The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   British Royals (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/)
-   -   The Windsors, the Media, and tell-all Books (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f23/the-windsors-the-media-and-tell-all-books-8942.html)

ysbel 02-24-2006 02:22 PM

The Windsors, the Media, and tell-all Books
 
Since this community is made up of people from all over the world, I would like to ask our British members to give the rest of us some insights on the British papers and magazines that we most routinely get our source of royal information from.

I'm wondering what's their reputation in Britain? How reliable are they when reporting about royals? What if any slant or bias do they have in reporting royal news? Who's their main audience? It could help the rest of us make some sense of the reports we are reading on the Internet.

Here are a few papers whose names I got from the BBC website. So Brits, what's your opinion of these papers in relation to their reporting of royals?
  • Daily Express
  • Daily Mail
  • Daily Mirror
  • Daily Star
  • Daily Telegraph
  • Financial Times
  • Guardian
  • Independent
  • Morning Star
  • Sun
  • Times
I guess I should add the BBC too since that's the most familiar British newsource in the United States.

BeatrixFan 02-24-2006 02:33 PM

The Daily Mail is a very right wing newspaper and comes out with classic headlines such as 'Asylum Seekers Steal Babies'. They were huge supports of the Thatcher government and are generally pro-Royal. They have always supported Charles and Camilla. They are very anti-Blair.

The Daily Star is usually half full of naked women and stupid stories such as alien abduction. Much like the National Enquirer in America I suppose. The Financial Times isn't really worth reading unless you like lists of share prices etc.

The Sun is a joke. It prints stories without actually having any confirmation and so often they find themselves in hot water. They tend to print total fiction and so as a news source, you can disregard almost everything they say. The only thing you can take as truth with The Sun is the date. They have alot of celeb gossip.

The Mirror is alot like The Sun and another British paper called, 'The News of the World'. They tend to be tacky tabloids and they thrive on pictures of the Queen scratching her nose and sex tapes involving celebrities.

The Morning Star I haven't seen for ages but I believe thats a socialist newspaper, and used to be regarded as a newspaper for communists. The Times is fairly respectable and you can trust what they say, the same with the Independant and the Guardian. They are quite reliable. The Telegraph isn't really all that good a newspaper.

So, the Dailies are usually totally unreliable and best ignoring. The Guardian, The Independant and The Times can be trustworthy at times. I generally don't read newspapers, I get all my news from the BBC Online.

As for audiences, The Sun and The Dailies are read by the working classes. The Daily Mail is a very middle class newspaper and the Guardian and Independant, Financial Times etc are Middle/Upper Class newspapers because of the stories they include and their general writing style.

An average Sun article will contain about 200 words with three or four pics. An Independant article will probably not have a photograph and include 2000 words which is why it becomes more reliable. And because of the audience they write for, the Middle/Upper Class papers have better sources.

Skydragon 02-24-2006 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Here are a few papers whose names I got from the BBC website. So Brits, what's your opinion of these papers in relation to their reporting of royals?
  • Daily Express
  • Daily Mail
  • Daily Mirror
  • Daily Star
  • Daily Telegraph
  • Financial Times
  • Guardian
  • Independent
  • Morning Star
  • Sun
  • Times
I guess I should add the BBC too since that's the most familiar British newsource in the United States.

All IMO and I have to say I only buy my top three.

Financial Times - fairly good
Guardian - not too bad
Times - not too bad

The following IMO are inaccurate and unreliable.

Express, Mail, Mirror, Star, Sun, Morning Star, what they don't know, they will make up normally with 'a source' as the get out clause.:(
Independent is I understand, anti royalty.:mad:

BBC can also be iffy and seems to depend on who is writing the story that day. On the whole I agree with BeatrixFans' assessment on who reads what, although I am surprised to hear that the Mail is considered middle class, I lump that in with The Mirror/Sun.

ysbel 02-24-2006 02:52 PM

Thanks BeatrixFan and skydragon. :)

I'm surprised the Daily Mail is seen as pro-Charles and Camilla. Don't they have Richard Kay who has run some very unflattering and erroneous articles about Charles?

