NationStates Jolt Archive

So, UK people (and overseas readers), which is it? The Times? The Guardian? The Telegraph?
Certain UK "newspapers" may have been excluded from this poll because they do not conform to my definition of a newspaper. Any paper that regularly prints comment rather than news on its front page is disqualified, which means the Independent as well as the tabloids, so it's a three-way poll. If you don't like that, post your own poll, I'm sure it'll instantly get more hits than this because it's "complete".
My vote goes to the Guardian - I'm a lefty, but I think by most objective standards it's the best anyway.

that's a severely limited poll you have there. i generally prefer the independent to the guardian.

I still say the Sun. Daily Mail is good too.

Times FTW


Mail = :p

Independant and Guardian are about the same in terms of quality.

However, when I just want to quickly check a newspaper, I usually go for Guardian.

that's a severely limited poll you have there. i generally prefer the independent to the guardian.

The Independent is the best daily pamphlet the country has to offer. But look at the front page... that ain't a newspaper in my book. People hand out stuff like that for free in the street. I agree with a lot of what the Independent has to say... but if you're looking for an unbiased presentation of the facts, you're not going to find it there any more. What's happened to the Independent over the last couple of years is deeply regrettable.

Clarification: it's the way the Indy presents itself as a think-tank for like-minded people, rather than as a forum for debate, that worries me. A lot of the content is great. But I think this manner of presentation encourages insularity of thought on the left, rather than dialogue with a plurality of political perspectives.

Freedom.

What's happened to the Independent over the last couple of years is deeply regrettable.The same could be more than easily said for the Guardian. I've always wanted hundreds of gimmicky wall posters.

On reflection... I can't make up my own definition of the word "newspaper" that's different to how my fellow countrymen perceive the matter - I have no right. So the poll sucks. Oh well. I'll do another in a few weeks' time when everyone's forgotten about this fiasco...

On reflection... I can't make up my own definition of the word "newspaper" that's different to how my fellow countrymen perceive the matter - I have no right. So the poll sucks. Oh well. I'll do another in a few weeks' time when everyone's forgotten about this fiasco...

Bravo ;)

I started reading the Indy when it first came out. It was like a breath of fresh air.

Now...now its suffering the journo dick swinging syndrome. It needs sorting.

They all suck. The Times isn't too bad though.

The Guardian FTW.

Daily Mail=Bad.
Daily Mirror=Best tabloid, but still isn't great.
Sun=Meh.
Daily Star=Not even a paper. An insult to journalism.
Times=Meh.
Express=Never read it.
The Independent=See above.

The Daily Telegraph speaks a bit of sense, but you can't beat the Daily Mail.

I still say the Sun. Daily Mail is good too.
*Shudders*

Guardian any day.

Daily Mail is good too.

If you like shrieking, ill-informed rants written by petty minded little-Englanders, desperate to convince you that illegal immigrants will have stabbed you to death by the time you've reached page 5, then the Daily Mail is for you. It survives because it has a large section on football and a large section on hair and beauty products, thus appealing to a range of low common denominators.

Add: It's a waste of paper which could otherwise have been turned into perfectly useful bogroll. Plus it further damages the already appallingly battered image of the British journalist.

The Daily Telegraph speaks a bit of sense, but you can't beat the Daily Mail.
You can beat the Daily Mail, preferably with an iron stick.

*Shudders*

Guardian any day.
*Shudders even more*

The Daily Telegraph speaks a bit of sense, but you can't beat the Daily Mail.

No. The Daily Mail is awful. It's a series of rants and raves about immigrants somehow glued together into a "newspaper." Makes good toilet paper, though.

Hmm, I just decided to try out 'The Week', see what it's like. I really wish they hadn't cut The Editor out of the Guardian. You could briefly read through many different issues and then go pick up the ones that most interested you elsewhere.

The same could be more than easily said for the Guardian. I've always wanted hundreds of gimmicky wall posters.

Oh, God, don't get me started on the wall posters, or some of the pointless waste-of-paper supplements. But the main section is a better paper than the Independent.

*Shudders even more*
Well, is makes me shudder less than the others do.

I just really don't like the Guardian as a paper.

meh I only read the Indy...the rest of my news I get elsewhere.

