Tabloid Newspapers - Do We Need 'Em?

lahalane

Karl Pilkington used to have a feature on his radio show called 'Do We Need 'Em?'. Basically, he picked an animal and asked an expert if they were needed on the planet. He couldn't see the point of stuff like jellyfish but the expert always came up with a reason as to why they should be kept.

So let's pretend that I am the 'idiot' Karl Pilkington and all of you are the experts. Tabloids, is there a proper benefit for them in society? Do we need 'em?

Sauve

They're great for training pups not to piss on the kitchen floor.

chopper6

We dont need Karl Pilkington.

lahalane

chopper6 wrote: »

We dont need Karl Pilkington.

We'll deal with that in next weeks episode

Charlie

Lots of lefties will way in with smart replies, but ultimately, the market determines that we do need them.

Look at the amount of people you see on a Sunday picking up a Mail on Sunday or Sindo.

crockholm

Yes. Tracii,22,Essex, deserves to have her say on European monetary union issues.

lahalane

Charlie wrote: »

Lots of lefties will way in with smart replies, but ultimately, the market determines that we do need them.

Look at the amount of people you see on a Sunday picking up a Mail on Sunday or Sindo.

I'm aware they are popular but that doesn't mean we NEED them. Big Macs are popular too but the world would surely be better off without them.

DrumSteve

I like them for the puns but I would never buy the sun.

chopper6

lahalane wrote: »

I'm aware they are popular but that doesn't mean we NEED them. Big Macs are popular too but the world would surely be better off without them.

You any idea how many people McDonalds employ worldwide?

Sir Osis of Liver.

I use the free local paper for lighting the fire,so yes we need them.

Jester252

Without tabloids how will English kids get their porn fix?

Days 298

Sure all we really need is public transport, organic food and the Irish lanuage. Everything else is a luxury.

anncoates

lahalane wrote: »

I'm aware they are popular but that doesn't mean we NEED them. Big Macs are popular too but the world would surely be better off without them.

That rationale is risky as it's not just prole pursuits that you could argue are not 'needed'.

lahalane

chopper6 wrote: »

You any idea how many people McDonalds employ worldwide?

I didn't mean to sound like I'm having a go at McDonalds or its employers. I meant that just because something sells a lot doesn't mean that it's needed.

kneemos

Needed for the ponies.
Mostly what they're bought for.

justforlaugh

we don't need newspapers, i don't trust anything i read in newspapers.

I rely on BBC for real news, BBC news are not perfect by any mean

Eutow

Jester252 wrote: »

Without tabloids how will English kids get their porn fix?

The internet

catallus

Eutow wrote: »

The internet

Internet, eh?

Eutow

catallus wrote: »

Internet, eh?

Yeah, great so it is, makes page 3 utterly redundant.

lahalane

anncoates wrote: »

That rationale is risky as it's not just prole pursuits that you could argue are not 'needed'.

I realise that but I'm just trying to see can anybody convince me that there is anything positive about tabloids. I'm not going to actually try and get rid of them.

anncoates

lahalane wrote: »

I realise that but I'm just trying to see can anybody convince me that there is anything positive about tabloids. I'm not going to actually try and get rid of them.

They do decent domestic football coverage but that's about it.

I've no doubt they vastly outsell broadsheets so they're positive to a market, unfortunately.

catallus

They do all sport better.

They do better comics.

They provide an antidote to the arid reportage of broadsheets, which is necessary given the level of education of the general population.

lahalane

anncoates wrote: »

They do decent domestic football coverage but that's about it.

I've now doubt they vastly outsell broadsheets so they're positive to a market, unfortunately.

I failed economics in college so I'm not really sure what to do with that information Maybe I'm more like Karl than I thought

lahalane

catallus wrote: »

They do all sport better.

They do better comics.

They provide an antidote to the arid reportage of broadsheets, which is necessary given the level of education of the general population.

Yeah but if that's true then why should we cater for the general publics lack of education? Ban tabloids and force them to up their game surely?

catallus

lahalane wrote: »

Yeah but if that's true then why should we cater for the general publics lack of education? Ban tabloids and force them to up their game surely?

Who is this "we" you're talking about?

lahalane

catallus wrote: »

Who is this "we" you're talking about?

The imaginary world council that I invented for the purposes of this question...keep up.

anncoates

lahalane wrote: »

I failed economics in college so I'm not really sure what to do with that information Maybe I'm more like Karl than I thought

Simply put: more people like a certain type of paper that your type of paper.

camel jockey

lahalane wrote: »

Karl Pilkington used to have a feature on his radio show called 'Do We Need 'Em?'. Basically, he picked an animal and asked an expert if they were needed on the planet. He couldn't see the point of stuff like jellyfish but the expert always came up with a reason as to why they should be kept.

So let's pretend that I am the 'idiot' Karl Pilkington and all of you are the experts. Tabloids, is there a proper benefit for them in society? Do we need 'em?

Most things don't have a benefit to society. Should we get rid of them?

Rabelais

I'd rather read the idiotic rantings of some middle-class neurotic from South Dublin in a newspaper, instead of having to endure trawling though 200 twitter feeds for one item of genuine public interest, or the verbal scutterings on the blog of a know-it-all with a laptop and an Eircom broadband connection.

