NORTHERN PLANNER

I tried, I really tried. But the headline of yesterday’s Daily Mail didn’t start us off well. The leader screamed, "A lesson in hypocrisy" and went on to describe the alleged double standards of Ruth Kelly (cabinet minister) who’s is sending her child to a £17,000 a year private school. The rights or wrongs of this are up to you, maybe you think people in government are honour bound to make an example, maybe you think people have the right to do what they think is best for the kids. But the tone of the article persuades you to one point of view only.

The rest of the news section carries on in pretty much the same way, I can honestly say that I find it hard to find out what happened yesterday. Most of it is argument, with few facts. When there are facts, they are skillfully used to highlight one side of the story. This is fine for editorial of course, but not for the ‘news’ section (in my opinion).

For example, there’s an article that discusses the rise in the cost of living. The headline reads, ‘The sums that sink Labour’s (notice Labour. not government) claim of 2.7pc inflation rate’ – before you go further they’re making your mind up for you. The government puts the rise in the cost of living since 1997 at 15%. It’s based on the retail price index, which they rightly point out leaves out housing costs and council tax.

But here’s the rub. ‘The tories say that the typical family is paying £9, 925 more in mortgage payments. in tax…..’. There are more things the tories say, but notice that the government figures are official, yet the Tories ‘claim’. But this ‘sinks Labour’s 2.7% claim’. Now they move on to state some figures, but this is in the last third of the article where most attention spans have gone. Helen suggested that part of this little project should include Andrew Marr’s excellent book, A short History of Journalism and I think she’s right. For now, one thing I remember is that articles are designed to get the story out in the first paragraph, as the further someone reads, the less likely they are to take it in. People skim the first para and decide to move on, or not. One last thing, nowhere do they mention what the rise in average income is compared to the rise in the cost of living, and anyway, mortgages have risen with the free market, surely a Daily Mail staple? Or they after a bigger state?

The comment section is huge. There’s David Seymour convinced that pay as you throw rubbish collections are a money making wheeze, not about recycling. He may have a point, but at least it will encourage us to waste less. A good thing surely.

The Mail then comes into its own, with about 15 pages of Hello magazine type gossip, style, diets and health. If you thought The Mail wasn’t a housewives paper, this should change your mind.

Then the sport falls in to the trap of the front of paper. Less results and analysis, more headlines,and mostly football.

So overall, I got what I was expecting. Opinion, lifestyle and and little else. But  of course, bearing in mind the audience, it’s easy to say this is fine, it’s what they think, so give them what they want. It does become a bit frustrating when these factoids get quoted to you though in conversation though.