Have you ever read the Sport?
No... should I have? :confused:

Well, is makes me shudder less than the others do.
That doesn't say much about nationwide newspapers then, eh? :)

That doesn't say much about nationwide newspapers then, eh? :)
Have you ever read the Sport?

No... should I have? :confused:
It's the worst of a bad bunch.;)

I just really don't like the Guardian as a paper.

meh I only read the Indy...the rest of my news I get elsewhere.

The opinion pieces in the Indy are much more to my taste generally than the Guardian, BUT the Indy is failing to present a plurality of opinion these days, and even the bits that are supposed to be plain news frequently display obvious left-wing bias (I'm speaking as a lefty here).
There are those that would say that unbiased news is never going to happen, that it's a Utopian dream of some kind. True enough, but it's something I think the papers should at least try to provide us with, and the Guardian's a lot better at that than the Independent, as is the Times (I wouldn't say this about a NewsCorp paper if I didn't think it was obviously true, believe me) and in a sense maybe even the Telegraph. An attempt to provide an unbiased viewpoint was my criterion for entry into the poll, which on reflection is much too narrow.

No... should I have? :confused:

Don't ever read that paper. It's a horrible, gossipy piece of crap. To give you an example of it's refined journalism, they offered 400 readers a free curry when Shilpa Shetty won CBB. They never, ever, put anything important on the front page - it's always some woman in her underwear and then some piece of celebrity "news" that no-one really cares about.

It's the worst of a bad bunch.;)
I recall a while ago there was a debate on the Guardian website as to whether or not football players should masturbate together to increase performance. I mean... are these people serious? :D For all its problems, Euronews still is the best mainstream source of news. If I want to read longer editorials and expert opinions, books and online websites do a much better job.

The opinion pieces in the Indy are much more to my taste generally than the Guardian, BUT the Indy is failing to present a plurality of opinion these days, and even the bits that are supposed to be plain news frequently display obvious left-wing bias (I'm speaking as a lefty here).
There are those that would say that unbiased news is never going to happen, that it's a Utopian dream of some kind. True enough, but it's something I think the papers should at least try to provide us with, and the Guardian's a lot better at that than the Independent, as is the Times (I wouldn't say this about a NewsCorp paper if I didn't think it was obviously true, believe me) and in a sense maybe even the Telegraph. An attempt to provide an unbiased viewpoint was my criterion for entry into the poll, which on reflection is much too narrow.

There are some good bits but they have let standards fall appallingly. However I'll still end up buying it every morning. Johan Hari is good for a laugh but Jacobson .... gah!

They have lost direction...even the photography has been below par for a while...

I('ve never heard of Euronews before. What is it?
http://www.euronews.net/

It's basically a 24 hour newstation. It gets the major news of the day delivered within 5 - 10 minutes, and is usually global in coverage. It sometimes has some interesting mini-reports on things concerning the EU. By no means perfect, but far better than CNN or BBC at getting the job done.

I recall a while ago there was a debate on the Guardian website as to whether or not football players should masturbate together to increase performance. I mean... are these people serious? :D For all its problems, Euronews still is the best mainstream source of news. If I want to read longer editorials and expert opinions, books and online websites do a much better job.
I've seen some silly stuff on the Guardian's website and BBC's Have Your Say (which is now so full of Daily Mail vitriol it's no longer funny) but that tops it by a long way. I would usually, if interested, read about something online rather than just in a newspaper, but you can't do that in a 15 minute break. Plus, it's a good way to start.

I('ve never heard of Euronews before. What is it?

The Independent is the best daily pamphlet the country has to offer. But look at the front page... that ain't a newspaper in my book. People hand out stuff like that for free in the street. I agree with a lot of what the Independent has to say... but if you're looking for an unbiased presentation of the facts, you're not going to find it there any more. What's happened to the Independent over the last couple of years is deeply regrettable.

Clarification: it's the way the Indy presents itself as a think-tank for like-minded people, rather than as a forum for debate, that worries me. A lot of the content is great. But I think this manner of presentation encourages insularity of thought on the left, rather than dialogue with a plurality of political perspectives.

i have to say, i haven't bought a newspaper in a good couple of years, relying mostly on t'interwebs for my news. i guess it changed since i last bought it then. to me it trumps the guardian in not sounding quite so pretentious and self-righteous. i suppose it doesn't these days.

I believe The Economist is registered in the UK as a newspaper, and as such, this de jure classification allows me to decide that The Economist is my favorite UK Newspaper.

