Election Year or Fear!

[swaledale]

Surely you?re not suggesting a cessation of investigative journalism? That?s the only part of the Trump affair many (including me) have had with the Telegraph, the majority coming from TV

Mm its been a while since the Telegraph has been a source of investigative journalism. For a number of years it has relentlessly pushed a "culture war" agenda, its pages are filled with opinion columns decrying some imaginary issue that if it exists, has a marginal impact on most peoples lives and is always exaggerated and often utterly false.

It often prints articles by right wing "commentators" with a particular axe to grind, it rarely comes up with genuine news scoops that are the result of proper investigative journalism.

The Mail is very similar, but caters for sad middle class readers unable to distinguish fact from fiction, it pays Johnson £1 million annually to write utter tripe, which a 10 year old would be ashamed to be the author of.

Its also unintentionally ironic, publishing a piece over the weekend which featured an "ordinary working class" family in Middlesbrough, who were largely on benefits with one working as a handyman, complaining that they had to live in a small 3 bedroom house with 3 children, when asylum seekers were given everything from mobile phones to houses etc. etc. Just the sort of people that not many years ago the Mail would be attacking as the "undeserving poor".

The irony of a family struggling to make ends meet due to the way capitalism works being highlighted by the Mail whose owner resident abroad for tax reasons and whose ancestors supported the Blackshirts in the 30's is amazing.

But then its a good distraction from the actual "Elite" who ahve grown richer these last few decades, whilst most people's incomes have stagnated. But I do wonder, how thick one has to be to be to believe this stuff.

[Geoff Parkstone]

One other thing I noticed about the takeover deal was that it may save the title from falling into control of UAE and USA interests. I think Id sooner see a title close down than fall under the thrall of Middle Eastern or even American interests! Now admittedly the british press has always had a degree of foreign ownership (Maxwell, Murdoch, and various Canadian businesmen) they have generally lived in UK. That said, Rothermere is a non dom!

The whole deal has to be approved by Culture department anyway and quite possibly the MMC so plenty of hoops still to jump through

[Geoff Parkstone]

Mm its been a while since the Telegraph has been a source of investigative journalism. For a number of years it has relentlessly pushed a "culture war" agenda, its pages are filled with opinion columns decrying some imaginary issue that if it exists, has a marginal impact on most peoples lives and is always exaggerated and often utterly false.

It often prints articles by right wing "commentators" with a particular axe to grind, it rarely comes up with genuine news scoops that are the result of proper investigative journalism.

The Mail is very similar, but caters for sad middle class readers unable to distinguish fact from fiction, it pays Johnson £1 million annually to write utter tripe, which a 10 year old would be ashamed to be the author of.

Its also unintentionally ironic, publishing a piece over the weekend which featured an "ordinary working class" family in Middlesbrough, who were largely on benefits with one working as a handyman, complaining that they had to live in a small 3 bedroom house with 3 children, when asylum seekers were given everything from mobile phones to houses etc. etc. Just the sort of people that not many years ago the Mail would be attacking as the "undeserving poor".

The irony of a family struggling to make ends meet due to the way capitalism works being highlighted by the Mail whose owner resident abroad for tax reasons and whose ancestors supported the Blackshirts in the 30's is amazing.

But then its a good distraction from the actual "Elite" who ahve grown richer these last few decades, whilst most people's incomes have stagnated. But I do wonder, how thick one has to be to be to believe this stuff.

so to know what it published in such detail you must be a reader and thus by your own definition sad and middle class yourself? Now there's irony

[ramAnag]

I really can't believe you wrote that final sentence. Why would any business merge with another? Let's start with economies of scale and the saving of costs. Let's look at market share, especially in a declining circulation environment. Let's look at returns on capital - is 500m a lot if the Telegraph generates 50m profit (I don't know how profitable it is, or what return the Mail group is seeking).

There are countless sound economic reasons for a bid, and I'm sure Mail has had analysts all over the Telegraph to determine appropriate level of bid.

But in simple terms, it's what businesses do - merge for efficiency. It's why entrepreneurs start up - to get taken over and cash in. The fact that both share political similarities should make the culture fit, more so than eg Mail and Grauniad would. So to that extent journalistic leaning may be relevant - but I'd suggest enhancing economies of scale and financial returns could be the answer to your "why".

But feel free to trust in your own conspiracy theory

We’ll have to agree to differ. As I’ve previously said, I see your point. Beyond that, you see it as an entirely business decision. I suspect otherwise. Doesn’t make it a ‘conspiracy theory’. That the Right is attempting to take over the printed and broadcast media, both here and in the USA, is hardly a secret.

[Geoff Parkstone]

So please explain how the merger of possibly the two most right leaning newspapers represents a take over by the right. The right control those titles already and hence their readership (if you believe people are influenced by the media). But if youd prefer a takeover by Middle Eastern and US interests as the option....

Now if the Express was intent on buying the Grauniad and closing it down, you'd have a point, but this merger would merely maintain the status quo.

What you suggest is akin to suggesting that, if Macdonalds took over Burger King, it would increase the influence of junk food on the public

[Andy_Faber]

Different subject, this Prescott fellah seems to have so much about the BBC absolutely bang on, the good and the bad

[ramAnag]

So please explain how the merger of possibly the two most right leaning newspapers represents a take over by the right. The right control those titles already and hence their readership (if you believe people are influenced by the media). But if youd prefer a takeover by Middle Eastern and US interests as the option....

Now if the Express was intent on buying the Grauniad and closing it down, you'd have a point, but this merger would merely maintain the status quo.

What you suggest is akin to suggesting that, if Macdonalds took over Burger King, it would increase the influence of junk food on the public

You may as well ask why own the Mail and the Metro. Rothermere owns them, and intends to own the Telegraph, in order to extend his media empire and, simultaneously, his voice and influence over the UK electorate.

[Geoff Parkstone]

You may as well ask why own the Mail and the Metro. Rothermere owns them, and intends to own the Telegraph, in order to extend his media empire and, simultaneously, his voice and influence over the UK electorate.

The metro? You mean that londoncentric free advertising outlet with minimal content and given away free at transport hubs? Id say he owns it as an admag, not a newspaper

[ramAnag]

The metro? You mean that londoncentric free advertising outlet with minimal content and given away free at transport hubs? Id say he owns it as an admag, not a newspaper

The one that’s aimed principally at London commuters. Yes.
We’re going round in circles but, Rothermere owns the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Metro, The i, MailOnline, inews.co.uk, Metro.co.uk, New Scientist and, if he has his way, the Daily and Sunday Telegraph.
Shades of Murdoch and very unhealthy imo. He obviously understands the persuasive power of the media even if you choose to ignore the dangers.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Simple - I dont recognise your "danger" as all those titles are unlikely to change their political leanings as a result of their aggregation. If these dangers are so real, surely they already exist as youve named 8 under the same influence and having the same core ownership. If this is so bad why havent you called it out before? Adding 2 more (DT and not doubt telegraph online) isnt going to change anything. The same political biases are still going to be out there come what may.

If anythig the combined circulation of the enlarged group may be less than it currently is, since people may shy away from one title or the other when combined as they dislike the new bedpartner - eg I used to buy the Telegraph up to maybe 10 years ago for its sport coverage and cryptic crossword! I wouldnt buy the Mail as its dumbed down and IMHO aimed at middle class mommies. I dont see any way the combined circulation would go up due to ownership. Ask most people who read papers (are there any left) to name the owner of it and I suggest few would know and still fewer care. Most buy it for sport, tits - in some cases - and for affirmation of their own pre-existing beliefs. Your paper reflects your views, not you reflect your papers views