Are there? I really must be very out of touch. I thought it was just a minority sport.

Genuine question, have you never met or worked with anybody who is transgender?

I have worked with at least two but I may be unusual.

Edited by Bromptonaut on 30/01/2020 at 18:12

<< there are a lot of people that are transgender but afraid of telling people >>

Are there? I really must be very out of touch. I thought it was just a minority sport.

Yes, you are.

Not sure how you can say that either the BBC or Guardian is balanced in the vast majority of their output. Even I don't say that about The Telegraph from my perspective as a right-leaning person.

The Indie itself is certainly a left-leaning paper, and the Times is very much an 'establishment' / corporate / remainer (even now) paper, slowly slewing towards the LibDems, and I think only 'endorsed' the Tories this time around because who was in charge of Labour and that there were realistically only two options as to who formed the next government.

I remember back in the early 90s reading many newspapers at school when I was in Sixth Form - and, to be honest, reading the Telegraph, Times, Gaurdian or Independent was fine back then - for the most part, news was reported as just that - this happened, etc etc.

Opinion and commentary was either in a specific section (obviously no Interwbe back then) and what 'politically biased' commentary made it onto other pages was quite obvious as it was headlined as such and written by a specific journalist who essentially did just that. There was, in essence, a distinction between news journos/content and political content/commentary.

The same could reasonably be said for articles about (what should always be) non-contentious issues, such as reviews of cultrual events, holiday destinations, products, etc, with far less political and social commentary mixed in and especially the huge amount of shilling in today's media - whether because the ad revenue is dependent on 'friendly reviews', or the reviewer getting 'brownie points' for espousing some ideological viewpoint, or, as seems often the case with people on social media, freindly reviews in return for money/other goodies or access to 'exclusive' events (hence the new term 'access media').

Unfortunately, a lot of people have retreated into their own ideological bubbles when it comes to consuming media (I still read articles from outlets other than the DT, including some that aren't in tune with my political views). Tim Pool has mentioned this quite a bit over the last few years in his YouTube commentary videos, especially as regards those from the more left-leaning positions (he is centre-left himself so its not me espousing some alt-right conspiracy theory).

I think he essentially means those on the right of the spectrum are sceptical about left-of-centre media, but still will read/view content and make their own mind up (especially as they view other content on the issue), whereas an increasing number of people on the Left completely disregard any content from right-leaning outlets and thus get a distorted picture of the world, further reinforcing their worldview (hence why the Left is going further leftwards, whereas the Right has only moved a little in comparison [Tim has shown evidence from acadaemic studies on this]).

I'm not saying that's you in this case (although you presumably thinking the BBC has never produced any PC content is, I'm afraid, not helping), but you need to be wary of recommending something just because you agree with their political outlook. I just had a look over at The Guardian's website, and the vast majority of the content shown on its main page is obviously left-leaning. But then the same can be said about The Telegraph from a Right-wing perspective - I think in both (and TBH every other major outlet), commentary is mixed into news items or commentary itself has become news items, and feature far more prominently.

The same goes for sensationalist/clickbait/woke (even DT articles are going woke now) items on Sport, Culture (especially) and the emergency of tabloid-style fluff pieces (often by useless, vapid so-called journalists) and sychophantic, gushing shill reviews. I spend more time on the DT's Comments section discussing issues (below articles) with other readers than reading the articles themselves. The one exception is election/referendum time when all the trolls (including ones from hostile foreign governments trying to stir up trouble) come out of the woodwork and things go nuts, ending up in virtual slanging matches.

I mean, that's why I'm not advocating the Telegraph to the OP, and I myself have been trying to find an alternative to them that properly reports news etc without bias, thus making evaluating any commentary on news events, politics, A N Other subjects far easier. Perhaps a bit boring, but at least I would be able to get my head around issues without having to filter every other word in case of bias or agendas.

I think that The interweb and (un)social media era has a lot to answer for. The quality of the media has dropped several levels since the mid 90s, far more than did from what I was told was the case between the 1960s and 90s when the tabloids started to take over.

Well, obviously not only myself struggling with this one and thank you so much EA & Brompt for taking time to reply with such detail. Interesting stuff. To Brompt, yes maybe I have used the term "PC" incorrectly wrt the Beep, what I was trying to say ( and better put by others) is that those that "choose" what is news and what isn't, at least to me, seem to jump onto certain subjects with enthusiasm, but perhaps that's just me and what interests me! By the way I am slightly left of centre, finding the Guardian too left- opiniated and the DT way too right wing these days, although when I grew up it seemed to be a quality paper, but now has lost its way. I'm a scientist by training with a career in science and engineering, so possibly that is why I like factual, accurate reporting rather than the political spin we see everywhere. I'll take a look at the Times, although Murdoch won't see my money! cheers all!

