Monday, January 07, 2008

A Viewspaper, Not a Newspaper

What kind of writer do you think wrote the following?

Voters in the United States may have switched their attention to the contest to
find his successor, but George Bush will embark on an ambitious nine day your of
the Middle East tomorrow in a last desperate attempt to salvage a legacy from
two terms in office overshadowed by a catastrophic foreign policy that has
earned him the distinction of being one of the worst presidents in the country's
history.

Was it written by

A) a left of centre blogger
B) an opinionated newspaper columnist
C) a reporter for the front page of The Independent

It was, of course C. Leaving aside that a 68 word long sentence may not be the best way to start a front page article, it is further proof that The Independent is a Viewspaper rather than a Newspaper. In that one sentence three negative views on George Bush are expressed. This wouldn't get past the subs on any other broadsheet paper, including The Guardian.

Of course, it is a good thing for a newspaper to have a USP. But The Independent is risking losing its original core readership. Remember its original slogan "It is. Are you?" That is a bit of a joke now. The Independent no longer does what it says on the tin. It is as far from being independent as I am from being fair and balanced. Maybe it should just turn itself into a good, readable lefty blog. Let's face it, there isn't much competition.

25 comments:

Anonymous said...

It's crap. Like Janet Street-Porter, it just complains, teenager-like, that the world is imperfect. Duh!

Old BE said...

Leftwingers often present opinion as established fact. They forget that Bush was so disastrous in his first term that he was re-elected with a stronger majority the second time around. Similarly Mrs T was re-elected twice despite the "fact" that she supposedly damaged the country beyond repair.

Anonymous said...

I think you're confusing 'Independent' with 'Impartial'. There's no contradiction in an independent paper expressing a partial political view.

That said, I agree it's a rubbish paper.

Anonymous said...

How come? Just because it isn't impartial doesn't mean in it isn't independent. Even Janet Street Porter probably knows the difference between those two words. Get it together, Iain.

Anonymous said...

Well, to be fair:

1. No one buys the Independent under the impression that it's a neoconservative organ; they all agree with its anti-Bush position or can come to terms with it.

2. The paper is much more open-minded than The Guardian (or The Mirror), since it provides a platform for the likes of Bruce Anderson, and if you read profiles of which parties readers of various papers vote for Indy readers show a more varied selection than almost any other.
2b. Plus, the paper's line is fairly economically liberal, especially compared to The Guardian, which leans more towards the socialist side of things.

3. (IMHO) they do have a point...

Anonymous said...

Completely off topic Iain, but I've noticed whilst watching Brown giving his speech on the 'Fantasy NHS' that he's acquired some more tics. Random grins have been joined by a very strange 'eyes rolling towards the ceiling routine'.

Otherwise it's the same old nonsense, reannouncements and bare faced lies. 'Control to individuals, tough decisions, operational independence, uniquely well placed, force for good, renewal, reforms, values, principle, vision of change, blah blah blah'. None of which will ever be 'delivered'.

What a load of old manure, from this scheming, lying hoodwinker.

Bob Piper said...

Let's face it, there isn't much competition.

Well perhaps that will influence some of us when deciding whether to boost your ego with your annual list of bloggers.

I'll keep the quote and circulate it next year... might save some of us bothering.

Anonymous said...

It seems that few of the Republican presidential candidates would object to this characterisation.

As far as I am are aware, none have sought endorsement from George W or pretended that they will take over his mantle.

The opinion polls of American citizens suggest that they also tend to the Independent's view.

But then perhaps I'm not a fair judge, as it's my view too.

Anonymous said...

Bob Piper

Please take off those rose coloured blindfolds of yours and admit your party is now well and truly fascist.

Remember it is your party that is still contributing to this New World Order war in the middle east not mine. However much you might personally wish it were not so.

Labour blogs are either boring as hell or far more critical then this one. Which is not surprising as some of you people are only now starting to understand what internationalist socialism is really all about.

Which is International World Fascism in all but name.

Which also has nothing to do with freedom of speech, liberty, peace, or being generally social and tolerant to other peoples personal individuality at all.

If you cant see this for yourself by now, or do not have the self belief to admit you have been conned. More fool you.

