– The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country;
– The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country;
– The Times is read by people who actually do run the country;
– The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country;
– The Financial Times is read by people who own the country;
– The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country;
– And the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."
Sir Humphrey: "Prime Minister, what about the people who read the Sun?"
Bernard Woolley: "Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits."
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Jun 06, 2014 @ 00:30:04
As a U.S. follower, all this is lost on me.
LikeLike
Jun 06, 2014 @ 00:37:30
From yes prime minister. London has many newspapers each supporting a party.
LikeLike
Jun 06, 2014 @ 23:55:19
In the U.S., newspapers pretend to support a party, but in reality they all simply support the State.
LikeLike
Jun 07, 2014 @ 00:11:08
Sorry but I must disagree see https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2014/03/20/is-there-media-bias/
LikeLike
Jun 07, 2014 @ 14:46:33
Sorry, but that write-up is, as I shall henceforth explain, at best hopelessly naive and at worst hopelessly petty as a response to the epidemic of state-controlled media.
Firstly, I hope you don’t actually believe there is such a thing as “center”, “left”, or “right” in contemporary U.S. politics? Other than populist rhetoric and a few (all equally fascist) social programs, these labels are only that – stickers on top of fascist Statism.
Secondly, and more importantly, though you are correct in pointing out that profits are obviously the driving factor for newspapers, the fact is that the average U.S. citizen doesn’t have a political agenda and the average political press coverage is therefore pathetically lacking in substance let alone “bias” as you call it. If we are going to talk about “bias” then the political aspect that matters in this conversation is that the U.S. federal government actively monitors and censors press activity that exposes its hateful agendas. That means newspapers have NO CHOICE but to stick to superficial coverage of political affairs. Read ANY Associated Press coverage of political affairs, and you will see that government officials involved in corruption and abuse (other than figureheads, whose precise involvement is never discussed in appropriate detail) are routinely protected by the press. Government officials do not have the moral privilege of speaking with press anonymity, and the press has no moral right to protect them from public scrutiny and attention (in fact, the press has a moral obligation to do the opposite). The recent revelations about the U.S. spying on AP, as well as the revelation about the NY Times mysteriously deciding to stop using its own email servers and convert to Google, which of course is a very loyal tool of the State for surveillance, is an obvious wake-call to this state of affairs.
In the U.S., though there can be cutesy appeals to one “party” or another, the fact is that viewing these populist appeals as anything profoundly meaningful in terms of “bias” is an enormous mistake. At best, it comes off as bewilderingly unaware of the general fascist nature of U.S. politics – at worst, if you actually understand that the press is just a mouthpiece of any given administration and still want to argue about whatever on earth “center-left” means being a “bias” of newspapers, it’s an extremely petty thing to say in response to my statement.
I must say, this sort of choking stab at a meaningful conclusion is quite disappointing in light of your overall general content. Most of what you post is quite sensible. Hopefully it is the last such disappointment.
Still your loyal follower,
In love of liberty,
tiffany267.
LikeLike
Jun 07, 2014 @ 14:48:44
We will have to politely disagee on this as we have.
LikeLike