COV
Well-Known Member
Yeah probably- as always it’s both sides at it tbh.
Guardian is a bit more under my radar, everyone knows about the Mail though. Not saying they’re the worst
Last edited:
I think you are confusing it with the Guardian
They’re both the same. Ones woke and the other is Nazi sympathiser and both readerships think they’re cleverer than everyone else.I think you are confusing it with the Guardian
My lad started a paper round today. Every paper the facist mail. One guardian and a sun.
Unbelievable and that’s why we’re screwed
That's cos the type of people that still have a paper delivered are old-fashioned , don't like change and stick to what they're familiar with. Y'know - Conservative-thinking people. So it's hardly surprising the traditional media like papers will have a far more right-leaning basis that reflects that. Younger and more open minded are more likely to access stuff online.
Tories hate the working classTories not happy with Southgate, he’s an agent of “deep woke” apparently
Writes too well for a footballer. But be wokes under the bed.
View attachment 20762
marxism js coming homeTories not happy with Southgate, he’s an agent of “deep woke” apparently
Writes too well for a footballer. Must be wokes under the bed.
View attachment 20762
Those old thick bastards. Take the vote if them and let the intelligent youth like PVA and his Twitter beliefs rule the world
I was just pointing out how the different opinions access their information and how it would explain why the majority of papers his son delivers are right leaning.
But they don't - half of newspaper readers are under 55 and the main source of news for non Newspaper readers is the TV. There is not much difference on social media between non newspaper and paper readers.
Also age of readership hasn't shifted much for decades - its generally declining but in equal proportion
Its like when you make dumb comments about many wanting massive changes in capitalism - you just make nonsense up with no foundation
But they don't - half of newspaper readers are under 55 and the main source of news for non Newspaper readers is the TV. There is not much difference on social media between non newspaper and paper readers.
Also age of readership hasn't shifted much for decades - its generally declining but in equal proportion
Its like when you make dumb comments about many wanting massive changes in capitalism - you just make nonsense up with no foundation
That’s subscribers to print and online content not just print.But they don't - half of newspaper readers are under 55 and the main source of news for non Newspaper readers is the TV. There is not much difference on social media between non newspaper and paper readers.
Also age of readership hasn't shifted much for decades - its generally declining but in equal proportion
Its like when you make dumb comments about many wanting massive changes in capitalism - you just make nonsense up with no foundation
I am not disputing your figures but where is the source? Everything I see says that average age of readership is increasing & readership overall decreasing.
This is a good study, loads of date here
* Circulation of national newspaper titles has decreased from almost 30 million in 2003 to 12.4 million in 2017.
* National Sunday titles have gone from 13.9 to 5.4 million and national daily titles from 13.3 to 7 million.
* Among the two fifths of adults who claim to consume news through newspapers, the most-used titles are the Daily Mail (31%), Metro (23%), The Sun (21%) and The Mail on Sunday (20%).
* 16-24s are more likely than those aged 65+ to read more of the titles. Those aged 65+ are more likely than 16-24s to read the Daily Mail and The Mail on Sunday.
* EMGs are more likely than non-EMGs to read more of the titles. Non-EMGs are more likely to read The Mail on Sunday
Yougov is the source - why should i provide the link when Dreamer can't - everyone knows its a decline but the belief that young people have more intelligent sources to find whats going on is bonkers. Where do they look? Love Island?
Yougov is the source - why should i provide the link when Dreamer can't - everyone knows its a decline but the belief that young people have more intelligent sources to find whats going on is bonkers. Where do they look? Love Island?
The report I just linked shows that younger people are more likely to use a variety of sources for news whereas older groups don't vary as much- you can argue that "more" is not the same as "more intelligent" but you could also argue that a wider range of sources could give more perspectives & promote individual thinking- but either way how is he so badly wrong in what he says?
The report I just linked shows that younger people are more likely to use a variety of sources for news whereas older groups don't vary as much- you can argue that "more" is not the same as "more intelligent" but you could also argue that a wider range of sources could give more perspectives & promote individual thinking- but either way how is he so badly wrong in what he says?
Half of all print and online news subscribers are over 55, survey shows
Half of all current newspaper subscribers are aged over 55, new Yougov research shows.www.pressgazette.co.uk
I don't see how that proves that what Dreamer said is wrong
Because he says more access stuff online - what that means and how Twitter is more sophisticated than say The Times one can only speculate - but it says not many source news online at all doesn’t it?
No on the contrary I think, the opposite.
The scary thing is how many people apparently get their news from Instagram, Facebook & Twitter... however the report also says thats part of a combination of sources, so its not so bad.
I think the general gist is that younger people hoover up their news from all kinds of sources all over the place online, as opposed to rely on one single source which is what older people tend to do. For me I just browse- I might see the same story in multiple places, and all that happens is that I marvel at how the same event can be described so differently in different places, and end up making a (subconscious I guess) assumption on what the truth actually is.
Not expressing an opinion on whether thats good/ bad/ indifferent but the ofcom report does tend to back up what he was saying
But the You Gov data says that’s not the case? It says the only news source significant deviation is TV
What a bizarre hill to die on.
Yougov is the source - why should i provide the link when Dreamer can't - everyone knows its a decline but the belief that young people have more intelligent sources to find whats going on is bonkers. Where do they look? Love Island?
Point out exactly where I said younger people had "more intelligent" sources? I said they primarily had different sources, which they do. An alarming number of people go to Facebook/Twitter or some such which is IMO worse as a large amount of the time the info isn't even fact checked. The papers often have a political slant to put on things and will ignore stories that don't suit their narrative or big up ones that do even if there's little story there.
I only know four households that still have a paper delivered. Three of those are retired (2 in their 60's, one in their 70's) and 2 get the Mail. The other one, and the last household who are a bit younger (50's) get the Sun,
I'll also point out that the point being made was about paper deliveries. Although you'd have thought it may have altered a bit with home working and the pandemic, Younger people now weren't getting a paper delivered because they've mainly gone to work before it gets delivered nowadays so whats the point. People that have time to do that are those that are retired i.e. older. Younger people will look online. If they do read a physical paper it'll be one they pick up themselves or a free Metro on their commute.
According to PVA Facebook is swamped by older people and I’ve linked a post that says there’s huge growth in older people using online - what are you on about?
There is growth in the older market because as is to be expected they're more slow to switch to new forms. There can't be much growth in an age-group that almost exclusively uses online sources already.
I see you ignored the point I made that I said it was different sources, not "more intelligent" ones.
To be fair I switch off when you put most of your diatribe together - if you think anyone reads the shite you put together you are delusional
To be fair I switch off when you put most of your diatribe together - if you think anyone reads the shite you put together you are delusional
So, just proving you have your opinion and anything different you just ignore or dismiss. You have a closed mind. And thus remove any modicum of credibility you may have had. No wonder you're pretty much a meme and a bit of a laughing stock on here.
I do read what you put even though most of it is complete crap and just the regurgitation of what those people you doff your cap to want you to think. But it does give me a good laugh at times. And it's also a good acid test. "Does Grendel disagree with me? Yes? Good, I'm probably on the right lines."
Most of the country disagrees with you and your constant views based on some chip on shoulder bitterness
What made you so bitter and resentful?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?