More entertainment in the headlines of the Daily Mail than there is in every self-satisfied comment in the replies under a journal.ie rehash.

lahalane

camel jockey wrote: »

Most things don't have a benefit to society. Should we get rid of them?

:-\ I give up.

Seachmall

Do we need them? No, probably not. But what we need is a limited and boring list. Wants are what make the world beautiful.

Beethoven didn't need to write music, DaVinci didn't need to paint masterpieces, and Paul Dacre doesn't need to comment on the fact that Miley Cyrus licking a sledgehammer whilst naked is the sole reason for the inevitable destruction of society as we know it.

Tabloids represent what is great about the world as we know it today. They are symbolic of the fact that we as a species have advanced so far above nature and the need for survival that we are willing to slowly destroy the intelligence that brought us this far for no other reason than we can.

Long live Tabloids!

LETHAL LADY

I saw this image on the front of a local newspaper during the week, turns out it was published in a tabloid also. Would this image jeopardize the case for the prosecution? Well this was my thought on seeing the image anyway.

http://www.sundayworld.com/top-stories/news/seven-charged-with-tipp-burglary-remanded-in-custody

KKkitty

No we don't need them. There's more than enough news sites out there if people want to keep up with the world. Tabloids should be abolished. Their reporting on most events is downgraded to smutty idiotic innuendo. Their captions are cringe worthy and like a certain "defunct" Sunday rag they show they're immoral as to how they get their information.

Vincent Vega

Answering that question depends on what you think of people in general.

Some people might feel it's a good thing to keep the eager tabloid reader satisfied with a daily dose of useless gossip about what celebrity did what to whom, punned&shock!horror! headlines, tits and news stories written with a clear underlying agenda.
They might argue that people who accept such content as worthwhile should best be kept clear of more pressing issues and be left to whatever pleases them best.

Others would argue that every citizen has a right to be informed about the actual goings on in the world outside of celebrity, and that instead of filling up peoples heads with this sort of stuff, more of an effort should be made to communicate the real issues in a non biased but appealing way to the wider public.

So, it depends. I'm in the latter category.

I'd argue though, that it isn't simply tabloids giving people what they want. It's more of a case of the media creating that desire in people in the first place, and then watching the money roll in.

martinedwards

I have huge respect for the people who write the tabloids.

They are written aimed at a reading age of 10.

as a teacher I know that there are a HUGE slice of society who given a broadsheet paper would read about 3 lines before dropping it.

any journalist who can explain (for instance) the Greek financial crisis to 10 year olds deserves a medal

Green Giant

Don't buy the S*n

awec

Newspapers in general, at least the physical ones you buy in shops are ultimately going to disappear.

Nowadays you get the news faster than ever. When was the last time you opened a newspaper and saw a story (a story of some actual meaning and not a story about Susan from Suffolk who cut a tomato and it looked like jesus) that you weren't already aware about because you read it online?

And in terms of online news content I would imagine that the tabloid newspapers get nowhere near as much of a percentage of the readership compared to decent newspapers as they do in the physical paper market. Who actually reads the sun / daily mirror website?

Oink

Seachmall wrote: »

Beethoven [...], DaVinci, [...] and Paul Dacre

Huh... In the same sentence? Really? :pac:

martinedwards wrote: »

[Tabloids] are written aimed at a reading age of 10.

I wanted to say that once, but couldn't back it up. Help a brother out?

RikkFlair

Tabloid content would indeed call for Karls "Bull**** Man"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lRIQGU2RRk

bodhrandude

I know that folk buy the Sun for the horse racing information in the UK, my mate buys it for that, so if you frequent the bookies you won't get that sort of info in the broadsheets.

mackerski

Charlie wrote: »

Lots of lefties will way in with smart replies

"Weigh".

srsly78

Can't ban bread + circuses, the plebeians would NOT be happy.

Holsten

No, they are muck.

karaokeman

Absolutely not, the world would be a much better place without them.

All tabloids do is dumb down their readers, and the stories are really not all that entertaining.

Joe prim

Holsten wrote: »

No, they are muck.

Nonsense, how would I ever have known that Suzy Slaggit, former Big Brother runner-up, now has cellulite on her arse, if I didn't read the super soaraway "Irish" Sun...?, oh...and for the racing as well....

Cienciano

They sell a lot, but would anyone admit to buying them?

TheDoc

Havn't bought a paper in years.

The internet provides factual, impartial reporting and when I want some opinion pieces, much stronger ones then the dribble in papers.

A dieing breed of media on its last legs, hence all the ****e about trying to charge for links etc.

For Forks Sake

TheDoc wrote: »

The internet provides factual, impartial reporting

Of course it does :rolleyes:

Fratton Fred

How else would people find out about the WWII bomber found on the moon, or that Elvis is alive and well and working as a window cleaner in Southend?

Oink

Cienciano wrote: »

They sell a lot, but would anyone admit to buying them?

Of course they do. No shame on them at all at all.

WilyCoyote

Aha! A Daily Sport reader. You get it purely for the editorial/crossword/soduku, Fred?