Election Year or Fear!

[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]

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

[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.

[Andy_Faber]

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

[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

[ramAnag]

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

I think the days of people buying papers for ‘tits’ have long gone, but ‘why haven’t I called it (ownership) out before’?
I guess I was just attempting to be topical.

[Andy_Faber]

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

And the news gets better as Piers Morgan declares his pitch to become DG

[ramAnag]

And the news gets better as Piers Morgan declares his pitch to become DG

Nominated by none other than…(drum roll) Michael Gove, it would seem.
Two questions.
1) What the hell has it got to do with Michael Gove?
2) What credibility does a failed politician and current editor of a Right wing journal have as regards the future of the BBC?