The Positive Brexit Thread

[Herman 9,764]

"The average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9-year-old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8."

Is this why Leave won??😀

[Fen Canary 822]

26 minutes ago, Herman said:

"The average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9-year-old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8."

Is this why Leave won??😀

That superiority complex has lost you the referendum, three subsequent elections and given the party you detest their biggest majority in a generation. I’d knock it on the head if I were you

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

The Guardians popularity  is massively overstated. It’s circulation is only around 10% of that of the red tops, however it’s the paper of choice for many of the left leaning middle classes who make up the majority of posters on social media sites such as Reddit and Twitter. This gives it much more influence and exposure than it’s actual readership numbers deserve. People sometimes forget that these websites don’t give an accurate picture of the population, merely an extremely loud and tech savvy minority. 

Oh dear. Going by the outdated measure of copies bought. I cannot find the figures offhand but some years back The Guardian  made a strategic decision to invest seriously to cultivate its online readership and so now has one of the biggest such in the western world. May even be the biggest but I wouldn’t swear to that. The FT did the same, so its bought readership has sharply fallen from several years back but has a large online readership.

[Fen Canary 822]

47 minutes ago, PurpleCanary said:

Oh dear. Going by the outdated measure of copies bought. I cannot find the figures offhand but some years back The Guardian  made a strategic decision to invest seriously to cultivate its online readership and so now has one of the biggest such in the western world. May even be the biggest but I wouldn’t swear to that. The FT did the same, so its bought readership has sharply fallen from several years back but has a large online readership.

Of the main tabloids, it’s online readership is 4th I believe, behind the Sun, Mirror and Mail. In terms of papers sold it’s a long way down the list, selling only around 10% of the Sun or Mirror.

However a quick look on the social media websites I mentioned and you’ll see every comment is linked to stories in either the Guardian, Independent or Observer. Social media gets much more attention than it deserves, and it’s almost completely filled with a single group of people 

[PurpleCanary 5,558]

7 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Of the main tabloids, it’s online readership is 4th I believe, behind the Sun, Mirror and Mail. In terms of papers sold it’s a long way down the list, selling only around 10% of the Sun or Mirror.

However a quick look on the social media websites I mentioned and you’ll see every comment is linked to stories in either the Guardian, Independent or Observer. Social media gets much more attention than it deserves, and it’s almost completely filled with a single group of people 

I should have made it  completely clear I was talking about worldwide online readership rankings; such as  this:

 

 

1  The New York Times	us
2  The Guardian	gb
3  The Washington Post	us
4  The Daily Mail	gb
5  Kompas	id
6  Liberty Times	tw
7  USA Today	us
8  The Wall Street Journal	us
9  The Daily Telegraph	gb
10  China Daily	cn
11  The Independent	gb
12  El País	es
13  Marca	es
14  Los Angeles Times	us
15  New York Post	us
16  Malayala Manorama	in
17  Financial Times	gb
18  Houston Chronicle	us
19  La Repubblica	it
20  Philippine Daily Inquirer

Edited April 11, 2020 by PurpleCanary

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

10 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

Of the main tabloids, it’s online readership is 4th I believe, behind the Sun, Mirror and Mail. In terms of papers sold it’s a long way down the list, selling only around 10% of the Sun or Mirror.

However a quick look on the social media websites I mentioned and you’ll see every comment is linked to stories in either the Guardian, Independent or Observer. Social media gets much more attention than it deserves, and it’s almost completely filled with a single group of people 

😂😂 I know we've 'taken back control' and are cutting back on immigration but I'm surprised that it is necessary to point out, even to such a fervent Brexiteer as yourself, that as far as 'online' is concerned we're still just as connected to Europe and the rest of the world as we've always been  😂😂

Its funny but its not really funny because it appears that Brexiteers will believe myths of any shape and size and continually construct arguments based on what they believe to be facts, which as in this case, are completely false...........and this has real consequences and invariably bad ones.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

12 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

The Guardians popularity  is massively overstated. It’s circulation is only around 10% of that of the red tops, however it’s the paper of choice for many of the left leaning middle classes who make up the majority of posters on social media sites such as Reddit and Twitter. This gives it much more influence and exposure than it’s actual readership numbers deserve. People sometimes forget that these websites don’t give an accurate picture of the population, merely an extremely loud and tech savvy minority. 

 

12 hours ago, Herman said:

"The average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9-year-old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8."

