If you were to walk into your local newsagents and pick up today's paper, you may not find what you expect. About half of the papers published these days are known as tabloids; sources of gossip about people no one actually really cares about. The other half actually talk about news, and they are known as broadsheets, or as I like to call them: the good newspapers.
As is much like their styles represent, newspapers are clearly for two types of people. Now I don't like to stereotype, but here it is necessary. People who read broadsheets like the Guardian are often considered to be of the upper middle class, and of quite good education. They most likely go to work in a suit and get paid handsomely. The people who pick up a tabloid are often not that much different, but clearly care more about the front side of Katie, 23 from Essex rather than the current situation in the Leveson Inquiry or North Korea.
This does not mean that tabloids ignore actual news and look only to supplement the desires of their audience by providing a scripture of the phone conversation between John Terry and Katie, 23 from Essex. Usually, the Daily Mail will have an actual news story on the front page, so long as it is covered by a massive picture of Katie Price. However, the way that they will deal with the story is different.
Take the death of Kim Jong Il for example. The Guardian gave us all the details, with the facts about the new ruler of the
Either way, the purpose of newspapers is clearly to give people information. They remain publishing because of their freedom. Ofcom watch over the television and radio, which means that they cannot show bias or try to sway the public's opinion one way or another. However, the newspapers are absolutely allowed to do that. Everything that broadcasters want to say on air goes into the newspapers. They can pick sides in a political debate, or even through elections, and can voice their opinions about anything so long as they remain factual and to-the-point. This can often mean that not all of the information is presented fairly, but that's not likely to happen in any of the media.
However, like the rest of the media, the freedom newspapers is under threat. I've discussed previously how the PCC were looking to reform their guidelines, well recently the PCC disbanded and is looking to reform. However, broadcasting watchdog Ofcom could oversee the Press Complaints Commission reform if the press can't agree on their terms.
This would surely see the end of bias newspapers, and therefore eliminating the need for newspapers altogether. Aside from the internet where every word spoken is a free word, newspapers are the only medium that can truly voice opinion unregulated, so long as it's within reason.
It was not a reporter from Sky News, or the producer of BBC News 24 who were involved in the phone hacking scandals, no, it was a newspaper. This firstly shows the lengths that newspapers will go these days to gain information, methods that broadcast media would never even think of, but also how free the newspapers are to do these things.
That said, while I agree the newspapers are an advocate of free speech, I also think that they're going about it the wrong way. Okay, if they'd hacked Colonel Gadaffi's phone and therefore figured out his movements, that would have been fine, but Katie, 23 from Essex? No one wants to know about Katie, 23 from Essex. Oh, unless of course you read the Sun. No offence.
But yes, "public interest" is always how the newspapers agree on how and what they publish, but sometimes I think they've got it wrong. Or at least the tabloids have.
Pete out.
No comments:
Post a Comment