There's nothing in that article which is startling, or new. Newspapers' political allegiances may vary, as this graphic shows. That may be partly determined by the owners' views but also by commercial considerations about what its readers want. There is no conspiracy keeping left-supporting papers off the newstands, and if their circulation is much lower than that of the others is because not enough people want to buy them. Despite the numbers joining Labour to support Jeremy Corbyn, the socialist Morning Star (which didn't make the list in the OP's link) has a circulation of around 10,000, less than a third of the Beano's. Journalism is, almost by definition, a reasonably well-paid middle-class profession which requires a reasonably good education, However many middle-class journalists come from working-class backgrounds. I trust most mainstream newspapers to report the news reasonably accurately. I don't trust them unreservedly, I don't expect them to be 100% accurate, and neither do I expect to agree with all their opinions. I don't expect them to deliberately lie, but this doesn't happen very often and is usually an individual journalist's deception rather than editorial policy. They are more usually guilty of reporting other people's lies, which is not quite the same. To give one example, Lance Armstrong's insistence he wasn't guilty of doping is sometimes claimed to be something newspapers reported as fact, but it was a newspaper which uncovered him. I can obtain a range of opinions (often in the same paper) and make up my own mind. I certainly prefer the mainstream media to most of what is reported on line.
|