View Full Version : Have The Times & The Independent dumbed down?


harris
01-09-2005, 13:52
In their 'compact' format do you think that the Times & Indy have dumbed down?

Curious as it has now been nearly 2 years since they both went tabloid, I think that there has been a change, if you look at the Indy's frontpage now the screaming one story reminds me too much of the Mail.

All excited about the launch of the new sized Guardian - Mon 12th Sept....The revolution of the broadsheet? European size it looks great and keeps the integrity of a broadsheet, just more convenient.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1560525,00.html

What do people look for in a newspaper? Is a daily paper irrelevant in the days of 24 hr TV news and internet access?

Intrigued to hear some answers!

Deavon
01-09-2005, 14:01
The Independent is my favourite newspaper and I read it all the time.

The Times is a portal into the evil world of News International. Avoid!

(The Sunday Times exempt as it's just the best Sunday paper)

As has been said many times before*, it's not the size that counts.






*Not to me of course.

AndrewC
01-09-2005, 14:03
If there is bias in the times its far less obvious than most papers, and I'd rather have that the Independant which is just too 'magazine-like' for me.

A.B.Yaffle
01-09-2005, 14:07
On the occasions when I buy a national paper, my first choice is the Independent. I have thought recently though that it is rapidly becoming more sensational and tabloidesque.

Deavon
01-09-2005, 14:11
OK, I will agree that it is using Tabloid techniques to capture attention on the newstands... e.g the Statistic or Percentage in huge lettering on the front "65, 000 000: The cost so far..."

But the content is still sound.

nightrider
01-09-2005, 17:04
Originally posted by harris
In their 'compact' format do you think that the Times & Indy have dumbed down?

Curious as it has now been nearly 2 years since they both went tabloid, I think that there has been a change, if you look at the Indy's frontpage now the screaming one story reminds me too much of the Mail.

All excited about the launch of the new sized Guardian - Mon 12th Sept....The revolution of the broadsheet? European size it looks great and keeps the integrity of a broadsheet, just more convenient.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1560525,00.html

What do people look for in a newspaper? Is a daily paper irrelevant in the days of 24 hr TV news and internet access?

Intrigued to hear some answers!

I agree the independent always has hysterical stories on page 1-3. But the rest is still as good as ever I think so I wouldnt say it is dumbed down.

Andy
01-09-2005, 18:15
One think I miss about the broadsheets is that, when somthing of world-changing significance happened, they would devote their huge front page to it, usually with a huge photograph. The Clapham rail disaster and of course 9/11 are two such events.

Powerful photographs seem to have much less impact in the tabloid editions.

nightrider
01-09-2005, 18:23
Originally posted by Andy
One think I miss about the broadsheets is that, when somthing of world-changing significance happened, they would devote their huge front page to it, usually with a huge photograph. The Clapham rail disaster and of course 9/11 are two such events.

Powerful photographs seem to have much less impact in the tabloid editions.

Yes, but who wants to read a broadsheet on the train. Far too much hassle!

Andy
01-09-2005, 18:29
Originally posted by nightrider
Yes, but who wants to read a broadsheet on the train. Far too much hassle!

Absolutly, and as technology develops, I wonder what will become of newspapers? Is there a future for them at all, or in 10 years time will we all be reading the news on our mobiles or PDAs?

Greybeard
01-09-2005, 19:47
Originally posted by Andy
Absolutly, and as technology develops, I wonder what will become of newspapers? Is there a future for them at all, or in 10 years time will we all be reading the news on our mobiles or PDAs?

I've only read the on-line versions for some time anyway so the printed presentation isn't an issue. The Times is definitely dumbed down compared to five years ago although there are still occasional flashes of erudition from some of the columnists.

The Indy I never bought but, I scan it on-line sometimes; sadly most of the really interesting articles are pay-per-view.

The Guardian probably has the most complete on-line version although parts of that now require registration.

md25
01-09-2005, 21:56
The Times is worthless these days, it's bought by people who are too afraid to change to the Telegraph in case they don't like it and feel as if they've wasted 5p. The Independent still has the best journalism, and they aren't as celeb and sport-obsessed as the others, which is a plus. I know this as I work in a paper shop so get to read them all every day while refusing to sell fifteen-year-olds ten Mayfair king size. I am looking forward to the Guardian going to the Berliner format, as faffing about with broadsheets is a pain. I'm surprised the efficency-concious City types haven't gotten the FT to compactify.

Actually why do people buy newspapers to read about sport - wouldn't say British Football Week be a better use of your money than a paper with all that stuff up front you skip over?

wendygs
01-09-2005, 22:07
Originally posted by Andy
Absolutly, and as technology develops, I wonder what will become of newspapers? Is there a future for them at all, or in 10 years time will we all be reading the news on our mobiles or PDAs?