Thanks for the heads up on the Independent, skydragon. I didn't realize that they were anti-royal.

This is all good stuff to know. :) I hope other Brits will drop in and contribute their point of view.

BeatrixFan 02-24-2006 02:54 PM

Before the marriage they were very offish but after the marriage they have become truly obsequious and are praising Camilla like mad. The Daily Mail have never criticised the Queen AFAIK.

lizz70 02-24-2006 03:00 PM

The Express has run a lot of stories about Diana death cover-ups recently - not one that I buy but have noticed headlines. The Independent tends to have a strong editorial and leans towards stories that show how the world is being messed up/what a disaster the Iraq war was/is etc, not too bothered about the royals as such unless it is a serious piece or covering how Duchy of Cornwall tenants are getting badly treated by HRH.

Definitely agree that the Mail and Express are 'lower end' of the market though slightly more sophisticated than the Sun.

lizz70 02-24-2006 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Before the marriage they were very offish but after the marriage they have become truly obsequious and are praising Camilla like mad. The Daily Mail have never criticised the Queen AFAIK.

Beatrixfan, have you ever seen any of the papers criticize the Queen really, I mean I think she is generally not a bad old stick and she does her bit very well. She has done her duty and noobody can deny that. I think the only time I remember her getting flack as such was when Windsor Castle burnt down and she was criticized for govt money being spent on the personal apartments, but even then it turned out it was the PM who had said it. The only other thing I remember was the furore in the papers about the Queen wringing a pheasant's neck to put it out of its misery after it had been shot but not killed.

Can you remember any other critical stories about the Queen and who would you say criticizes her most?

ysbel 02-24-2006 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeatrixFan
Before the marriage they were very offish but after the marriage they have become truly obsequious and are praising Camilla like mad. The Daily Mail have never criticised the Queen AFAIK.

Very interesting. :) BTW what does AFAIK mean?

ysbel 02-24-2006 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lizz70
The Express has run a lot of stories about Diana death cover-ups recently - not one that I buy but have noticed headlines. The Independent tends to have a strong editorial and leans towards stories that show how the world is being messed up/what a disaster the Iraq war was/is etc, not too bothered about the royals as such unless it is a serious piece or covering how Duchy of Cornwall tenants are getting badly treated by HRH.

Thanks lizz for providing your viewpoint! I imagine the Independent is not the paper to read if you're looking for something upbeat. ;)

But then it may mean that when they report on royals they'll have an original angle.

Skydragon 02-24-2006 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Very interesting. :) BTW what does AFAIK mean?

BeatrixFan seems to have gone.

It means As Far As I Know.:)

lizz70 02-24-2006 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Thanks lizz for providing your viewpoint! I imagine the Independent is not the paper to read if you're looking for something upbeat. ;)

But then it may mean that when they report on royals they'll have an original angle.

No, it isn't a laugh a minute I must admit :D but they are good for covering the political stuff to do with royalty, esp overseas royalty - what is going on in Nepal for example.

BeatrixFan 02-24-2006 05:03 PM

The Sun have had a few jibes at the Queen - the pheasant, the flag business and occassionally saying she looks miserable and unhappy.

Elspeth 02-24-2006 05:16 PM

The Times, Telegraph, Guardian (and its Sunday equivalent, the Observer), the Financial Times (the pink paper), and Independent are the papers which are known as broadsheet papers because of their size (the size of each page, not the number of pages); they were (this is recently changing) the same sort of size as the New York Times and Washington Post. The others are known as tabloid papers and are the same size as things like the National Enquirer. Much easier to handle, but with less room on each page.