Paddy Briggs said...

I really don't buy newspapers for news these days. Sure I'll read a story if it really interests me and is by a journo I respect. But mostly I shell out my 80p for views not news. The comment pages. The letters. The features. The Arts reviews. The profiles. Maybe the Spurs report if I missed the match! Views not News for me - News I get elsewhere. Quicker.

Anonymous said...

With the exception of President Reagan, voters always seem to end up thinking the president has failed after eight years. This is usually because their expectations in the new dawn of a new president eight years previously had been unrealistic.

In the case of Democrat Jimmuh Cahduh, the failures began on Day One, so it was an easy call eight years later. It took them longer to twig onto Bill Clinton.

Anonymous said...

I'd say those were objective statements, not comment!

Anonymous said...

anonymous (12:02 and 12:06)

The way the Independent newspaper used the term in their early advertising clearly showed that they intended it to mean "independent of any political interests" as well as independent of a proprietor who might influence editorial standards.

That was a big selling point. It is no longer true (was it ever? I have no idea, being too young then).

machiavelli

Then you need a little help with your English comprehension, words like "objective" (used as an adjective) and "comment". I think there are government adult-education classes available.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it should just turn itself into a good, readble lefty blog. Let's face it, there isn't much competition.

How would you know Iain? Your forays into lefty blogging rarely venture beyond London

;)

Anonymous said...

http://dictionary.cambridge.org

objective (FAIR OR REAL)
adjective
based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings:

comment
noun
something that you say or write that expresses your opinion:

From Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

Anonymous said...

"It seems that few of the Republican presidential candidates would object to this characterisation."

The majority of Republican candidates support Bush's foreign policy and war in Iraq.

From what I've seen the majority of Indy readers are youngsters who enjoy the guise of independant journalism.

Anonymous said...

I doubt that anyone with an IQ greater than their shoe size would dispute that George W. Bush is one of the worst presidents it has ever been the United States' (and the rest of the world's) misfortune to suffer under, and when one thinks that other contenders in living memory include Ford, Johnson and the rightly derided Carter, that takes some doing. For the Indepoendent to underline such a piece of orthodoxy seems to be unremarkable: what is remarkable is that anyone should consider it to be 'news'. The rest of us have known about it ever since the disgraceful election in 2000 when he was effectively appointed by his brother,'Jeb', who just happened to be Governor of Florida where all those 'hanging', 'pregnant' and other species of 'chad' had to be minutely examined.

All that remains to be seen is whether Amercian primary voters are stupid enough to forget the past and select La Hillary as Democratic candidate, thereby indisputably confirming themselves as having the shortest memories in psephological history. Let's hope the voters in the Granite State (motto: 'Live Free or Die') give her the electoral boot in their primary tomorrow.

Is it too late to start a petition to draft President Bartlett?

Anonymous said...

I stopped buying it when they took to printing government press releases verbatim ..... of course the increase to 80p didn't help.

Paul Linford said...

I do think that last sentence is a little uncalled-for, Iain.

Anonymous said...

Those bleeding-heart headlines just go to prove that this is a newspaper written by schoolchildren for the comsumption of the naive. Of which unfortunately there are still too many.

Anonymous said...

It is as far from being independent as I am from being fair and balanced.

Thanx Iain. That's the only thing that's made me laugh all day.

Anonymous said...

So, Vervet, are you going to stop reading Iains' blog if the Tories win next time? *cough*

Cameron Rose said...

The Independent never has been!

Cameron Rose said...

The Independent never was!

Anonymous said...

I'll keep this tight. While, most daily papers scratch by on three or four political reporters, the Indy has a cast of thousands: political editor Andrew Grice, deputy Colin Brown and underlings Nigel Morris and Ben Russell. Oh, and Andy McSmith too.
Iain has hit a nerve, but he doesn't quite know why. Reason is that Indy editor Simon Kelner is soon to follow Sindy editor and close chum Tristan Davies away from Marsh Wall. Hence the strident tone, the daily Indy is soon to be relaunched under a new editor and Kelner is off to spend more time enjoying his money, lunch at the Ivy, dinner at the Groucho, etc. You heard it here first!