View Full Version : Who exactly are the 'readers'?

1st Dec 2004, 06:17
While I'm sure it all makes sense to you lot over there in the UK, I have no idea what is being spoken of when someone goes on about the 'guardian readers' or 'the telegraph readers'. Can someone enlighten me as to the characteristics of the various key readerships? (i.e.: Times, Guardian, Telepgraph, Mirror, Star, Sun, Beano, etc.)

1st Dec 2004, 06:35
OK, something like this:-

The Daily Telegraph - aka Torygraph, that should give you a clue. Right wing, Conservative, Colonel Blimp-types. Good crossword and racing pages though.

Guardian - aka Grauniad due to its infamy for misprints. Left-wing, labour luvvie paper. Read by Local Government workers who have leather elbow patches on their tweed jackets. Crossword - difficult and esoteric.

The Times - now owned by Rupert Murdoch and therefore v. dumbed down. Generally right-wing but not as much as The Torygraph. Crossword v. tricky - relies on a classical education.

The Independent - aka The Indescribablyboring. Intellectual Middle-of-the-Road broadsheet. Crossword not bad!

Daily Mail/Daily Express - Can't tell them apart. Both tabloids with editorial content. Both right wing. My grandad reads them - says it all really! Crosswords - pretty easy but other good puzzles inside.

The Sun - a "red top" tabloid. Generally for your right-wing working class although they have changed allegiances so often I have lost count. Not much serious editorial content. Page 3 topless models.

The Mirror - as for The Sun only a left wing bias and no page 3 model.

The Star - do I look like the sort of woman who would even know the content of the Star? I understand it's for those who find The Sun too heavy-going.

Hope this helps.



PS - I KNOW these are sweeping generalisations; it's just a bit of fun, so PLEASE don't take it seriously.

PPS - for what it's worth, I read either The Independent, The Torygraph (not because I am but the quality of writing is good and I refuse to support The Dirty Digger) and The Newbury Weekly News - a quality local!!

1st Dec 2004, 06:43
The old thing is something like

Times reader - runs the country

Telegraph reader - thinks they run the country

Guardian reader - doesnt thing anyone should run the country

Morning Star reader - think the country should be run by another country

Sun reader - doesn't give a stuff who runs the country as long as she has big t!ts

1st Dec 2004, 06:45
Thanks W - naturally we do get all of these papers over here, but one wouldn't wish to make to make an enormous faux pas in etiquette through ignorance. So now I know not to show up at a socialist gathering with the Telegraph under me arm

Evening Star
1st Dec 2004, 07:07

Why not show up with a Telegraph? As a Guardian reader (although strangely enough not working in local governemnt, wearing a tweed jacket and proud to say I am a leather patch free zone), if I cannot get hold of a Guardian the Telegraph is my preferred second choice, mainly because I view the Independant as a pointless joke and Murdoch as the architect of dumbing down. Makes the Torygraph the sensible second choice, even for those of us with left of centre views. Strange world isnt it!

1st Dec 2004, 08:59
not working in local governemnt Yup, he's definitely a Guardian reader !

1st Dec 2004, 09:11
Errrr, what about the Daily Sport then? That is quite popular isn't it.....:ooh:

(so me mate says down the pub.......) :O

1st Dec 2004, 09:16
BRL - Don't you mean the Daily Spurt??

1st Dec 2004, 09:22
PS - I KNOW these are sweeping generalisations

But bitingly accurate Whirly.:ok:

surely not
1st Dec 2004, 09:27
Pretty fair descriptions Whirly, except I'd add that the Independant presents all sides of the political spectrum for the readers to make their own choice, and it has a very good sports section.

1st Dec 2004, 09:29
Daily Mail/Daily Express - Can't tell them apart

I haven't seen an Express in years. Can it really be as bad as the Daily Mail?

surely not
1st Dec 2004, 09:31
As someone who will read any paper if I don't have to buy it, yes the Express and Mail are truly awful papers these days. Pretensions to be better than the Sun but carry just as much lurid tittle tattle. Plus their sports coverage of anything but soccer is cr#p

Biggles Flies Undone
1st Dec 2004, 09:36
Another easy way to spot a Grauniad reader - they invariably have those silly bits of cord attaced to the ends of their glasses so that they don't lose them ;)

surely not
1st Dec 2004, 09:42
or get the spelling of 'attached' wrong eh BFU :D

(and shouldn't cord be spelt chord?)

1st Dec 2004, 09:56
Do those who need the type of newspaper to make a judgement about somebody have other decisions made for them?

Or are they capable of using their own brains occasionally?

And I read a selection of the above, before anyone whines!

