“Many readers are also now likely to see its political coverage as coming from a partisan Tory perspective and therefore be more skeptical of its new reporting.”

I really doubt that, why would they bother being skeptical?

Sun readers like to be spoon-fed opinion under the guise of news. I don’t think they’ll care if it’s coming from a Tory or Labour angle, as long as it’s what they want to hear – which is what The Sun always delivers.

My post – It was never the Sun wot won it for Labour – which I think is a fairly similar view to Sunny’s on this
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/09/it-was-never-sun-wot-won-it-for-labour.html

This John Curtice paper looks at the impact of the press in the 97 election, and also more generally
http://www.crest.ox.ac.uk/papers/p75.pdf

“Many readers are also now likely to see its political coverage as coming from a partisan Tory perspective and therefore be more skeptical of its new reporting.”

1) Because nobody knew the Sun was partisan before. Oh, wait…
2) Why do you assume most (or even ‘many’) Sun readers would see clear support for the Tories as a bad thing?

While Guardian readers are never spoon fed what they like to hear, are they?

I agree with Sunder.
The Tories won’t win because the Sun supports them; the Sun supports them because they are going to win.

A new day has dawned, hanna?

“Many readers are also now likely to see its political coverage as coming from a partisan Tory perspective and therefore be more skeptical of its new reporting.”

Whereas it’s been a bastion of objective journalism for the last 12 years.

Sheesh.

A good effort, but you must know this is a huge body blow. Like it or not, the Sun is highly influential and to have them pull their support and write such a damning article would hurt any party, let alone a government that is still not polling 30%.

Still, I suppose one thing is the TV debate is unlikely to go ahead. I don’t see Brown accepting to go onto Murdoch News after this, with arguably good reasons.

I’m waiting to hear Brown’s apologists come out and question the Sun’s use of the term ‘lost it’.

And what’s this about The Sun informing ‘bloggers’? Don’t they have print editions any more, or is this just another case of the blogosphere convincing itself it is the centre of the universe?

Maybe this is a chance for bloggers to try their collective might against the Sun. They wouldn’t have todays front page without some serious economic calculations about what’s in the best interests of the Murdoch dynasty. A more eurosceptic party in government, maybe one which will stick up a bit less for the BBC, and I wonder what deals have been done in private with Cameron’s team. I’m still wavering over who I’ll vote for, but this makes me a lot less likely to vote Conservative.

The blogosphere can certainly be a bit self-obsessed. But in the MSM I think the level of media-on-media self-obsession in the UK is probably pretty rare in comparative terms,

The main media talking points seem to be Andrew Marr for two days; now The Sun; (perhaps a little bit of TV debate too)

It isn’t always about you chaps, and chapesses …

“Many readers are also now likely to see its political coverage as coming from a partisan Tory perspective and therefore be more skeptical of its new reporting.”

This is, unfortunately, wishful thinking.

amusing reaction from Chris Mullin
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/09/chris-mullin-i-hadnt-realised-sun-was.html

“My first reaction was mild amusement. I hadn’t realised The Sun was on our side in the first place. And any student of the writings of Mr Trevor Kavanagh over the last 12 years could be forgiven for thinking that it never has been.

My second reaction, watching that rascal George Pascoe Watson on Newsnight last night, was anger. How dare they? Who elected him? By what right does an American (or is Murdoch still an Australian?) billionaire subvert the British democratic process? And are his interests necessarily the same as those of ‘Sun’ readers?

Of course, to some extent New Labour only has itself to blame for sucking up to him in the first place. I would have pursued a different strategy…”

Listening to BBC R4 this morning gave the impression that there will be a range of responses within (New) Labour ranks:

- The official line: ‘It’s voters that decide elections’ (which begs the question: why did you spend so much time courting Murdoch and Dacre then?)

- The Blair groupies: ‘Honest, we tried to get rid of him for you, Rupert, but..but…’ (at which point Murdoch pushes the big red button and feeds the Blairites to the man-eating sharks: ‘You have failed me for the last time…’)

- David Blunkett: ‘we must find a way to justify my pieces of silver for writing in the Su— sorry, a way of reconnecting with voters’ (PS: Anyone else spot his call for an army of killer robots to replace ‘Our Boys’ in Afghanistan?)

