Tabloid plebs

Cantona's Collars · 08-06-2011 07:07PM

How many people buy the tabloids and straight away head to the back pages?
For men it's sport and women it's celebrity gossip-wild generalisation I know but is generally the case.

Witchie · 08-06-2011 07:09PM

I'm female and genuinely only buy the paper for the football. Always start at the back and work my way in.

Dont really care about celebs and stuff....sometimes its interesting but only really if its a footballer!

hondasam · 08-06-2011 07:13PM

realies wrote: »

The newsofthesundayworld on a sun day

I would say we are not allowed read sunday world and don't mention News of the world.

more than likely majority of posters read the tabloids.

JustAddWater · 08-06-2011 07:16PM

Scrappychimow wrote: »

What type of people read the sun, the herald or the Irish star?

People who haven't heard of the Internet obviously...

90% of my news cones from twitter

The other 10%? ... after hours!

Freddie59 · 08-06-2011 07:26PM

parker kent wrote: »

Just because some idiots read broadsheets does not make non-broadsheet readers some sort of working class heroes.

And vice-versa. Just because some people think that everyone who reads a tabloid is a 'nine year-old' doesn't necessarfily mean it's true.

Witchie · 08-06-2011 07:27PM

Just saw an ad for that English paper "i" which said

"its not all celebrity gossip, just the intelligent stuff" and the front cover had a picture of Ryan Giggs with headline "Injunctions footballer tackles the Twitter leaks" Lol. Its just a tabloid.

parker kent · 08-06-2011 07:36PM

Freddie59 wrote: »

And vice-versa. Just because some people think that everyone who reads a tabloid is a 'nine year-old' doesn't necessarfily mean it's true.

For the record, I didn't say everybody who reads them are 9-year-olds. My point was that the reading level of tabloids is purported to be that of a 9-year-old.

Dangerous Man · 08-06-2011 07:36PM

Oh_Noes wrote: »

And to reverse the sterotypes: People who read The Irish Times are all hippies and people who read the Irish Independant are Fascists.

But in reality, categorising people by the newspaper was redundant decades ago.

Ian O'Doherty, Kevin Myers and John Waters are just as vulgar as Richard Littlejohn or Eamon Dunphy.

It only took five pages for someone to point this out. For those of you who seem to think that broadsheets are inherently better newspapers you need to cop on.

There are a lot of freakishly intelligent people working for tabolids and a lot of freakishly stupid people working for broadsheets. The content in both is pretty much the same - the main difference is in how it is presented. Broadsheets tend to be more sobre, tabloids, a tad more sensationalist.
I'm no apologist for Irish tabloids but I would say don't judge all tabloids by the standards in Ireland.

Ireland's journalistic standards are not what they used to be and fall far, far behind places like the United States and the UK.
People may scoff at that but if you pick up a good American tabloid newspaper you'll be blown away by how good the reporting is compared to what you'll find in Ireland. Journalists in the states are still created more or less the same way they always have been. They take a writing course or go and get a qualification and then they get their starts in tiny little newspapers and move up. That doesn't happen as much in Ireland anymore because anybody who does get a regular writing gig tend to either have arts degrees with portfolios of student writing - or they know somebody in the business. That's a big reason why broadsheets are infested with pretensious, artsy claptrap.

There are other reasons too - such as writing large volumes to extremely short, tight deadlines, but I think it's fair to say that the standard in Ireland right now is not what it used to be - across all formats.

parker kent · 08-06-2011 07:44PM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

It only took five pages for someone to point this out. For those of you who seem to think that broadsheets are inherently better newspapers you need to cop on.

It hasn't really taken 5 pages since there were posts about the tabloidisation of broadsheets on page 1.

I imagine that when a lot of people say broadsheets are better, they refer to good broadsheets. I know I was anyway. That being said, I don't think there are any tabloids in Ireland that are comparable to American tabloids. So you cannot expect people to compare broadsheets they have seen with American tabloids they have not seen.

Plus like I said early in this thread, you should read a few newspapers.

epgc3fyqirnbsx · 08-06-2011 07:44PM

In fairness a lot of people read them and know it's all bollox, they just have a laugh with it.
In my work, where everyone is educated and well informed, there's still a load of daily mail articles knocking around just for sh*ts and giggles

If you would take any of it as fact you are incredibly naive, but if you have a laugh with it, meh, what harm

parker kent · 08-06-2011 07:49PM

Brock Black Oxygen wrote: »

In fairness a lot of people read them and know it's all bollox, they just have a laugh with it.
In my work, where everyone is educated and well informed, there's still a load of daily mail articles knocking around just for sh*ts and giggles

If you would take any of it as fact you are incredibly naive, but if you have a laugh with it, meh, what harm

I'd agree with this. If they are read for shíts and giggles, they are no harm. That being said, I'd never actually buy one.

Dangerous Man · 08-06-2011 08:50PM

parker kent wrote: »

It hasn't really taken 5 pages since there were posts about the tabloidisation of broadsheets on page 1.

