Reading the Comment section of any news organisation will tell you a lot – the politics of the staff, the influence of the owners, and the views of its readers. The Daily Mail’s online comment section is a classic example of this. Alongside the apparently compulsory attack on the welfare system, this time courtesy of Martin Samuel, there are articles on the evils of Facebook, Ros Altman gleefully awaiting the end of the nanny state, and Mary Ellen Synon’s ‘Euroseptic’. No wonder Daily Mail readers are stereotyped as paranoid, misanthropic xenophobes. On the other end of the scale, The Guardian has in the last few days featured pieces on London’s falling air standards, Israel, Afghanistan and the immorality of public sector cuts. And Guardian readers (and I admit this includes myself) wonder why they are caricatured as sandal wearing, North London -dwelling, middle-class lefty do-gooders.
These stereotypes may be unfair – there must be some Mail readers who aren’t nutters, and while I do come from North London, I certainly don’t wear sandals. However, what else can we expect when our media are so unbalanced in their comment? With the odd exception, they churn out comments from people who agree with their editors and readers. Obviously, people mostly buy the paper or watch the news channel that chimes with their world-view, and so editors will mostly stick to satisfying their readers’ views. This is only natural, and having many points of view represented in the media can only be a good thing. On the other hand, by simply filtering everything through a particular ideology, any claim to ‘honest’ journalism is an utter fallacy. This is how we end up with a situation where Fox News, which dares to include the words ‘fair & balanced’ in its logo, is a mouthpiece for whichever right-wing lunatic can shout the loudest.
I’m not suggesting that the editors of the Daily Mail start advocating entry into the Euro or that The Guardian should sign up en masse to the English Defence League. Rather, our media should follow the example of the BBC or CNN, start giving more time to the opposite view and create real debate. They needn’t compromise their values, and readers can still purchase their newspaper knowing that the issues they care about are being addressed, but by allowing more constructive argument the media would not only promote honest journalism but also truly examine the complexities that surround most issues in the world. After all, just as the Mail and the Express endlessly complaining about immigrants obscures the benefits that immigration brings, The Guardian’s opposition to public sector cuts does not allow a true discussion of the pros and cons of pruning public services.
The general election saw a lot made of the public’s apparent lack of political knowledge, but this is hardly surprising when the majority of people’s political education comes from our media. How can people understand the EU if all they know about it comes from our overwhelmingly Eurosceptic press? The Express and the Mail are very good at expressing outrage at ‘Eurocrats’ meddling in our affairs, but fail to acknowledge that without the EU our trade would suffer immensely. They are happy to slam those on the dole, but are strangely silent on the fact that there just isn’t much work at the moment for those lacking specialist skills. All that this type of journalism does is further divide people. Just ask those demonised by the Daily Express’ Leo McKinstry on the 24th of June as “grasping welfare spongers”, who have “lived off unearned wealth for too long.” I wonder if he would be so quick to judge if he lost his job.
Where’s the incentive for the likes of the Mail to change? They do well enough as it is, with one of the biggest readerships in the country. From their point of view, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I agree with your general argument that there should be more balance in the media, but I think perhaps you overestimate any demand for it. People like to read newspapers that present similar viewpoints to their own, hence why you read the Guardian and many capital ‘C’ and small ‘C’ conservatives read the Mail. I think in many cases they reinforce and refine viewpoints as much as they propagate them in people.