We had a tangential discussion on the Smart M/way thread about media ownership starting with me expressing my preference to keep clear on any pies in which Rupert Murdoch or the Barclay Brothers have fingers - directly or via holding companies.
Guardian reports that the Barclays are reviewing their empire and may dispose of Telegraph titles:
www.theguardian.com/media/2019/oct/26/barclay-brothers-telegraph-up-for-sale-reports-claim
Suggested that Mail owners might be interested but that such a deal would likely raise competition concerns. Jeff Bezos of Amazon is another prospective runner although the Torygraph is a very different animal to the liberal leaning Washington Post which he currently owns.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 26 Oct 19 at 17:24
|
Having been a Telegraph reader for many years I have been getting more and more irritated by its attitude that the only people who read it are hugely wealthy, with vast disposable incomes who can afford to drop hundreds itf not thousands of pounds on goods and services for which I pay in the tens. Clothes, jewellery, watches, bags, holidays etc.
Something today about a woman who took several months off work to get over her lesbian divorce and do up her house. I couldn't afford that gay or straight; I need money all the time.
The overt no-deal Brexit propaganda (I was a reluctant remainer) is getting too much but is The Times any better? I could not bring myself to read (or pay for) any other paper. The Independent is certainly not and the Guardian only guards its own declining wealth at the expense of others.
I have also heard of the Barclays brothers being rather autocratic in dealing with their Channel Island possession, as if they not only own but rule the place. Not my idea of nice people.
To an extent, it is hard to avoid the pies of big business belonging to wealthy families; look at the various luxury brands owned by a couple of families, but it seems that the Barclays are simply nasty?
|
My own objections to the Telegraph (which I only take as a least worst paper available) are its sickening, genuflecting attitude to royals, no matter how far down the pecking order they are, and to the rich and famous. In addition, its is growing increasingly sloppy over such matters as spilt infinitives, which it now uses as if they are prescribed grammar and its presentation is increasingly slick and generally down market.
I am grateful however that its ink has stopped getting itself transferred to my clothes and paintwork. The problem was long lasting and I had not found it with any other paper. The recent replacement newsprint is lighter in weight but flimsy and hard to handle for a broadsheet.
I think the Times is the nearest "quality" replacement and I share your disdain of the others. It seems to be a tabloid midweek but broadsheet at weekends. I tried a weekend's worth recently and thought it would do.
|
|
SWMBO tried the Times but didn't take to it. Shame as if you could combine the two, you might actually have a decent paper.
|
|
The only things I look at in the Telegraph now are the Matt and Alex cartoons. Apart from having turned into a rubbish paper it is simply too big taking up most of the shop's counter when you open it. About time they went tabloid. Weekend editions have too many supplements, a pain in the butt when they arrive separately to the shop and have to be assembled for sale.
|
Barclay Brothers to Sell Telegraph - Netsur