What about Private Eye? :)

damn, that was what i was going to say. i change my vote to Private Eye.

I believe The Economist is registered in the UK as a newspaper, and as such, this de jure classification allows me to decide that The Economist is my favorite UK Newspaper.

What about Private Eye? :)

I’d agree with the OP that the Indy has become little more than an opinion piece, but there’s some interesting opinions there, so I still occasionally buy it. If not that, then the Grauniad. My Dad gets The Times, and when I’m back at my parent’s house, I sometimes read that. If nothing else, its got a good standard of writing. The Observer has Armando Iannucci’s column on the back page, so I usually get that on a Sunday.

In fact, The Observer is the only paper I physically buy regularly. You can get 95% of the content of all the broadsheets on their websites, and I check the headlines on the Guardian and BBC sites regularly.

However, whatever news source I read, I always take a large dose of salt along with it.

I spit on the Daily Mail when I deliver it. Facists.

What about Private Eye? :)
Fortean Times?

I get a Telegraph daily, hence my vote goes to the best quality daily in Britain.

As for the Guardian, the readers are singularly soft, tedious and boring, with the spine of an amoeba.

Ugh, this thread is cringeworthy. All these mail readers!

Its the exact same bullshit as the sun it just takes longer to read.

Its the exact same bullshit as the sun it just takes longer to read.

No. Broadsheets tend not to report bollocks, nor glorify the crass celebrity to the same extent.

In my opinion, the Financial Times is hard to beat in the quality newspaper bracket and the Evening Standard is the best of the middle rankers.

The worst newspaper is thelondonpaper which fails to be value for money despite being free - mainly due to its fawning attitude towards Ken Livingstone. The Sun, Star and Mirror are pretty much as bad as each other and the Express lowers itself to this level every Monday with whatever excuse it has come up with to put a photo of Princess Di on the front page. Usually these stories are crackpot theories that Fox Mulder would reject on the grounds of implausibility.

I get a Telegraph daily, hence my vote goes to the best quality daily in Britain.

As for the Guardian, the readers are singularly soft, tedious and boring, with the spine of an amoeba.
Torygraph reader retort #8306275

The Daily Telegraph speaks a bit of sense, but you can't beat the Daily Mail.
*sighs*

Probably the Grauniad for me.

Express and Mail readers, I hope you realise just how painful your ridiculous newspapers are.

The Guardian (and the Observer on a Sunday) are the papers for me. Most other broadsheets are pretty dull and I don't touch the tabloids.

This quote, which I think is from Yes Minister, was more accurate twenty years ago but still gives a good description of the sort of readership most papers have.

"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, The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is and The Sun is read by people who don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits."

There are some good bits but they have let standards fall appallingly. However I'll still end up buying it every morning. Johan Hari is good for a laugh but Jacobson .... gah!

They have lost direction...even the photography has been below par for a while...

Of course, the Indy operates on a much lower budget than other mainstream UK newspapers. They should be applauded for how well they make use of it. Still, it used to be better.

snip
Yaay, Yes, Minister!

One of my favourite shows. Ahh, Humpy.

i have to say, i haven't bought a newspaper in a good couple of years, relying mostly on t'interwebs for my news. i guess it changed since i last bought it then. to me it trumps the guardian in not sounding quite so pretentious and self-righteous. i suppose it doesn't these days.

Funnily enough, the Guardian seems to have mostly dropped the self-righteous act, possibly because the Indy's cornered the market in that kind of journalism.

"[T]he Sun is read by people who don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits."

http://www.askmen.com/imagesvote/2002_sep/beautiful_katies/katie_price_150.jpg

:)

Why does that oompa lumpa have boobs?

The Guardian (and the Observer on a Sunday) are the papers for me. Most other broadsheets are pretty dull and I don't touch the tabloids.

This quote, which I think is from Yes Minister, was more accurate twenty years ago but still gives a good description of the sort of readership most papers have.

"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, The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is and The Sun is read by people who don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits."


QFT

I don't know, last time I read the Guardian it seemed a lot more one-note than the Indy. They do have their big blaring front pages that sometimes get on my nerves, but they have a pretty wide range of opinion on their comment pages, some right-wingers and a lot of left-wingers with unconventional viewpoints, and you pretty commonly get one columnist arguing with the last one. Having said that, I haven't really tried to read another paper in a while...I guess it's mostly just what you're used to.

