Each post is probably riddled with errors and spelling mistakes as I never read (or indeed think) anything through and just write as my childish mind creates words. Chickenbrain. Look at that - I've practically got tourets...of the writing kind.
Something that's been really bothering me recently is The Times. As in the paper, I'm not Bob Dylan and I've unfortunately no feeling that the times they are a changing (as proven by the latest personality-less leader of the Labour party). The Times has always been probably my favourite paper. It's always had interesting stories with a slightly witty edge and I've often found it less stuck up than The Telegraph whilst actually talking about something other than Diana, Princess of Wales (though what serious, widely read paper would ever do that...?!).
However is it just me that's finding it somewhat...well...Daily Mail recently?!
My first big issue came with the website - I'm a cheapskate essentially and like having my news for free. The paid subscription feels like a step backwards in the free press (no pun intended). The statistics pretty much reflected public opinion on this, 150, 000 readers (including yours truly) signed up during the free trial month, a 58% decline in site visits from when the site was available without subscription. The figure of paying subscribers had dropped to 15, 000 two weeks after the introduction of the fee came in. "Disappointing" say the polite ones, I say it's telling. As it stands at the moment, to view the website one must pay £1 for a day (slight rhyme there...shut up Melissa and carry on typing) or (bear with me) £1 for thirty days and then after that £2 a week according to their website (which somehow equates to £8.66 on the small print of their advert?). Obviously a lot cheaper than buying the printed paper every day and with much more up to date news. A better deal that your favourite accompaniment on the morning tube with your coffee. However, this idea might have caught on had we not had a completely free in both money and subscription terms press from the website and others for so long. It merely makes it seem that little bit more exclusive and makes it that little bit more annoying when you google a news story only to find you can't read it.
However, that's old news and it's not really the end of the world that one has to pay for a "better" service. What irritates me the most is the celebrity-culture-tabloid direction the company appears to be taking. Admittedly not your the "OMG. Cheryl Cole goes to the supermarket in a hat she's worn before" direction of the Daily Mail, but of a distinctly suppressed middle-class housewife-esque sort. I may not be making much sense and I am indeed using hyphens way too much but hear me out...
Whilst I fancy the pants of Rupert Everett as much as the next woman (or more suitable for Everett, gay man), I don't quite understand why seeing an upper class actor in a greasy spoon cafe along Tower Bridge Road makes me want to pay for my news. His job IS to act after all? If he can throw on a dress and convince me he's a headmistress in St Trinian's, I'm pretty sure he can pretend he likes a website for a sizable sum.
Here's where you can see the said advert if you haven't already:
http://paidcontent.co.uk/article/419-times-launching-web-notifications-dashboard-tv-ad-for-paid-pitch/
Yum. Sorry, I mean erm..down with all this kind of stuff. Yes.
But, on a more serious note, look at the angle of this marketing. An actor (embracing celebrity culture and using it) BUT not an actor from your average episode of Eastenders; an actor of obviously very high middle/upper class ascestry (yes, I watch Who Do You Think You Are) who fits the bill of the 'average reader'.
This seems like one of those liberal/socialist/anti-capitalist/anti-celebrity culture/anti-middle class rants for the sake of ranting. But I'm not really all those things - I like money and shopping and owning lots of nice things almost as much as I like ranting (I said almost). I've only got round to thinking about all this due to my REAL issue with the paper (I know I said that for the last rant but this is the REAL, REAL reason).
The series of celebrity 'exposes' they've been featuring (and widely advertising in print and on television) in the Sunday Times. I can't remember who last week's was but it began with a look at the 'real' Lady GaGa and this week they're looking into the 'Fine Art graduate, discreet tattoo owning' wife of the PM. I've always appreciate The Times for the fact it tends to avoid this crass, inane direction. I don't want to know about a person I've never met, never will meet and probably don't want to meet. I don't want to know what they have for breakfast, who they've slept with or where their 'discreet' tattoo is. If I wanted to I'd head over to the Daily Mail where I'd bask in an orgy of pointless celebrity knowledge from a Coronation Street "Star's" new haircut to a hotel heiress's dog's whereabouts.
Alas, I don't. I want to know what goes on in the real world and learn about real culture. I just find it worrying; with The Times under the control of Murdoch's News Corp are readers of the paper just being turned into wealthier, slightly more cultured versions of the sad sods who soak up The Sun or catch up with The News of The World. I've never been one for conspiracies and I've always had faith in the intelligence of the British public, but seriously, are we the same kind as those who believe every word they read in The Sun, only with better accents?
This is just an extended rant. A very extended rant. A very extended and tired rant. But seriously, why has The Times become so tabloid?
No comments:
Post a Comment