Who reads the papers? - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC comedy

The quote from Yes, Prime Minster - "The only way to understand the press, is to remember that they pander to their readers prejudices" which makes those news aggregations sites more appealing, though cheaper to stick with other avenues for balance. So much wisdom on comedy, even 80s comedy Who reads the papers? - Yes, Prime Minister - BBC comedy: ▶ this video

Is it? We've had tabloids here in the UK for years, and it seems the more extreme ones have generally had higher circulation numbers than their more moderate rivals. And the media here have been aimed at partisans for a long time. ▶ this video

▶ this video "In this timeless clip, Prime Minister, Jim Hacker explains to Sir Humphrey and Bernard the importance of the papers and who reads which one." link Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices. Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know exactly who reads the papers. * The Daily Mirror is read by the people who think they run the country. * The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country. * The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country. * The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country. * The Financial Times is read by people who own the country. * The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. * The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is. Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun? Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big

> non-partisan news organizations. Generally, their news is relatively unbiased; One has to be very careful about who their readership are and whom the journalist cater to in their writing. For example we had this study done for reporting on the 2016 election and its only a small selection in green that indicate nonpartisan target audience: link It should be noted that the map do not show official endorsements which some of the green marked organization (or owners) made. We also have the classic "Who reads the papers?" from Yes, Prime Minister. ( ▶ this video ) Its a joke of course but one that rings quite true for a lot of people. The audience influence the paper which in turn incentives the writers to cater to the existing audience. Online advertisement is exceptional strong in this where the effect can be felt continuously with instant feedback. Encyclopedias are fun. One on side of the family I have academic ancestors who had two really old sets from around world war 1 and before. Amazing read, especially if you look up political topics. Occasional I read it just for the culture difference. Domain experts can be rather "colored" by their time, and its difficult argument to make that today Encyclopedia Britannica is enlighten and correct but 100 years ago they paid biased and blind experts. Which leaves doing the work oneself and make original meta research by seeking out studies, academic journals and papers. That is the proper way to do it if one has the time and energy.

Honest question, what alternative do you use instead? HN mostly links to news article, and I would question if current politics and ongoing events are more accurately written by news media and with less bias. I don't know about polish news companies, but its not uncommon elsewhere that news companies are openly biased towards one political party or bias their articles towards their main customer group (UK example from Yes, Minister: ▶ this video ). We have books or research papers, but meta research generally acknowledge that researchers include bias into their work, often linked to the opinion of those that funds the research. Meta research is thus generally a bit better, especially the meta-meta-research papers, through it generally takes a quite political contested topic for that to happen which then further increase the risk of bias by the meta researchers selecting results that favors their side.

From Yes, Prime Minister in '87: The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country. The Daily Telegraph is read by the people who think it is. ▶ this video

"it's simply engrained in their editorial outlook" As far as I can see, in the UK we have a wide spectrum of "editorial outlook" in newspapers while the TV news channels (much to the disgust of Murdoch) are legally required to provide neutrality and impartial, unbiased coverage (and I know some people think the BBC is the last stronghold of communism). Yes Prime Minister explained the newspaper market in the UK pretty well: ▶ this video

Bypass this if you dislike jokes: ▶ this video I have to post this clip from "Yes Minister" every time there is a discussion about political bias in the media.

> Nudity is more accepted in Germany apparently, and it isn't in the US, That's the impression I get too. > that's just something we have to live with. But I differ with you there. > The Guardian presents itself as a news organization. It is. Here amuse yourself and learn about the nature of various newspapers: ▶ this video >The person that picked out that picture should have considered posting it Oh, I bet that photo was chosen carefully to draw attention. > in light of the fact that they are now, with the Snowden leak, a global news organization, with visitors from Germany AND the US (in this example). They have always been so, and I hope they don't begin to pander to social conservatives. > What they should consider is "Who is going to see this article?" and then take the option that attracts the most people to their site. I think that's exactly what they've done. For better or worse. >Understand that I'm not trying to say that Guardian should change their site up at all, rather I'm saying that it might benefit them to think twice about what they post, because I'm no longer visiting their site at work. Not that I necessarily want more breastfeeding in my news but I certainly hope you're in the minority. How bad will it be when they have to pander to even more conservative Islamic sensibilities?

Socialist only by American standards (and, possibly, by the standards of certain Tories who still think of the US as a former British colony). By European standards, the Guardian is a fairly typical center-left newspaper. If you want to look at an actual socialist newspaper in the UK, try the Morning Star [1]. The relative popularity of the Sun and the Daily Mail is best explained by Jim Hacker and friends: ▶ this video In other words, a classical broadsheet vs. tabloid situation. Politics doesn't sell as well as gossip and T&A. [1] link

I don't know about the US, but here in the UK the easiest way to find out someone's political perspective is to ask them what newspaper they read. We just don't have a national newspaper that doesn't have a political agenda. You can choose a paper, safe in the knowledge that nothing you read will challenge your world view or upset your prejudices. There's nothing stopping you from reading all the other papers, but the only people who do are Media Studies students and PR men. As explained in 1987: ▶ this video

From Yes Prime Minister: "I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is." ▶ this video