- Tony Woodley: ‘I’m from Liverpool. We’ve never forgiven the Sun for Hillsborough’

Frankly, the announcement is just confirmation of the Sun’s reporting over the last few years as well as the fact that Rupert now believes the Tories will definitely do his bidding– sorry, win the next election. Presumably all those Page 3 ‘spokesmodels’ will now have blue rosettes over their naughty bits – and New Labour will have to come up with a better media strategy than appeasing the right-wing press.

This is important because the Sun will influence some people – but mainly because it shows Murdoch is now confident the Tories will win. I’m strongly of the view that the Sun supports people because they’re going to win, not the other way round; the fact that people believe the Sun delivers elections to parties shows how brilliantly the Sun has pulled off the Derren Brown-like trick of appearing to predict and influence events. Just as people realise Derren Brown didn’t show his lottery prediction until after the draw, people should notice that the Sun didn’t announce this until Cameron had established a sustained, large poll lead, and until it was sure Brown (Gordon this time) isn’t going to be replaced. The truth is, this is a gamble on the Sun’s part – just one they make when they think it can only come out one way.

Politicians seem to have an exaggerated belief in the power of the press, though – it’s interesting to ask why. I don’t know but spending a great deal of time being media trained, briefed and prepared for interviews, etc., reading each morning through a wad of press cuttings no voter ever reads *except politicians and journalists*, and the often apparently urgent nature of contacts with the media – all these things taken together I think must help inflate the influence of the media, and especially the press, in the political mind. Plus there are plain myths (it was the Sun wot won it) that just take hold.

I’m not saying the press doesn’t matter and influences nothing. I am saying the Sun follows political reality more than it creates it, and that for a mix of reasons its power is considerably magnified in politicians’ minds.

Perhaps politicians will get an exaggerated view of the power of blogs and twitter as they spend more time engaged with them – in fact this may be happening already.

If you don’t regularly read The Sun, it’s worth picking it out of bins occasionally to see what it’s up to.

It’s quite surprising what utter filth it is. If we lived under a fascist regime with an apparatus of newspaper propaganda, I honestly can’t see how what we would get would differ from today’s Sun.

What a surprise! And I wonder what grubby deals the Murdochs have done to get the Sun to endorse them. Something on the BBC? And end to ‘balanced’ news coverage on TV?

Anyway, it will be nice not to have senior Labour people grovelling to News International. Perhaps it will teach them that it’s not a great idea to rely on far right foreign billionaires for support.

@8 “And what’s this about The Sun informing ‘bloggers’?”

They is hounding us on email. Just to make sure EVERYBODY KNOWS!

16 – I doubt that the Tories will have had to do anything in particular to get the Sun’s endorsement. They’re going to win next year anyway, and the Sun doesn’t like backing losers.

The significance of this story is not the endorsement as such, but just how much crap the Sun is now going to shovel on Gordon Brown over the next seven months.

“just how much crap the Sun is now going to shovel on Gordon Brown over the next seven months”

It will get particularly ugly should “the fightback” show any signs of working.

I believe the Sun has lost around 35% of it’s circulation since the mid-1990s. This can be attributed, along with all newspapers, to the increased cost of print journalism.

The one thing I worry here is how the Sun will now target Gordon Brown and Labour as the losers of the next General Election. It is 8 months until the next one, and back in 1997 the paper only came out in favour of Labour six weeks before the election!

Clearly James Murdoch is determined to cast his stamp on the General Election early and cosy up to the Tories in his bid to ‘reform’ the BBC and the license fee.

The paper is Tory anyway. All the colomnists are Tories like Kavanagh and Gaunt stc. The Sun supported Blair but not the The Labour Party. Its a Thatcherite paper and Cameron will push through strong Thatcherite policies in the next few years. Does it matter? It shouldn’t as it is only a newspaper and if it does then we don’t live in a very democratic society as The Sun itself would like us to believe.

