Monday, July 11, 2011

Britain 's national newspapers lose their capacity to influence policy, argues Canadian media analyst Ken Goldstein in openDemocracy essay.

He begins with the inventory of blood flow decreases the papers from the 1950s to take the British reader, can be read as. (If you want the numbers, go here for pdf).

First, note that the sales have increased as households (and population) has gone, which means that 20% of the national paper edition now equivalent to less than 8% of households.

Having set the scene with such data, Goldstein then gets to the heart of his argument: "The debate about media ownership, media 'slant' and media 'influence' seems to go on as if it has a life of its own, unrelated to the facts about the actual or relative size of a particular medium."

I'll come back to an important final sally by Goldstein in a moment. But I need to take my argument on further because I think I need to make my position crystal clear, lest it be suggested that I deny the continuing, and baleful, influence of Britain's press proprietors and editors.


Blog Archive