PatrickLondon

>> LIBERAL and CONSERVATIVE in the UK are different from what we, here in the US, mean.<<

They vary across Europe, but traditionally, "liberal" usually means oriented towards individual freedom, with a greater or lesser emphasis on economic (free-trade) liberalism or social liberal/libertarianism (Germany and France, used more about economic liberalism and business-orientation, Italy and Spain more about anti-clericalism). In the UK, tended to imply centrism, individualism and localism, as against Tory "big business" orientatation and Labour's statism/trades union orientation. At least until Tony Blair, and then the coalition of 2010.

I get the impression, in the US it's used to mean more or less what in Europe would be called "social democrat" or in Britain "soft left".

"Conservative" used to mean social conservatism allied to business-friendly (and generally finance-friendly) economic policies. But the reaction to Thatcher's perceived radicalism and drive made the party make noises towards a softer, greener and more socially liberal approach - a lot of which has now been dialled a long way back where it starts to risk economically and fiscally difficult decisions.

flanneruk

Let's get the words straight. In English (that is both the language this forum shares, and the dialect spoken here), "liberal" has nothing to do with the left-right spectrum. The recent misuse of the word in American rivals, in my view, the uncontrolled spraying of napalm on civilians or the fetishisation of the US Constitution as the most destructive US invention of all time

In English, to be "liberal" is an almost universally accepted Good Thing. Its opposite is NOT conservatism (or Conservatism): it is illiberalism, which is UNIVERSALLY accepted as an awful thing: the kind of meanly spiteful attitudes and behaviour best associated with American self-styled liberals (in English "left-leaning prigs"). And it is not the same thing as being Liberal (that is, a member of the political party which descends from classic liberals, but now has a messier political agenda)

Being liberal implies (it's illiberal to try for an overly precise definition):

- having a social bias to tolerance and the rights of minorities or social victims
- holding a strong mistrust about the role of the State in trade and commerce, and consequently all economic interference
- ultimately, holding to the Christian principle of love for humanity - though clearly not necessarily the religion.

Newspapers' alignment on the liberal-illiberal spectrum changes. The Economist - which, though weekly still insists on calling itself a newspaper - more or less jointly wrote the (strictly non-sectarian) bible of liberalism, and remains its major spokesorgan. Its views aren't always right (and are increasingly articulated by teenage scribblers with too many MBAs and too little experience of the world) - but they're the single easiest place for a liberal to start on a new subject.

The other co-author was the Manchester Guardian. Sadly, now renamed The Guardian, and based in London, it's morphed into the main European voice of American pseudo-liberalism: dogmatic, strident, hate-filled (much of its reaction to the death of Thatcher was beneath contempt) and dominated by the gravy train riders of neo-socialism: union bureaucrats, public-sector managers on six-digit salaries, and inflated charities more concerned with creating jobs for the middle class unemployable than the Third World poor they purport to exist for.

I regularly use what has to be Europe's most intellectually hyperpowered train route: no-one on it (or the bus rival the more frugal use) reads the print version of the Guardian. The poster who claimed it's read on trains by "middle class, middle income, intelligentsia" must just use trains patronised the middlingly intelligent.

The American liberal-conservative spectrum is as irrelevant to British politics (and its media) as the spectra in Ireland or Bangladesh of where parties' predecessors stood in their wars of independence. Liberalism (in our, that is, the real, sense) suffuses British policy making and is generally unchallenged

It's also important to remember that in Britain, 70% of the time people spend exposed to news is to news transmitted by the BBC - which, though independent, inevitably shares the predominantly liberal mindset of the rest of the British Establishment (those numbers might be getting a tad outdated with the success of the online Mail and Guardian).

There have been too many recent breaches of liberalism in the BBC (its misuse of its prime news bulletin for a lengthy attack of "climate change deniers" is among the worst). But 99% of the time, it remains rooted in hardcore liberalism, and as a result is largely responsible for the fact that the overwhelming majority of journalists are also liberal.

So, too are most Conservatives (ie supporters of the political party) and just about every writer on the Daily Telegraph I've ever met.

As a result of all this, it's wrong to bring US attitudes to UK media. The Left (as it's called in English) in Britain demonise Murdoch as much as American pseudo-liberals (none of whom seem to have noticed the transformation he's wrought on the Wall Street Journal, which is now the best informed critic of modern capitalism on earth).

But in research, most readers of the Sun (the Murdoch empire's cash cow) think it supports Labour. We liberals cringe at some of the nonsense we hear from Mail readers: but mostly that nonsense is a detailed knowledge of celebrities' private lives sensible people leave for church architecture or the growing of exotic vegetables. The Mail has just about the best campaigning record on police accountability and transparency of politicians' expenses.

Incidentally, I'm disappointed no earlier review mentions the Financial Times: now the other main voice of true British liberalism. It's there to serve business: and it starts from the sensible insight that business is served best with ruthlessly objective journalism and op-eddery that covers a wide spectrum of philosophies. While Murdoch's worst sin has been to trivialise The Times (though he's punctilious about including a full spectrum of opinions in its articles), the FT is now the only daily where interesting people have the space to develop their argument.