Cornish Jack
1st Dec 2004, 11:11
'Sun Reader' is an oxymoron and that definition could be shortened and still be accurate. :yuk:

1st Dec 2004, 13:07
Yintsinmerite, or should I say Sir Humphrey (may I call you "Humpy"?) - nice one!

One generally doesn't lower oneself, but when on does, Telegraph for reading, Times for crossword and Star to look at the pictures!!! Hahahaha!

1st Dec 2004, 13:56
No, it shouldn't, Surely Not. Not. Surely.

surely not
1st Dec 2004, 14:53
Thank you Davaar. I didn't have my dictionary to hand. I was obviously confused with the one that one strikes.

1st Dec 2004, 16:39
...and if tightly rolled and carried with a furtive expression probably the News of the World, or who is commiting what indiscretion with whom, how many times positions and where they were caught.

Onan the Clumsy
1st Dec 2004, 23:48
It was the best of times
It was the worst of times

...but they called it The Independent

1st Dec 2004, 23:51
Don't forget the Metro.

If you read that................chances are you're stuck on the tube somewhere. :E

2nd Dec 2004, 00:38
This same question, really, was the topic of an article on the press many years ago in The Spectator, by Dominic Behan, brother of Brendan. He took the then "qualities" and contrasted them with the then "tabloids", and concluded that the sort of chap who reads the qualities will drink in the saloon bar, drink short drinks, wear a tweed jacket (or "coat", as he would say) and cavalry twills, wear driving gloves and a cap, drive a Bentley/MG/Triumph depending on his wallet, be commissioned in the forces, have "de" in his name somewhere, and talk upper, as contrasted with the tabloid reader who will drink in the public bar, drink beer, wear more modest styles, wear a cloth cap, not wear gloves, not rise above sergeant major, not have "de" in his name, and talk local.

There is a name, he said, for the first lot: Normans; and a name for the second lot: Anglo-Saxons.

His conclusion was that almost a thousand years after the Conquest there had been little assimilation. This was long before multi-culturalism became fashionable.


Evening Star
2nd Dec 2004, 07:20
I find myself clean bowled Grainger. :O :\

Another easy way to spot a Grauniad reader - they invariably have those silly bits of cord attaced to the ends of their glasses so that they don't lose them

Check. Glasses; yes. Silly cord; no. Sorry to disappoint.

I have the obligatory beard if it helps your stereotyping. Granted, my colleagues decribe it as the f*** off look and not your stereotype woolly lefty, but I might try to oblige if there is the demand.

Actually, Davaar has it right, well in my case except for the de in my name. Evening de Star does not quite work really does it? And looking down the list of contributors to this thread, only a few really benefit from the de. Onan de Clumsy anybody?

2nd Dec 2004, 07:43
How about pan-de-k-bear?


2nd Dec 2004, 08:07

Sory but I read the Grauniad and I have a string to hold my glasses.

I have read the paper for years though and the string is relatively recent, since my short sight got so bad I can't find the damn glasses when I put them down anywhere.

(And the Guardian is nowhere near as much fun since they hired a proof-reader and you no longer have to hunt for the last paragraph of an article only to find it printed in the obituaries section. Upside down).

2nd Dec 2004, 09:32
Daily Mail readers are basically best described as people who really want to read the Sun, but are too proud to admit it

2nd Dec 2004, 10:37
The difference between the Mail and the Express is actually quite subtle. The Express has Rupert Bear and the Mail has Fred Bassett.

'Sun' and 'reader' are mutually exclusive.

2nd Dec 2004, 12:36
If anyone's severly hacked off with the woeful state of our newspaper industry, can I encourage you to switch to The Financial Times (http://www.ft.com)?

It's all business, politics and world news. There's never anything on speed cameras in rural villages, social lesbian outreach groups, gardening or any other crappy middle England obsessions.

It's a grown up paper for grown up people.

2nd Dec 2004, 14:32
Whirlygig. I thought your summary was accurate.

I was once advised that whenever interviewing anyone for a job always ask what paper they read, if the reply was The Guardian always reject them because they would always be trouble makers!

surely not
2nd Dec 2004, 14:38
With that sort of blinkered outlook I'm sure you would have missed out on some excellent people.

How strange the way people can belittle the interview process so much. Everything else about the person is fine, but sorry they read the Guardian........... what a :yuk: way to recruit

Oh and for the record I only ever read the Guardian if someone else has left it lying around

2nd Dec 2004, 15:15
1DC, whoever told you that was a grade A idiot!

simon brown
2nd Dec 2004, 16:52
I would suspect the average Guardian reader is more interested in their appointments section for totally pointless overpaid postions in local government.

2nd Dec 2004, 18:24
Thank you radeng for pointing out that subtle difference - now all is clear.

Interesting to note that The Guardian and Telegraph are in a printing & paper-buying consortium - misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows!!