Is this why Leave won??😀

Oh Dear.

First I hope we're not getting into the realms of 'inverted' snobbery - championing a lack of understanding, nuance or education. That way lies catastrophe for our society.

As to readership - I think this nuance has been missed not unsurprisingly!

It's not really the 'reading age of the reader' - but 'writing' age or style of the papers journos that the ages refer to.

It must be obvious that the 'red-tops' have simpler stores, less nuanced, few if any grey areas and lots of pictures. Some are even loosely called comics. Written as if by 8 to 9 year olds on 'average'.

The 'quality' papers be that Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Indy or FT write in a more mature manner, more questioning and often express self-doubts. Written as if by 14 year olds 'on average'.

All papers have their readerships - The Telegraph I saw seems to be > 60 years old, largely rural and small c conservative. The Guardian more NHS, Teachers, graduates, public service etc and yes of of the centre left. The Mail as somebody else pointed out leans toward females which is why it is now getting a little uppity on this Gov. FT has the most of 'decision makers' and so on. The 'Times' tries to be the paper of record.

As to online - yes the Guardian and FT have clearly done the best - and with print and it's advertising probably toast that will force changes or obsolescence on the red-tops too. The Indy is after-all already online only.

[Fen Canary 822]

53 minutes ago, Creative Midfielder said:

😂😂 I know we've 'taken back control' and are cutting back on immigration but I'm surprised that it is necessary to point out, even to such a fervent Brexiteer as yourself, that as far as 'online' is concerned we're still just as connected to Europe and the rest of the world as we've always been  😂😂

Its funny but its not really funny because it appears that Brexiteers will believe myths of any shape and size and continually construct arguments based on what they believe to be facts, which as in this case, are completely false...........and this has real consequences and invariably bad ones.

I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to help me here. I’ve genuinely got no idea what point you’re trying to make at all, or how it links into anything I said regarding the political leanings of the bulk of social media. 

[Fen Canary 822]

45 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

 

Oh Dear.

First I hope we're not getting into the realms of 'inverted' snobbery - championing a lack of understanding, nuance or education. That way lies catastrophe for our society.

As to readership - I think this nuance has been missed not unsurprisingly!

It's not really the 'reading age of the reader' - but 'writing' age or style of the papers journos that the ages refer to.

It must be obvious that the 'red-tops' have simpler stores, less nuanced, few if any grey areas and lots of pictures. Some are even loosely called comics. Written as if by 8 to 9 year olds on 'average'.

The 'quality' papers be that Times, Guardian, Telegraph, Indy or FT write in a more mature manner, more questioning and often express self-doubts. Written as if by 14 year olds 'on average'.

All papers have their readerships - The Telegraph I saw seems to be > 60 years old, largely rural and small c conservative. The Guardian more NHS, Teachers, graduates, public service etc and yes of of the centre left. The Mail as somebody else pointed out leans toward females which is why it is now getting a little uppity on this Gov. FT has the most of 'decision makers' and so on. The 'Times' tries to be the paper of record.

As to online - yes the Guardian and FT have clearly done the best - and with print and it's advertising probably toast that will force changes or obsolescence on the red-tops too. The Indy is after-all already online only.

I can’t say I’ve ever read an article in the Guardian that’s ever expressed self doubt. Most opinion pieces I’ve seen seem to imply that anybody who sees things differently to the left leaning views of the paper are either thick, ignorant, racist, bigoted etc. much like the posters on this board. According to most of the Remain comments I’ve seen over the last few years there’s no such thing as opinions, merely right and wrong, and they strongly believe they’re in the right 

[sonyc 5,517]

If you want to read stories that are mostly factual and non political then the FT is arguably the best. Not all lefties are middle class Fen. No one person either is always right. People tend to have fixed views on a lot of issues based on their experience or conditioning. I believe the older we get, the more open minded we ought to become, humbler, less fixed, less certain. Only by being so can we actually be content, happy, less bitter. Yet, it requires effort. Lots of. And self-awareness.

Edited April 11, 2020 by sonyc

[Herman 9,764]

23 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I can’t say I’ve ever read an article in the Guardian that’s ever expressed self doubt. Most opinion pieces I’ve seen seem to imply that anybody who sees things differently to the left leaning views of the paper are either thick, ignorant, racist, bigoted etc. much like the posters on this board. According to most of the Remain comments I’ve seen over the last few years there’s no such thing as opinions, merely right and wrong, and they strongly believe they’re in the right 

Remain supporters on this thread rely on 80% fact and 20% opinion.

