Jump to content

The Sun goes down on Labour


Mick Mac

Recommended Posts

The Sun has publically changed its allegiance.

If most people dont read it does that mean we are not influenced by it or does it somehow get its message across to us all and influence us all?

Who can forget the Neil Kinnock lights out headline which was influential in him losing the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sun hasn't changed anything, apart from (as usual) feeling which way the wind is blowing with their current readership and making sure they aren't on the losing side.


They're a commercial product. A brand. They write what they think their customers want to hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i did think that too bob. But tony blair and alastair campbell saw it as a priority to win over the sun in order to win the 1997 election after the sun was seen as having had played a big role in the previous election outcome. In that election the opinion poles were with labour but the sun was with the tories so its not always about feeling how the wind blows sometimes they feel they can play a big part in the outcome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'92 was the first modern election. The opinion polls were out of date, they asked 'who will you vote' and people responded labour.


Whereas the tories had been using these new fangled focus groups and targeted marketing techniques and so forth, and look back at the newsreels (ok it wasn't quite that long ago) and the tories look comfortable that they knew victory was coming. Compare it to the footage from '97 when they pretty much knew the writing was on the wall.


The sun picked up on this very late and switched allegiances dramatically enough to be able to lay claim to the kingmaker title.


They're not though, Bob's spot on, But you can see why Blair wasn't taking chances as it was all about image and perception with him. Plus he probably made Murdoch lots of promises about deregulation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

that was my question mp. Noone i know reads it but does it inflence opinion outside of its readership.


As for 1992 i felt at the time the public were with labour. I went to a labour fundraiser event at the town and country club a few days before the election and ben elton and his crew could not help calling it a celebration. And as for that disaster in Sheffield i dont think the public were ready for that type of us style campaigning. After the election much clever hindsight was applied and those clever people said the polling was outdated etc but im sure the feeling at the time was that most people felt a labour win was on the cards. You have made of doubt it however and Id like to check back to see the bookies odds on the day before the election to see what that says about who was likely to win. I for one was devastated when the tories won and i think the ease of the 1997 victory showed the tories should not have been voted in in 92. Lots of people must have regretted voting tory and changed for 1997.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What *Bob* said. And, don't ever underestimate the

> influence it can wield with it's views and

> political slant/bias.


Surely jah, bob was saying the opposite: it does not wield inflence on the election but just switches to what it perceives to be the winning party. I think it has significant influence even outside its own readership.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess the answer MM I'd it's impossible to quantify. I doubt it has as much direct influence as it likes to think it does, but as Jah suggests, it and a number of other papers have an I sidious influence on opinion forming, sadly.


It may well be hindsight, as a historian it's sometimes difficult to tell as that's kind of part of the game, but looking back I was upset but not surprised when the Tories won. Mind you, I was part of the problem as didn't vote Labour then and buggered if I ever have or will considering what folllowed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Sun is like a dirty mirror in a pub urinal - into which its readers can have a quick look every day to reaffirm what they already thought was true. I don't mind The Sun. It seems like an honest relationship between punter and publication and I think both are more or less aware of it as such.


The Mail, however is far more insidious, purporting (as it does) to be a proper newspaper, with serious-minded journalists who know better than their readers.


The Sun exists for its readers. The Mail seems to exist for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the sun and its readers are welcome to each other. However even newsnight presents the suns following day headline each night and the main statement its makes on its front page gets out there to everyone. Hence political statements like the 1992 kinnock headline are consumed by everyone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Sun is like a dirty mirror in a pub urinal - into which its readers can have a quick look every day to reaffirm what they already thought was true. I don't mind The Sun. It seems like an honest relationship between punter and publication and I think both are more or less aware of it as such."


Very, very well put *Bob* but I think reading the Mail is a bit like pissing all over your trouser legs. You've been there before but felt even more stupid for it the second time around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stats fro the National Readership Survey. Average readership per issue (I think) from June 08 to June 09


The Sun 7860000

Daily Mail 4846000

Daily Mirror/Record 4608000

The Daily Telegraph 1843000

The Times 1801000

Daily Express 1624000

Daily Star 1471000

The Guardian 1205000

The Independent 679000

Financial Times 430000

Racing Post 185000

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Actually that supposes too convoluted a motive for them. Cash and cash handling costs money, including maintenance, stocking and providing cash machines; fully electronic transactions are far cheaper and more cost effective. It's about costs, mainly. 
    • Just had a carpets cleaned by Steve Nourse and his colleague at short notice. They are lovely guys and the cleaning was quick and carpets look great. Good value. 
    • Looking for tickets for 2 adults one child under 2 and one child over 2. However, please let me know if you have any combination of tickets you are no longer able to use.  Thanks 07756110500
    • all I said was "take a pro cash stance too far" - what twisting have I done?   plenty of good arguments for retention of cash - but let's not get too detached from reality either lest we go back to trading livestock   But to go back to your post DD:   "Or don't stop using cash" Yep plenty of people will agree with this - nothing controversial here   "Stop using your phone or even your watch as a banknote" - getting a bit weird now - why not - it's super convenient for both users and businesses. And far easier to keep a track of your balance using your electronic wallet than old systems of cheques taking days to clear, how much did I take from cashpoint 2 days ago etc. But people will differ so whatever works   "God only knows how much damage we're doing to the planet because all the above must require a hell of a lot of resources and juice from the grid" - big straw man argument here. Why bring this in? Unless you are also suggesting we don't buy any goods not made from within a 5 mile radius and nothing transported by air or sea? "a big lump of plastic with a screen and full of personal information that can be easily gleamed." I've had my phone stolen but nothing was lost because it was secure.I've been mugged and lost cash and valuable. It's not a binary thing   "your sky rocket with a phone in your hand. It's become a source of dopamine for many. It's an addiction for many."  Proper overreaching now There is a reason people like their modern phones - and it isn't just replacing cash. Replacing all of these functions in a tiny device is a magnificent achievement and to just boil  it down to "big lump with a screen" is reductive in the extreme  
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...