I imagine that when a lot of people say broadsheets are better, they refer to good broadsheets. I know I was anyway. That being said, (1)I don't think there are any tabloids in Ireland that are comparable to American tabloids. So you (2) cannot expect people to compare broadsheets they have seen with American tabloids they have not seen.

Plus like I said early in this thread, (3) you should read a few newspapers.[/QUOTE]

Sorry - but you're all over the place.

(1) That was my point originally - not comparable i.e. not the same.
(2) I never suggested that people do - I suggested that they don't look at Irish tabloid journalism and consequently think that all tabloid journalism is the same - because it's not.
(3) I'm a professional newspaper / magazine journalist, as it happens - my day is spent reading news and writing news.

Dangerous Man · 08-06-2011 08:56PM

zerks wrote: »

How many people buy the tabloids and straight away head to the back pages?
For men it's sport and women it's celebrity gossip-wild generalisation I know but is generally the case.

They're not wild generalizations at all - they are in fact accurate categorizations.

parker kent · 08-06-2011 10:23PM

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Sorry - but you're all over the place.

(1) That was my point originally - not comparable i.e. not the same.
(2) I never suggested that people do - I suggested that they don't look at Irish tabloid journalism and consequently think that all tabloid journalism is the same - because it's not.
(3) I'm a professional newspaper / magazine journalist, as it happens - my day is spent reading news and writing news.

Funny you saying I'm all over the place given the jumble your post was :pac:

Actually your post is all over the place as you have misinterpreted almost everything I said.

1) No shít. That sentence is linked to my following sentence, it is pointless analysing it by itself.
2) You miss that I am saying that you cannot expect people on this thread to talk about something 99% of them will not have encountered meaning that it is natural that they will only refer to Irish and British tabloids. This thread is not about American tabloids so they don't really have anything to with the discussion.
3) I didn't claim that you personally need to read more newspapers. I said "you" meaning the second person plural. Given we are not in a formal setting, I would look like a know saying "One should read".

The King of Moo · 08-06-2011 10:38PM

Karamoja wrote: »

Dumb cunts.

People like the folks in "Royle Family" and "Shameless".

Anto and Deco.

The funny thing is, nobody has posted here to say that they read it. Either nobody on this forum reads those rags, or they are too embarrassed to admit it.

Ugh, horrible smelly poor people!
If you hate poor people, just wait till you meet some snobs, you'd really hate them! :rolleyes:

The King of Moo · 08-06-2011 10:40PM

Some pathetic snobbery and insecurity here from people who can probably only give themselves any sense of self-worth by finding some way to mark others as inferior.

I'm an adult so I don't care what other people read. That's their business, not mine, and I don't care if they care about what I read or don't read.

Dangerous Man · 08-06-2011 11:06PM

parker kent wrote: »

Funny you saying I'm all over the place given the jumble your post was :pac:

Actually your post is all over the place as you have misinterpreted almost everything I said.

1) No shít. That sentence is linked to my following sentence, it is pointless analysing it by itself.
2) You miss that I am saying that you cannot expect people on this thread to talk about something 99% of them will not have encountered meaning that it is natural that they will only refer to Irish and British tabloids. This thread is not about American tabloids so they don't really have anything to with the discussion.
3) I didn't claim that you personally need to read more newspapers. I said "you" meaning the second person plural. Given we are not in a formal setting, I would look like a know saying "One should read".

Oh please - get real. You're being deliberately disingenuous here.
Your first attempt at a rebuttal doesn't actually rebut anything. It merely highlights the rather humdrum fact that one sentence follows another.

Also, my pointing out that tabloid journalism differs outside of Ireland is completely relevant. Your figure of 99% seems high but I'll agree with it for the sake of argument as in actual fact, it strengthens the relevance of my above point.

If, as you contend, 99% of people are making statements about tabloid journalism in such an extremely narrow way, then it stands to reason that they're not doing the topic justice. You say that it is implied that they are merely discussing UK / Irish tabloid journalism and that's fine - for even if they are - a fresh perspective cannot be batted aside for the sake of pedantry. That is to say one cannot justify saying 'we are only talking about this type of writing' because it suits one's argument.

As to your third point - you post was a direct response to mine so the sentence in question would also function as a direct response to me. There is no other way of looking at that.

Naikon · 09-06-2011 01:42AM

If you aren't reading the Times or the Examiner, you are holding toilet paper. I don't like reading poorly researched and potential lies on a daily basis though. The "siding" of tabloids pisses me off. Just report the news as it is.

Nothing like waking up to read articles such as:

WARNING: SEX MONSTER ON THE LOOSE!!!

Turpentine · 09-06-2011 02:08AM

Alter-Ego wrote: »

Have to say, I do like the tits on page three.

Newspapers are becoming obsolete anyway.

I think you'll find that the internet also has an extensive page three section.

I like to thumb through both broadsheets and tabloids the odd time, just to get the different spins they put on the same story. I'd very rarely buy a paper these days but if I do it's always broadsheet. That way it's slightly easier to avoid coverage of "Big Celebrity Jungle On Ice" or whatever reality show is on television at the moment.

Tabloid plebs

Comments