Leave supporters on this thread rely on 90% opinion and 10% fact.

Facts are boring but they are facts. There is no right or wrong.

Opinions are a bit more exciting. But there are right and wrong opinions.

This is purely my opinion.😀

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

If you want to read stories that are mostly factual and non political then the FT is arguably the best. Not all lefties are middle class Fen. No one person either is always right. People tend to have fixed views on a lot of issues based on their experience or conditioning. I believe the older we get, the more open minded we ought to become, humbler, less fixed, less certain. Only by being so can we actually be content, happy, less bitter. Yet, it requires effort. Lots of.

If you are less certain as you get older then you are not learning anything

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

13 hours ago, Herman said:

"The average reading age of the UK population is 9 years – that is, they have achieved the reading ability normally expected of a 9-year-old. The Guardian has a reading age of 14 and the Sun has a reading age of 8."

Is this why Leave won??😀

What on earth?

That's nonsense and it took me no time at all to find the source of this rubbish ... some site entitled 'See A Voice' and seemingly connected to a mobile network calling it's self Lycramobile (or something,) neither of which has any connection with education nor with any with educational credentials. What tests? Neale is outdated enough.

I'm no educationalist, but with relatives employed as  educational psychologists seem to recall that the minimum acceptable literacy level in this country is/was a reading age of 9 years 6 months and that any secondary school pupil not achieving this required remedial help.

Furthermore the reading age required to define literacy in this country is/was 12 years 6 months. Any secondary school teacher on this forum will hopefully vouch for the fact that the majority of their leavers can assume this, with only the most remedial/ESN pupils failing  to achieve this level.

Most tests had a ceiling of this age (although I believe some American tests went upto 16 years.) The sourced site referenced later on nonsensically mentions a reading age of 24 in some particularly ill-advised example it manages to construct.

Clearly 'reading age'  becomes a very spurious measurement the higher it attempts to attain as it all  inevitably becomes subjective, subject based and specialist. I might not readily read out one of those intense science  based questions on University Challenge that the contestants seem to find so easy to answer, but it does not mean that that I have a reading age lower than theirs is. Then, of course, blurred lines are drawn between reading age and comprehension age  .... Ah?

Any secondary school teacher on this forum will hopefully vouch for the fact that the majority of their leavers can assume this 12.5 with ease, with only the most remedial/ESN pupils failing  to achieve this level. I may be wrong on this count.

With the minimum accepted literacy level being set at 9.5 years did not the Sun newspaper originally enlist the help of educationalists in an attempt to pitch their level just below this? Whether they still do is doubtful, but I recall the joke being that the racing page full of fancy and unusual names for the horses was always the hardest for subscribers to read.  

Plucking spurious information from the internet and stating it as fact is not to be encouraged. The assumed superiority is rich.

[sonyc 5,517]

2 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

If you are less certain as you get older then you are not learning anything

Yeah I've heard that one. If you're not a lefty when you're in your 20s you've no heart, if you're still a lefty in your 30s you've got no head. 

I have worked for a long long while in becoming less certain. And will continue to do so. That is what life is about for me RTB. 

[Herman 9,764]

"Plucking spurious information from the internet and stating it as fact is not to be encouraged. The assumed superiority is rich."

Says the man that posted a 3 year old opinion piece and stated it as fact.

[sonyc 5,517]

1 minute ago, BroadstairsR said:

What on earth?

That's nonsense and it took me no time at all to find the source of this rubbish ... some site entitled 'See A Voice' and seemingly connected to a mobile network calling it's self Lycramobile (or something,) neither of which has any connection with education nor with any with educational credentials. What tests? Neale is outdated enough.

I'm no educationalist, but with relatives employed as  educational psychologists seem to recall that the minimum acceptable literacy level in this country is/was a reading age of 9 years 6 months and that any secondary school pupil not achieving this required remedial help.

Furthermore the reading age required to define literacy in this country is/was 12 years 6 months. Any secondary school teacher on this forum will hopefully vouch for the fact that the majority of their leavers can assume this, with only the most remedial/ESN pupils failing  to achieve this level.

Most tests had a ceiling of this age (although I believe some American tests went upto 16 years.) The sourced site referenced later on nonsensically mentions a reading age of 24 in some particularly ill-advised example it manages to construct.

