Desperation, and consequently, the extent of sensationalisation.
> Originally, newspapers were very profitable
That’s news to me. And without advertising, sales and subscriptions have never covered the cost, and advertising has a strong effect on what is published, or more often, what is not. Belloc describes this in his book “The Free Press” [0].
[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/18018
I’d wager most people would rather avoid the hard questions.
Much easier to stay calm and carry on;)
Carry-on complaining you mean. There is lots of political discourse, but no-one has any solutions (unless you count blaming immigrants).
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.
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.