Media titles with political leanings - is Private Eye one?

[aclivity]

In this thread there is the following post:

AndrewW-G said:

Depending on your personal point of view on various topics, the same could be said of all newspapers and pretty much all news media bar Private Eye . . . . . The Gurniad has a similar effect on me as the Mail does to the OP

I've been a subscriber to Private Eye for ... more years than I care to remember ... and I have never really given it's political stance any thought. Does it have one? There seems to be a fairly balanced approach to ridiculing politicians from all sides of the spectrum, some issues will have more anti-left, others anti-right, but they are usually driven by "what's happened in the last couple of weeks". Rotten Boroughs, for example, seems to be pretty fair in picking it's targets.

Perhaps there is one there, but too subtle for me?

[AndrewW-G]

As you may have guessed from my post, IMHO Private Eye advocates the holding of all politicians to account for their actions and pretty much everybody else in the public eye.

Rotten Borough is a good example of this, it doesn’t matter what political flavour a local authority is, PE will hold them to account for any of their very often completely insane decisions, plans and actions, that come to light

They also seem to be one of what is now only a small number of publications, that still practise investigative journalism, rather than focusing on what handbag Cheryl Cole is using or who's going to win some tedious drawn out popularity / "talent" contest.

I’m happy to say that I’ve been reading it for around 30 years, having started by “borrowing” my mother’s second husbands copy, subscribing myself for 20 years and submitting the odd thing here and there for 10

[audidoody]

Thank God for the Eye

That is all

[Somewhatfoolish]

There is a definitely noticeable left wing, metropolitan bias to the eye... middle class professional Londoner I'm thinking.

But it isn't so important as to impact their stories. Much.

[FarleyRusk]

I haven't read the eye for a while, but can anyone tell me what isits position on man-made Global Warming?

[AndrewW-G]

FarleyRusk said:

I haven't read the eye for a while, but can anyone tell me what isits position on man-made Global Warming?

In the middle . . . focusing on the stories with available facts, i.e. EA CRU got it in the neck for destroying data and emails etc

[Blib]

I subscribed for many years. But, I became bored by it. Nothing has changed in years and years. Same old same oild.

When's the last time that The Eye broke a major story?

[Rouleur]

I bought a copy a few weeks ago for the first time in years and I have to say I was disappointed - they do a great job of exposing the corruption and general BS that goes on in this country but I can't help thinking that nobody is taking any real notice, it rarely leads to any changes being made. I'm sure they don't have any leaning though, they're happy to take the pish out of anyone and everyone!

It wasn't as funny as I remember either.

O/T - I've always wondered about those begging ads in the back and whether anybody actually donates to them. Any ideas?

[sadoksevoli]

Blib said:

I subscribed for many years. But, I became bored by it. Nothing has changed in years and years. Same old same oild.

When's the last time that The Eye broke a major story?

I think you have to read into the way our dismal mainstream media works, and Private Eye is on the fringes of it itself - namely who and what defines a "major story"? Quite a few things that do appear in the Eye evolve into more spectacular stories but no attribution is given to the Eye - if a "major story" is being run by one or more of the main players it is usually given a spin and a slant that makes it unrecognisable from what may have appeared in the Eye. Also the Eye highlights some major issues which the utter morons in the mainstream media refuse to acknowledge as serious - PFI being a major example.

Another related aspect to this is even when stories appear by columnists in mainstream media, they just don't provoke the attention they should - countless articles by Christopher Booker tend to get ignored (he coincidentally helped found the Eye as far as i recall).

[carreauchompeur]

Interesting... I can't genuinely pick what side of the fence Private Eye sits on. I've been subscribing for about a year now and find it a really good read, poking fun and derision at targets that richly deserve it... Frequently bang on the money.

I don't have a lot of time for most newspapers... Generally read the Times but it's hardly incisive journalism...

[El Guapo]

The Eye seemed to get suckered in by the MMGW nonsense, at least initially. I don't read it often nowadays but it seems to have lost some of its bite in recent years.
There are hundreds of politically oriented blogs around now, so maybe The Eye's days are numbered.

[tank slapper]

El Guapo said:

I don't read it often nowadays but it seems to have lost some of its bite in recent years.
There are hundreds of politically oriented blogs around now, so maybe The Eye's days are numbered.

I think part of the problem is it's fortnightly release. Whereas in the past, they would cover stories that had escaped attention in the mainstream press and be the first to do so, there are now blogs and the like that do similar. By the time the next issue is released many of the stories have appeared elsewhere online. I also think the kind of people who read the Eye, might also tend to be those who read those political blogs, so while the content and writing may not have decreased in quality (and I don't think it has), what is covered is often familiar by the time it arrives on the doorstep.