Sir Humphrey: The only way to understand the Press is to remember that they pander to their readers' prejudices.The specifics are a bit dated (no more Page 3 girls, for one), but it's still surprisingly close. However, I think putting it on *the readers* misses the point. The idea that if news outlets are shit, it's because they are just giving the readers what they want, erases the agency and intentions of the people who make the newspaper. Change it to:
Jim Hacker: Don't tell me about the Press. I know *exactly* who reads the papers. The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they *ought* to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually *do* run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who *own* the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by *another* country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it *is*.
Sir Humphrey: Oh, and Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits.
The Daily Mirror is written by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is written by people who think they *ought* to run the country; The Times is written by the people who actually *do* run the country...
I was reminded of this because the tone of the New York Times editorial board and a chunk of the politics news side increasingly is, basically, "written by the people who think they ought to run the country." Maybe that isn't new and I am just noticing it more, but it does seem to be the new perspective of the Dash Sulzberger era.
Obviously anyone putting their opinions out there thinks they should be listened to (including me!), but that's a bit different than the entitled 'respect my authoritah' tone, combined with the implicit threat that the news side is going to go after you if you don't please the publisher.