A while ago a professional contact mentioned in passing that they dont read newspapers any more. At the time I remember feeling shock and couldnt understand it because I hadnt then had the same level of internet exposure as I am now able to access. It wouldnt surprise me to if everything went on-line because it is so much more cost-effective and cuts out all the distribution channels, etc.

harris
07-09-2005, 09:31
Originally posted by Andy
One think I miss about the broadsheets is that, when somthing of world-changing significance happened, they would devote their huge front page to it, usually with a huge photograph. The Clapham rail disaster and of course 9/11 are two such events.

Powerful photographs seem to have much less impact in the tabloid editions.

I definately agree, one of the most exciting things about the new berliner guardian is that it will have colour on every page and they have also made a commitment to including a 2 page photo in the centre of the paper, they can now run the print across the middle sections so it is completely seamless. Looks really amazing especially for pictures such as the ones we've been seeing from New Orlean's which have such massive impact.

I do really like the convenience of tabloid size and read metro every day on the train but the gossip rubbish and the placement of stories and photos is so sensationalist at times it makes me cringe.

ToryCynic
07-09-2005, 09:55
Originally posted by md25
The Times is worthless these days, it's bought by people who are too afraid to change to the Telegraph in case they don't like it

When I read The Indy (broadsheet, and later compact variety), I found that there were less content in the stories, but not dumbing-down, then when I switched to The Times (broadsheet**, and later compact), I found that the 'shove' or 'meat' in their stories had completely gone.

So I waste the extra 5p! ;) I agree with more of The DT's views, and its sloughtering of Live 8 was amusing - they had a double page spread on what a daft idea it was.

But I interchange between them both - usually The Times, everyday bar Thursday, as The DT has the music supplement. On Saturdays, I buy both - I find most of The Times' supplements thin (quite literally), but read The Knowledge (it was called Play before, IIRC) with interest. The Body And Soul supplement bores me, but The Telegraph has some decent supplements. But, interestingly, I prefer The Times' money supplement (which, FTR i s inside B&S). On Sundays I never buy a paper.

I'm another person that has switched from the left of the political spectrum, to the right - it was the PC - stance of The Guardian - I used to interchange between The Independent and The Guardian (which I read from around 2001/2 - 2004), that made me change to the slightly more right (but by no means *that* right in comparison to The Mail), Times. Then, I gave The DT a go. And interchange between them both.

Fortunately, the letters pages in TT and The DT aren't written by people that believe it is racist to curb immigration, etc.

I was talking with someone who wished that The Telegraph went to compact, I hope not - there will be no broadsheets remaining. But The Times has gone downhill, would the Telegraph? I think many die-hard DT readers may go to The Mail, if they felt the DT was going downhill. I for one, certainly wouldn't I read that for 6 months before I went to The Guardian (I think that's what made me go to The Guardian) - it was so sensationalist, and aimed at 50 year olds, that have husbands that feel their tea should be on the table as soon as they walk in from work!

Also, The Guardian are going to get more 'serious' - they're going to go a little left of centre, as opposed to being as far left as they currently are - this will come into operation when they go Berliner.

I suppose the 'Crookes-residing-shaggy-hair-Strokes-listening' student'll switch to The Indy? (stereotypical).

** - Didn't read TT as a broadsheet for a while as it went compact quite quickly after I started reading - do you remember for a while they published both in both formats?

:)

harris
07-09-2005, 10:24
Originally posted by kentboy119

** - Didn't read TT as a broadsheet for a while as it went compact quite quickly after I started reading - do you remember for a while they published both in both formats?

:)
Apparently when the times were publishing as both there was actually a difference in the stories and the depth they went into, as well as the general tone, prominence of copy. That said I do like the Sunday Times, particularly their supplements.

I grew up reading the DT and still retain a fondness, it irrititates me when the guardian goes too p.c. Although nothing makes my blood boil as much as reading the mail :rant:

ToryCynic
07-09-2005, 10:40
Originally posted by harris
Apparently when the times were publishing as both there was actually a difference in the stories and the depth they went into, as well as the general tone, prominence of copy. That said I do like the Sunday Times, particularly their supplements.

I grew up reading the DT and still retain a fondness, it irrititates me when the guardian goes too p.c. Although nothing makes my blood boil as much as reading the mail :rant:

I think both The Guardian and The Mail are of equal annoyance - just different.

According to this link: http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article310445.ece - Murdoch slashed the price of The Times to lure more readers, readers whichc had price as a factor, and not a quality paper. However, after reading that, they feel the DT is dumbing down, that I do disagree with...

Dug
07-09-2005, 12:27
I don't think the Independent has dumbed down, the content and journalism is the same high quality. I would agree though they have introduced the new tactic of using shock headlines on the front page.

RPG
07-09-2005, 13:16
The independant used the fact that both the broadsheet and compact versions of the paper have the same content in it as their main selling point during advertising.

Surely they both have the same content in them?

Andy
07-09-2005, 17:25
Originally posted by RPG
The independant used the fact that both the broadsheet and compact versions of the paper have the same content in it as their main selling point during advertising.


The broadsheet version no longer exists.