The Sun goes down on Labour

[Mick Mac]

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.

[Brendan]

Does this mean the guardian is going to be obliged to ?liven up? page 3?

[Annasfield]

I imagine certain scum readers are influenced by it. Horrible rag.

Don't buy the S*n

[*Bob*]

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.

[Mick Mac]

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.

[mockney piers]

'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 The opinion polls were out of date, they asked 'who will you vote' and people responded labour.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.

[mockney piers]

Personally I'd use the rag to wipe my arse with, but that's about it.

[Brendan]

It is the most widely read paper on the island isn't it?

[Mick Mac]

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.

[Mick Mac]

Also i think its naive to underate the influence of the sun in britain. Unfortunate as that may be.

[woofmarkthedog]

What's the Polish version of the Sun Saying ?

[Keef]

I imagine certain scum readers are influenced by it. Horrible rag.

Ha ha, I'd imagine any slim hopes the tories had of winning in Liverpool have now gone out the window.

[Jah Lush]

What *Bob* said. And, don't ever underestimate the influence it can wield with it's views and political slant/bias. Same goes for the Daily Heil and it's voice of middle England.

[Mick Mac]

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.

[Jah Lush]

Mick, people are stupid enough to beleive what they read. The constant hatchet jobs of the Tory press that were done on Neil Kinnock back in the 80s were more than enough to kill off the scent of victory that he thought he had on polling day.

[mockney piers]

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.

[Mick Mac]

thats what i feel too jah. The alternative view is that the sun just reacts rather than influences.

[Keef]

I may be being out of order here, but letas be brutally honest, lots of people who read the sun are not the brightest, and they will probably believe what they're told.

[*Bob*]

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.

[Keef]

Agree with what you're saying in general *bob*, especially the bit about the Mail. But lets be honest, you're being a bit too kind to some of the oiks who read the Sun. If that makes me a snob, then so be it.

[Brendan]

Keef a paper snob. Who would have thunk it?

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

But I only buy it for the racing pages - honest.

[Mick Mac]

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.

[bigbadwolf]

"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.

[Brendan]

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