I believe The Economist is registered in the UK as a newspaper, and as such, this de jure classification allows me to decide that The Economist is my favorite UK Newspaper.

Damn. I knew I'd forgotten one. The Economist fits my definition just fine, and should be in the poll.
But like I said, when everyone forgets this fiasco...

I don't know, last time I read the Guardian it seemed a lot more one-note than the Indy. They do have their big blaring front pages that sometimes get on my nerves, but they have a pretty wide range of opinion on their comment pages, some right-wingers and a lot of left-wingers with unconventional viewpoints, and you pretty commonly get one columnist arguing with the last one. Having said that, I haven't really tried to read another paper in a while...I guess it's mostly just what you're used to.

Yeah, I've been harsh on the Indy in that respect, when I think about it their comment section is in many ways better than the Guardian's. I was talking out of my arse. The Guardian has better news though.

Guardian = leftist rag.
Times = okay, solid. The format is odd, though. Nice and neutral.
Telegraph has a more solid style than the Times. It also panders to my Tory-ish aesthetic, which gives it plus points in my book.
The Independent used to be quite good, but it's gone into tabloid sensationalism. Terrible. By the way, it has one "right-wing" guy who is often in the comments section - Dominic Lawson. Howard Jacobson doesn't count, because he's just inscrutable.

By the way, it has one "right-wing" guy who is often in the comments section - Dominic Lawson. Howard Jacobson doesn't count, because he's just inscrutable.

Well there's him, Bruce Anderson, Richard Ingrams and sort of Mary Dejevsky as well (she supports Israel and has a soft spot for Vladimir Putin). I've sort of started liking Howard Jacobson lately, although his last column about clowns was a bit of a bridge too far. And yeah, I can believe the Guardian's news might be a little more thorough.

Express and Mail readers, I hope you realise just how painful your ridiculous newspapers are.

They don't.
And what's happened to The Mirror? Once, long ago, it was a left-leaning national and international newspaper, tabloid but serious. Now what is it supposed to be? Articles about what vacuous people did in last night's dimwitted 'reality' TV shows. Worse - articles about characters in TV soaps. Fictional characters and their fictional lives, reported in a newspaper. What next? Might as well have daily updates on what's happening in the book of fairytales that the editor's 8 year old daughter is reading.

Guardian = leftist rag.
Times = okay, solid. The format is odd, though. Nice and neutral.
Telegraph has a more solid style than the Times. It also panders to my Tory-ish aesthetic, which gives it plus points in my book.
The Independent used to be quite good, but it's gone into tabloid sensationalism. Terrible. By the way, it has one "right-wing" guy who is often in the comments section - Dominic Lawson. Howard Jacobson doesn't count, because he's just inscrutable.

The Torygraph: because sometimes Andrex is just too expensive.

Well there's him, Bruce Anderson, Richard Ingrams and sort of Mary Dejevsky as well (she supports Israel and has a soft spot for Vladimir Putin). I've sort of started liking Howard Jacobson lately, although his last column about clowns was a bit of a bridge too far. And yeah, I can believe the Guardian's news might be a little more thorough. Including Joan Smith and Alibhai-Brown is taking the idea of balance a little too far, though.

Definitely Fox News.

Definitely Fox News.

Yes, that well known British newspaper Fox News.

It's a toss-up between the Independent and the Grauniad, although as you can see Private Eye has slightly biased me against the latter.

Where the hell is the Independent?

Where the hell is the Independent?
The OP isn’t counting it as a paper, because it is merely a forum for comment, rather than a news source.

The Daily Telegraph speaks a bit of sense, but you can't beat the Daily Mail.

I can.

*cracks knuckles*

Apologies if someone else already made that joke. I can't be arsed to read all this thread.

The OP isn’t counting it as a paper, because it is merely a forum for comment, rather than a news source.

Last time I checked, the Independent reported on national and international affairs, backed up with information with editorials and cartoons and everything else the Torygraph and the Graunaid have.

Last time I checked, the Independent reported on national and international affairs, backed up with information with editorials and cartoons and everything else the Torygraph and the Graunaid have.
I agree, though it has devoted larger and larger sections of the paper to comment, and regularly puts a comment piece on the front page.

Not that that makes it not a newspaper, IYSWIM.