The Independent purports to do that. But its writers are just old bores pouring out their dogma. And subeditors with less tolerance for their verbal diarrhoea would easily make it a thousand times less awful.

By and large, people choose their papers for comfort, rather than political precision.

PatrickLondon

>>By and large, people choose their papers for comfort, rather than political precision.<<

Well, that I would agree with. And in that sense, most people who buy newspapers are deeply conservative - in their habits, if not necessarily their politics.

nytraveler

IMHO the tabloids are not newspapers within the meaning of the act. Think the NY Daily News or even - god forbid - the Post (Headless body found in topless bar!!! Goat was abducted by aliens!!!).

These are not for news. They are for gossip, sports, lots of pix and scandals.

I think what you are looking for is the Guardian and the Times.

Heimdall

Guardian (well, maybe), Independent, Telegraph, Times, Financial Times — all worthy newspapers according to your tastes. All the others are good only for wrapping fish & chips, but even that isn't done anymore.

zippo

Note that some "national" papers have a Scottish edition, where they include topics of local interest and omit articles which might upset the Scots.

flanneruk

Only a typical American pseudo-liberal snob could dismiss the Daily Mirror (proud to have been a tabloid for the past 80 years, and to have led the world in campaigning and investigative journalism for the past century)as "not a newspaper within the meaning of the act". Probably too left wing for them, of course.

Only someone with no knowledge of British media could dismiss the Mail's campaigns - on everything from police mismanagement of the Stephen Lawrence case to recognition for Arctioc Convoy ex-servicemen - as "lots of pix".

Or attack the Liverpool Daily Post for its "gossip and scandals" in exposing the police coverup of the Hillsborough disaster

But you've got to be seriously untravelled to condemn tabloids and praise The Times in the same sentence.

Kate

Oh lordy, talking about newspapers is always going to draw political debate. I'm with the Guardian and, its Sunday sibling the Observer. Which makes me a middle class champagne socialist soft leftie, I'm happy to report.

Wouldn't catch me dead touching the Daily Mail, that paper is a disgrace.

RM67

Champagne socialist is one of my favourite expressions.

Btw, many of the broadsheets are now published in tabloid format, at least in the week. And I can remember the Daily Express in broadsheet format, albeit when I was a kid.

flpab

You would like the Times. I have the Daily Mail bookmarked. They had the Boston Bomber's pics up before Boston even said they were suspects. This week while the rest of the US barely covered the Mall killings they had the best coverage. Very graphic yes but they covered the news. I think the gossip rags in the US get all their news from them. We have a British pub here in my US town that has the bathroom papered with the page three Sun girls.

janisj

HelenPet: You will find most things more liberal (lower case L ) in the UK.

As the discussion shows -- there is really no relation to the capital C and L terms as used in US media/politics.

HelenPet

Whew!! I am taking a deep breathe here. Yes, janisj, I think you summed it up, beautifully. And I think it will take some time before we Americans understand not only your papers, but your politics...heck, I don't even understand my own.
Thanks

BigRuss

<<The recent misuse of the word in American rivals, in my view, the uncontrolled spraying of napalm on civilians or the fetishisation of the US Constitution as the most destructive US invention of all time>>

More stupidity and America hate from Flanner, whose idiocy on these matters knows no bounds.

stevelyon

Another vote for Viz - its got a great top tips section ie

"Worried about security? Never lose your keys again by attaching a tag saying 'If found please return to Name xxxx and Address xxxxx"

and:

"Live like a star. Sit under the BlackBoard Specials Board in a Pub and have groups of people come up to you and stare and mouth 'Ooooh' and 'Ahhhhh'".

anicecupoftea

I can't bear the Guardian. Its we-know-what's-best-for-you mantras spouted by don't-do-as-I-do-do-as-I-say readers makes me want to spit. Working in the public sector, I am obviously in the minority there.

tarquin

The Times - a Murdoch comic for adults.

The Daily Mail - sadly, read by many women, you will feel slightly sick and disgusted with yourself when you finish it.

The Telegraph - also gives the sordid details but in a more upmarket way, ok if you can ignore the editorial bias.

The Guardian - read by intelligent people, but comment above about bias also applies here.

Pepper_von_snoot

Don't forget Hello! Magazine.


Thin--reads the Guardian on line

dwdvagamundo

BigRuss--other than the gratuitous dig at the US Constitution, I thought that flanner's description of US politics is pretty good. "Left leaning prigs" indeed!

PalenQ

Anyway yes going down to the South Asian run news store each morning before my B&B breakfast is fun - looking at the screaming headlines on the tabloids and buy the Guardian to digest with breakfast.

Seems Brits still love printed newspapers - and that's good old school for me.

PalenQ

I call myself a liberal - a left-leaning liberal and in our context it means more left wing than right - more socially conscious - more socialist in common necessities of life being provided to all who can't afford them - dignity in housing, food, transportation, etc.

You can parse it all you want and what 'liberal' means to flanner and other Brits is irrelevant to what liberal means here - the NYTimes is no doubt a liberal rag - ditto to NPR and the Washington Post - the Wall Street Journal at one time was surprisingly liberal on its news pages before the Miurdochs took over.

Pres Obama is not a true liberal but caves into the demands of the right far too much - he is a centrist as every President of recent times has tried to be.