Clearly 'reading age'  becomes a very spurious measurement the higher it attempts to attain as it all  inevitably becomes subjective, subject based and specialist. I might not readily read out one of those intense science  based questions on University Challenge that the contestants seem to find so easy to answer, but it does not mean that that I have a reading age lower than theirs is. Then, of course, blurred lines are drawn between reading age and comprehension age  .... Ah?

Any secondary school teacher on this forum will hopefully vouch for the fact that the majority of their leavers can assume this 12.5 with ease, with only the most remedial/ESN pupils failing  to achieve this level. I may be wrong on this count.

With the minimum accepted literacy level being set at 9.5 years did not the Sun newspaper originally enlist the help of educationalists in an attempt to pitch their level just below this? Whether they still do is doubtful, but I recall the joke being that the racing page full of fancy and unusual names for the horses was always the hardest for subscribers to read.  

Plucking spurious information from the internet and stating it as fact is not to be encouraged. The assumed superiority is rich.

One great site for determining reading age Broadstairs is on The Writer. You place any of your text in the field and it gives you a 'score'  on readability (with understated humour). It helps greatly if you want to submit any work and to be understood! They have an Obama speech level, Harry Potter level, BBC etc. 

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

Thanks. I'll visit it.

 

As I said, I'm no educationalist but I do recall conversations about this topic in general with people who are/were and I know nonsense when I read it. Assuming we're talking adults and not including the under nine years old.

Edited April 11, 2020 by BroadstairsR

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

2 minutes ago, sonyc said:

Yeah I've heard that one. If you're not a lefty when you're in your 20s you've no heart, if you're still a lefty in your 30s you've got no head. 

I have worked for a long long while in becoming less certain. And will continue to do so. That is what life is about for me RTB. 

Seriously? Each day we have new experiences and learn new things. All of which add to our personal store of knowledge. Does what you learn make you less certain? Personally, I think the more I experience the more i Iearn. And the more learn the more I understand. And the more I understand the more certain I am. 

[sonyc 5,517]

 Readability | The Writer http://www.thewriter.com/what-we-think/readability-checker/

One of the best things I found over the years. Changed the way I have written work stuff.

[sonyc 5,517]

1 minute ago, Rock The Boat said:

Seriously? Each day we have new experiences and learn new things. All of which add to our personal store of knowledge. Does what you learn make you less certain? Personally, I think the more I experience the more i Iearn. And the more learn the more I understand. And the more I understand the more certain I am. 

Just about not becoming fixed RTB. The more fixed you are the more you feel certain, the greater chance you have of suffering and being unhappy. Because you spend all your time defending your own corner.

As I hinted it has taken me now perhaps 15 years and it's hard work. But at times you get to the point where nothing really upsets you (another person for example). It's not an easy fix. It's not about not trying to understand things. I get your point. Just about being humble, light, happy, at peace. 

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

@sonyc

My last post was grade 12. I ask you? Like you said amusing and trust the Americans to take things to such extremes.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

"Says the man that posted a 3 year old opinion piece and stated it as fact."

 

Eh? Eh? and eh? again.

I haven't got a clue what you are on about. 

Are you finally suffering from Pinkun poster fatigue?

 

At least no silly faces were employed. Have you run out?

Edited April 11, 2020 by BroadstairsR

[sonyc 5,517]

7 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

@sonyc

My last post was grade 12. I ask you? Like you said amusing and trust the Americans to take things to such extremes.

Haha. You probably needed to make your sentences shorter. Simple fix.

[BroadstairsR 2,164]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

Haha. You probably needed to make your sentences shorter. Simple fix.

Yes "Jim Sands and the Bandit" (R/A 7.5)

 

[Creative Midfielder 1,996]

1 hour ago, Fen Canary said:

I’m sorry, but you’re going to have to help me here. I’ve genuinely got no idea what point you’re trying to make at all, or how it links into anything I said regarding the political leanings of the bulk of social media. 

Well I'll help as best I can, but I certainly don't think I can put it any simpler than this:

You said " Of the main tabloids, it’s online readership is 4th I believe, behind the Sun, Mirror and Mail."

Well - you may well believe it, but that statement isn't slightly inaccurate or just a bit wrong - it is completely false. So if you do genuinely believe it, which I assume you do, then it is because you believe in a myth or lie, and presumably trust in a source that is completely unreliable.

And since we're on the Brexit thread, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that this is a very common occurence with your Brexit posts (and indeed many of your fellow Brexiteers, some of whom are even more culpable).

I recognise that you feel aggrieved at being continually told by Remainers that you are wrong, but if you post stuff that is just plain wrong........🙄

Edited April 11, 2020 by Creative Midfielder

[Herman 9,764]

59 minutes ago, Rock The Boat said:

Seriously? Each day we have new experiences and learn new things. All of which add to our personal store of knowledge. Does what you learn make you less certain? Personally, I think the more I experience the more i Iearn. And the more learn the more I understand. And the more I understand the more certain I am. 

20 odd years ago I would have had a similar political outlook to you. But as I grew older and after meeting people's of different races, religions and beliefs, visited different countries, working in differing levels of management I have grown more tolerant and learned more about other's hopes, grievances and praise. I saw a lot of greatness but now I can also see a lot of the unfairness clearly, and a large part of the unfairness comes from the type I would have once supported.

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

Amused at all of this. 

I think you'll find people tend to get fixed in their ways - 'You can't teach an old dog new tricks etc'

It was better in my days ....

As most people age they tend to get more conservative with small c - don't want to learn new things etc. and so on that challenges them

That and they tend to reminisce.

It takes a real effort to to truly to be open to new eperiences at 70! Far easier to dismiss and claim 'wisdom' even where there is none.  

Edited April 11, 2020 by Yellow Fever

[Yellow Fever 3,783]

4 hours ago, Fen Canary said:

I can’t say I’ve ever read an article in the Guardian that’s ever expressed self doubt. Most opinion pieces I’ve seen seem to imply that anybody who sees things differently to the left leaning views of the paper are either thick, ignorant, racist, bigoted etc. much like the posters on this board. According to most of the Remain comments I’ve seen over the last few years there’s no such thing as opinions, merely right and wrong, and they strongly believe they’re in the right 

The quality papers such as the Guardian often run articles by those with contrary views. 

Perhaps you should hold a mirror to some of your own views as well..

However - I suspect the reason why the Guardian oft gets quoted is that it tries to be factually correct, has detail and depth beyond simple yes/no and more so is free to read. No pay wall.

 

[Fen Canary 822]

8 hours ago, sonyc said:

If you want to read stories that are mostly factual and non political then the FT is arguably the best. Not all lefties are middle class Fen. No one person either is always right. People tend to have fixed views on a lot of issues based on their experience or conditioning. I believe the older we get, the more open minded we ought to become, humbler, less fixed, less certain. Only by being so can we actually be content, happy, less bitter. Yet, it requires effort. Lots of. And self-awareness.

I didn’t mean everybody left leaning is middle class, you’re right you get both left and right amongst all the classes. I was referring to the make up of most commentators on social media sites such Reddit and Twitter, which is predominantly middle class and students. The other point I’ve been trying to make is that most people know their opinion is just that, it’s an opinion based on their experiences. The problem I find especially on online forums, and it seems to be more prevalent among those that voted to remain, is that they seem to think their opinion carries more weight than those on the other side. For some reason they believe their opinion to be fact so by definition everybody else’s must be wrong. Even when predicting future events they expect others to treat their opinion as gospel, while completely dismissing anybody who believes differently 

[Fen Canary 822]

8 hours ago, Creative Midfielder said:

Well I'll help as best I can, but I certainly don't think I can put it any simpler than this:

You said " Of the main tabloids, it’s online readership is 4th I believe, behind the Sun, Mirror and Mail."

Well - you may well believe it, but that statement isn't slightly inaccurate or just a bit wrong - it is completely false. So if you do genuinely believe it, which I assume you do, then it is because you believe in a myth or lie, and presumably trust in a source that is completely unreliable.

And since we're on the Brexit thread, I hope you'll forgive me for pointing out that this is a very common occurence with your Brexit posts (and indeed many of your fellow Brexiteers, some of whom are even more culpable).

I recognise that you feel aggrieved at being continually told by Remainers that you are wrong, but if you post stuff that is just plain wrong........🙄

My readership levels were domestically, from a few searches on Google which all turned up similar results for a mixture of print and online. I didn’t look for worldwide numbers as I didn’t think it was really relevant to domestic politics. 

It does make sense though as the bulk of those newspapers that I recognise target audience is the middle class left, which is most prevalent on social media and as such much more likely to pick up clicks numbers through those sites