I’d been meaning to return to a comment made by Bolg a couple of weeks ago, who wrote:
I read an article this morning (can’t remember where - Guardian? NY Times?) about Lynndie England et al…
As it happened, the piece was in The Irish Times. This isn’t to point the finger at Bolg, but only to use it as an example of a growing problem facing the media. In an age in which people graze the papers, television, internet, magazine and radio, they will pay less attention to where exactly they got the information. They will absorb information, but not always remember the source. They are bombarded with media, or have a range from which to choose. But these are often carrying similar content, making it a cherry-picking exercise for the readers, who do not have to be “loyal” to anyone other than their own interests.
I may be generalising from one example, but it’s an interesting conundrum for editors (and a frustrating one for me as I worked on that page on which the England piece appeared). But it offers a reminder of why opinion will continue to be a greater factor in how newspapers, especially, sell themselves. The Sunday Independent may be an infuriating publication but it has been successful because it established itself early on as being unique in its voice. Other Sunday papers face a struggle to mark themselves as different from the supplement-heavy Saturday papers, but the Sunday Independent is already in a position to protect itself from that problem. It largely ditched news in favour of opinion, but it is clearly distinguishable from its competitors because of it.