The broadsheets have always been considered to be more high-quality than the tabloids, although I think that after Rupert Murdoch took over the Times it started turning into a tabloid-type paper in the quality of its articles even if not in the size of its pages. The Telegraph has been the most focussed toward business and the most right wing in its editorials; the Guardian has been the most left wing, and unlike the others it originated in the industrial north of England rather than London. The Independent is a newer paper; when it started up the editors said that they weren't even going to mention anything to do with the monarchy because they considered monarchy irrelevant to modern democracies, but with some of the newsworthy items over the years they've somewhat relaxed that rule. They're still republican, though. The Times was always considered the paper of record rather like the NY Times in the States, but that's been less and less the case over recent years.

I'd be inclined to believe that there was truth in stories I read in the Telegraph, Independent, and Guardian. I'm honestly not sure about the Times any more.

Of the tabloids, the Mail has been the most likely to have real news in it, but stories are rather superficial and not always very well balanced. The Express, Sun, and News of the World are pretty much, in my opinion, a waste of perfectly good trees.

ysbel 02-24-2006 07:13 PM

Thanks everybody. This is good to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I think that after Rupert Murdoch took over the Times it started turning into a tabloid-type paper in the quality of its articles even if not in the size of its pages.

Unfortunately, I think that's the case of every paper that Rupert Murdoch touches. :( He owns a paper or two in New York but they started out as tabloids.

Skydragon 02-25-2006 05:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspeth
I'd be inclined to believe that there was truth in stories I read in the Telegraph, Independent, and Guardian. I'm honestly not sure about the Times any more.

It just goes to prove that different people see different things. The only one of the 3 that I would halfway believe is the Guardian.:D

Elspeth 02-25-2006 11:25 AM

I don't think the Telegraph and Independent are unreliable in their news reporting; they're just more right wing in their editorials than the Guardian.

Amina 02-25-2006 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ysbel
Since this community is made up of people from all over the world, I would like to ask our British members to give the rest of us some insights on the British papers and magazines that we most routinely get our source of royal information from.

I'm wondering what's their reputation in Britain? How reliable are they when reporting about royals? What if any slant or bias do they have in reporting royal news? Who's their main audience? It could help the rest of us make some sense of the reports we are reading on the Internet.

Here are a few papers whose names I got from the BBC website. So Brits, what's your opinion of these papers in relation to their reporting of royals?
  • Daily Express
  • Daily Mail
  • Daily Mirror
  • Daily Star
  • Daily Telegraph
  • Financial Times
  • Guardian
  • Independent
  • Morning Star
  • Sun
  • Times
I guess I should add the BBC too since that's the most familiar British newsource in the United States.

I would say that the papers i have highlighted are definitely pro-monarchy. To be honest the BRF have had a hard time of it in the last 15 years with the press. Their reputation has taken quite a battering. Some of it is their own fault and the rest down to pure media hounding. Most papers in England are - IMO right wing. The Guardian, Independent and Mirror are pretty left wing and tend to criticise the monarchy more - esp the Independent. Alot of what is reported is pure speculation.

The one thing i've noticed is that the press love to pick on a particular member of the family. In the 70's it was definitely Princess Anne who they criticised for her fashion taste, she was even called stuck up. Sarah Ferguson got a rough time of it in the late 80's and early 90's some of it was down to her own mistakes. Now it seems it Charles and Harry's turn - particularly Charles who i feel the press have it in for. Its like the man can't win.

crisiñaki 02-25-2006 04:13 PM

And after the "bloody" incident with the press on vacation, Charles has even worse press than ever.

To be honest, I rather believe the BBC than any of the newspapers for several reasons:

1. News are fresh: as soon as they happen, BBC has them
2. BBC usually doesn't take part: against or with royalty, they just provide the information in a very respectful way

Laraib 02-25-2006 04:28 PM

Well, I really don't know where to post this, so I thought this might be the best place.Anyways if it's not then delete it.:) ;)

The Royal Photos The Papers Never Publish
http://www.theroyalist.net/content/view/429/1/

RoyalProtocol 02-28-2006 10:14 AM

The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Daily Mail and The Newsletter(Northern Ireland Paper) all provide good extensive Royal coverage.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:30 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises