Media Matters
Very disgusted of Tunbridge Wells
The digital world has brought out the worst in Telegraph readers stephen glover What word would you apply to Daily Telegraph readers? Respectable? That is certainly what its journalists would have said when I worked on the paper 40 years ago. There are now many fewer retired colonels in Cheltenham, and almost no former District Commissioners in Harrogate. But I don’t suppose the Telegraph’s readership is much rougher than it used to be, even if we probably all have sharper elbows these days. Yet there is one sphere in which a social revolution has taken place that would have been inconceivable four decades ago. As a subscriber to the really excellent digital version of the Telegraph, I sometimes look at readers’ comments beneath articles. Shield your eyes and block your ears! Even a retired colonel who has heard bad language in the mess might be appalled by the often abusive and unpleasant tone of some of these aerated ‘posters’. An infelicitous word, but I don’t know a better one. Below a recent article about the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, Harry was described by one reader as a ‘ginger whinger’. Another opined that he was as ‘deluded as his loopy wife’, while a third suggested that he was ‘verging on mental illness’. A Telegraph columnist unfriendly to the Sussexes wouldn’t dare to employ such crude language. Any mention of Boris Johnson invariably stirs up a hornets’ nest. One recent poster described him as a ‘buffoon’ and a ‘clown’ in the same line. Some readers love him, of course. Sulphurous squabbles often erupt between opposing factions. ‘The Left are poisonous idiots,’ declares one reader. ‘The Conservatives are racists, liars and thieves,’ counters another. Such exchanges do not convey any indication of intelligence, discrimination or balance. If one were seated next to one of these
angry posters at a dinner party, would one be subjected to a tirade of abuse? I doubt it. The person concerned would probably be charming, well-mannered and restrained. Somehow the digital world brings out the worst in us. As people resort to name-calling and vilification on social media, so posters spout comments they would never dream of saying or writing in their daily dealings. I used to believe it was anonymity that encouraged readers to be so rude. In some online newspapers, you can describe yourself as Fred567 or Spearman and let rip without fear of ever being identified. But the Telegraph’s posters, being subscribers, use what appear to be their real names. The possibility of their being recognised seems not to restrain them. Moreover, these are bona fide readers of the Telegraph. I sometimes look at comments on Mail Online or the Guardian Online, both of which are free. As a result, they attract posters who are not only pseudonymous but also politically at odds with the newspaper which has offered them a soapbox. By contrast, those who write stupid and coarse comments in the Telegraph are paid-up members of the Telegraph family. One word of advice to any hardcore poster in any newspaper who may be reading this. If your speciality lies in insulting columnists, I shouldn’t bother. The Oldie wisely doesn’t allow posts. I don’t know of any columnists who read posts about the pieces they have
Why does the Telegraph (like the Times) enable its readers to sound off?
written. Even shallow invective can wound journalists, and so they avoid it. Why does the Telegraph (like the Times) enable its readers to sound off? I suppose they think it’s good for trade and doesn’t do anyone much harm. I wonder how commercially advantageous it really is, though. Do people subscribe to a digital newspaper to post comments? As to the question of causing harm, it surely isn’t kind to encourage normally respectable types to become digital monsters, and turn so many Dr Jekylls into Mr or Mrs Hydes. Rupert Murdoch is investing an enormous amount of money in Piers Morgan, who will be the star of Murdoch’s TalkTV channel, due to launch on 25th April. An immense studio has been constructed in Ealing for the irrepressible and bumptious Morgan, from which he will introduce his nightly 8 o’clock show. Murdoch is said to be paying him £50 million over three years, though extra work is expected, including a column in the Sun and the New York Post. Still, TalkTV will be his main gig. Is Morgan worth so much dosh? He has eight million Twitter followers, and is a fluent and engaging television performer. He is opinionated, clever, well informed and slightly annoying. If anyone can attract viewers to a new channel in a pretty crowded market, it’s probably him. But maybe Murdoch is putting too many golden eggs in one basket. At the time of writing, he can’t be said to have attracted anyone else to TalkTV who is one-quarter as well-known as Piers Morgan, or such a powerful attraction, though former Sky News political editor Adam Boulton has climbed aboard. The danger for the new channel is that too many hopes hang on the performance of one man. Can he keep it up, night in, night out, or will his audience tire of his act? The Oldie May 2022 35