‘If you don’t regularly read The Sun, it’s worth picking it out of bins occasionally to see what it’s up to.

It’s quite surprising what utter filth it is.’

Well, don’t read papers you find in the bin.

What Carl Gardner said @ 14: spot on.

More response:

Lance Price: So what? (Oh, now he thinks Rupert should just be ignored…)

Alastair Campbell: ‘Small earthquake, not many dead’ (trans. ‘All my work, wasted…wasted…’)

Harriet Harman: ‘How can you take it seriously when it has tits on Page 3?’ (because New Labour was more scared of Rupert than he was of you; by the way, and whatever happened to that pornographer you allowed to buy the Express papers?)

Overall, they’re trying hard not to sound upset.

@22 Ho ho, excuse me a moment while I split my sides.

I think Carl Gardner @14 is not spot on, he is underestimating the totality of the mainstream media to define what can be said and therefore, in a sense, what is allowed to be thought. Chomsky stuff and all that.

When you’ve got that control, then stuff that happened can just be disappeared off the entire news agenda eg one million people dead in Iraq, like it never happened. John Pilger stuff and all that.

It’s part of a propaganda system, and it does a great deal to define political reality.

As TimJ said, just wait for the shit that Murdoch will start pouring on Brown if he ever manages to start narrowing that poll gap, watch how it will define the BBC & rest of the media’s news agenda, and then how it affects what you start seeing re-played back to you on the doorstep by people who really believe they are of independent mind.

My original question stands: what difference is there between the Sun newspaper we see today and the newspapers you would get under an out-and-out fascist regime?

@Strategist: you don’t think I’m spot on? I hereby declare out and out flame war – to the death!

I see your point about the whole MSM framing the debate, but that’s the whole media, not just the Sun, and it’s more about what they say every day than who they campaign for – some would say newspapers framed the immigration debate, say, even when the Sun supported Labour. Anyway, I think telly is about ten times more important than the press in framing the debate.

And Chomsky should have stuck to language, he’s much more interesting on that.

When you’ve got that control, then stuff that happened can just be disappeared off the entire news agenda eg one million people dead in Iraq, like it never happened. John Pilger stuff and all that.

I think we’re all aware that a lot of people died in Iraq – no one disappeared it from our TV screens or newspapers. Even the Lancet report (from which I assume your extrapolating to get the 1m figure) was well covered.

I largely agree with Carl G that The Sun reflects more opinion than it makes. Though equally, politicians aren’t as dumb as some people believe and they dedicate an awful lot of effort to securing their support. What slightly surprises me is the sheer nasty calculation of the move, a deliberate snuffing out of any flicker of Labour life. It’s gonna be 92 all over again.

I would guess they informed bloggers to create a quasi-independent ‘buzz’, just in case the BBC (unlikely, I know) ignored/downplayed the story. Then they can go on Newsnight/Question Time/etc and semi-truthfully point out that the blogosphere, even left-wing parts, are covering the story. Of course, this wasn’t necessary, but didn’t hurt as a safety net.

@25: You’re right that it’s the whole media that shapes the debate.. which becomes a problem when a handful of people own such a huge chunk.

There is a coherent strategy here. This is why Coulson gets the big bucks. Sun with spectacular immodesty makes its own front page, Boulton stays on grid by bringing it up in a spectacularly boorish interview which the Sun in turn reports as “news” and so on and so on. The blog as has been mentioned elsewhere is part of the overall media strategy, the central object of which is the elimination of the BBC from the internet. Make no mistake, this is what Murdoch and Ashcroft expect in return. The beeb’s turkeys appear to be voting for Christmas at the moment. they’d better wake up pretty sharpish.

I had two emails from The Sun around midnight to try and convince me to write about this entirely predictable news.

I’m not a political blogger, and whenever I write about the Sun, it isn’t favourably. I find it very odd they would target me, although I understand the point already made about creating a buzz outside the mainstream media.

However, with Sky rattling on about it all day (how many times can you mention one newspaper in a day?) that wasn’t really necessary.