I see the DM is plugging a news aggregation service "New Zit". Strange name.

The consensus seems to be that we should read what we can and pick the bones out of it by applying our own filters to whatever message is being promulgated. It is as good a system as any other for forming opinions on subjects of which we have limited personal experience. As ever common sense and logic should win out over propaganda, dogma and speculation. News is no longer that. In the far off days when news was faithfully reported we got a broad picture of events as they happened. Nowadays a subject is flogged to death on the alter of filling broadcast time. When the subject is tiring the media simply put some spin on it by asking 'how it will affect so and so etc etc' then proceed by answering their own questions via correspondents. I find it all tacky and dull. Huw Edwards and Sophie Raeworth would crack their faces if they actually smiled once in a while. And the interminable reports from empty buildings in the dead of night annoy me greatly. Personally I do think the BBC are biased. Nothing against the BBC and I have long been a supporter of them, but that is waning simply because their unique position and programme content has reduced so much in recent years. Pity, I always though there would be such a bastion to rely on which endured, but not so. In the end we cannot really rely on anyone else to form our opinions but detailed and accurate information is vital for that process. Therein lies the rub! Cheers Concrete

I find that the Times does a pretty good job for centrists like me.

I quite like the Times too. The Telegraph is too far right, and too elitist (as if written for upper middle class people with 'posh' values) and the Guardian is way too extreme left/nutty.

Pity the Times online subscription is so expensive.

What are 'posh' values exactly? You don't appear to mind Honest John, who's been a motoring columnist there for 30 years. The only difference to me is that the editorial leaning of the Telegraph is generally conservative, and that The Times is much more centrist Blairite/Cameroon.

As a Telegraph subscriber, believe you me that there are a LOT of left-leaning/woke, Blairite/Cameroon journalists and columnists working for them. You likely see the front page/top news stories, which frankly don't reflect what's in the rest of the paper.

Many articles on controvercial issues such as the one you've been discussing with Bromp today regularly ban all reader commentary and espouse quite leftist ideology. The same goes for many other social issues, allowing the authors to essentially publish whatever they want with impunity. I have to check the top of the page to see that I didn't click on a link to the Grauniad by mistake. The only real issue that they go heavily in (and perhaps more than they should) on is against the Labour party.

The only parts of the paper that are 'elitist' are the non-news sections such as women's fashion, holidays and the rest of the motoring section, that seems to mainly give reviews to expensive products. I somehow doubt if The Times is any different in that respect.

I would say, and this was likely reflected in the Brexit vote in 2016 (coming a long time from the mid 90s), that many in the middle class have moved leftwards and are now politically between the centre left and centre right. Many in the working class have always been socially conservative but economically more left-leaning, but the negative effects of mass immigration have begun to move them economically further towards the centre and sometimes beyond.

I think this is why many of us now don't have a newspaper home any more as they find it difficult to cater to a specific group any more, rather like the demise of the department store. Many people also don't want the 'tat' of the tabloid red tops.

This is why an increasing number of people are now turning to several smaller, independent media sources for different things, essentially as we do here for motoring. I've subscribed to The Telegraph for best part of 15 years now, and a lot of their paper is a shadow of its former self. The motoring section is terrible. But then so are (to me at least) all other 'traditional' papers I've looked at as alternatives.

I see what you mean about The Times being epensive - £312pa (admitedly with tablet app as well) compared to The Telegraph at £104 for just the website but the same as The Times for that plus the app versions (which are poor compared to the website [including no reader commentary available]). I've only stayed on in recent years because as a long term subscriber I've been lucky to get a discount - it used to be £40 off, now 'only' £20 off. I'm very close to ending my subscription.

At this rate, very few of the traditional print media papers will be around in 25 years time.

I find that the Times does a pretty good job for centrists like me.

I quite like the Times too. The Telegraph is too far right, and too elitist (as if written for upper middle class people with 'posh' values) and the Guardian is way too extreme left/nutty.

Pity the Times online subscription is so expensive.

The Guardian has become a sort of cult news sheet for the BBC/Liberals/Labour, what I don't like about their editorial policy is that anything controversial that might prompt opinions the editorial team don't want expressed have the comments disabled.

The Times online sub for us expats is only about £8 a month, access all areas daily.

I used to subscribe to the Torygraph but got fed up with the scribblers they have on there, plus as it's up for sale at the moment they are always trying to screw more money out of non-subscribers as anything worth reading is premium subscription only.