With the use of non-standard English, and also of elements of ‘conversation’, the tabloids aim to suggest linguistic solidarity with their readers. “The language employed will thus be the newspaper’s own version of the language of the public to whom it is principally addressed.” Examples of non-standard English frequently used in tabloids include( The words in bold are the ones I found to serve these purposes in the text):
-
Vocabulary – colloquialism and slang (toff, totty, glitzy, saucy, celebs, docs aso)
- Misspellings (deliberate) like wapp and gottcha
-
Wordplay – puns (peeling back her dressing, naughty but nurse, NHS – Now your Hosiery is Showing )
-
Style of naming, referring to people by first names or nick-names (Victoria, Isla)
-
Contractions ( That’s, they’re, how’s, ain’t)
-
Use of ‘stress’ and intonation – different fonts (underlining, bold)
- Undramatical constructions
- Translation of verbal processes into physical
The element which is perhaps most obvious when one first looks at a story in a tabloid, is the typography. The use of different fonts, underlining and typefaces, is intended to create an illusion of stress, something which is very important to get your message across in a conversational situation. Seeing that the rules of speech are quite separate from those of writing, a straight transcript of a conversation can be quite difficult to understand when read, although it makes perfect sense to us when we hear it. As M. A. K. Halliday put it: “Speech is fragmented into shorter sections of information by shorter intonation curves which are more independent of conventional syntax.” The tabloids try to mimic this with “a fragmented format and typography, and by short, incomplete sentences”.
In addition to these linguistic and visual measures, the papers have also changed their contents in a way which inspires greater audience participation. The agony-aunts are a classic example of this, and they are being joined by an ever growing number of medical, judicial and educational experts, there to answer any question you might have. The most dubious way of simulating conversation, is probably the phone-ins used by the tabloids to ‘get the opinion of the people’, in which the papers will pose a question, and then publish the results as the ‘view of the majority’. Some times the editor does not know what stand to take on a certain issue, and in these cases the phone-ins can be a useful tool, telling him or her which way to go as to not offend the readers. There is, however, a problem: these telephone-polls do not offer a true picture of what people really think. The alternatives given are usually rather limiting, and not that many people can really be bothered to pick up the phone and voice their opinion. Therefore, these ‘polls’ should be taken for what they are: the views of a few people who cared enough about the topic to vote.
For many readers, these ways of interacting with the paper can be quite rewarding. They get to voice their opinion about topics they care about, and they get advice which in some cases can be quite useful. In addition to this, they might get to see their names in print, and have the satisfaction of ‘controlling’ what the paper writes. Once the readers feel this way, the paper has come a long way in removing the stigma attached to institutional discourse.
INCREASED PAGINATION AND NEWZAK
The broad-sheets’ main audience consists of people with education, therefore they do not normally face problems relating to being written. Their readers are used to, and comfortable with, written discourse, and many of them may even find that the output of such is part of their job-descriptions. This is why articles in broad-sheets can have long pieces of unbroken text, and refrain from using words suggesting dialogue. However, due to the augmented competition in an ever diminishing market, the broad-sheets are increasingly being forced to follow the tabloids’ lead in the quest for easier-to-read pieces. As the papers put on more and more weight, more material is needed to fill the space, and this has led to an explosion in the usage of commentaries, features, and ‘small funny pieces’.
The Guardian has, through the work of Ian Mayes, pioneered the “readers’ editor”. Instead of hiding away their retractions, they have chosen to employ a corrector whose first loyalty is to the readers. The result of this is a humorous column, a recently published book, and increased trust in the paper itself. This all came in to place after a realisation by Alan Rusbridger, the editor of the Guardian :
“Do other editors really believe that their readers will trust them less if they keep admitting they got things wrong? Can’t they see that the reverse is true, and that readers will trust them more? The interactivity of the net makes it inevitable that younger readers will expect a relationship with their paper that is closer to a dialogue than a sermon. A readers’ editor is a modest start.”
New technology has had quite a strong impact on the newspapers, and the results of this are interesting. Television is, of course, the one medium that has had the most influence. A closer look will reveal that the consequences of this influence differ depending where in the market the paper places itself. The middle-market papers have practically disappeared after the introduction on television. This is caused by the fact that they were fighting for the same audience, and that was a fight they were bound to lose. In their wake, the tabloids have survived, and prospered. This is partly thanks to TV, as much of the material in the tabloids comes from the world of entertainment, and in this way one can view the down-market papers as a supplement to television. Some times, one may even think that they are merely an extended tv-guide, an example of this being the front page coverage given to the decision a few weeks ago to refurbish and rename the Rovers Return (the pub in the long-running soap-opera Coronation Street). On the other end of the market, the broad-sheets have tried to position themselves above all this, by appearing to offer something more demanding and informative than what can be found on television. This has been done with, for instance, extensive coverage of politics. However, they are changing, and one of the reasons may, as Alan Rusbridger said, be the increasing availability of other media.
It is a fact that the broad-sheets have become bigger and bigger, and the reason for this is financial, as is often the case. Advertising is the backbone of any paper, and all the ads have to be printed somewhere. The advertisers also want to know that the money they spend is spent in the right places, they need their ads to reach the right audience. With an increasing number of sections, the papers are now able to cater to almost all needs. They divide their readership, and increasingly attempt to control which pages the individual reader actually lingers on. However, as I have previously said, all these pages need to be filled with something, and the material selected to perform this task, is usually newzak, features and commentaries. These pieces are usually written in a light, familiar tone, and in some cases they even address the reader ‘personally’. The commentaries are often written by ‘celebrity’-columnists and frequently have a picture on the top. The fact that you can ‘see’ the person ‘talking’ to you, creates a more familiar atmosphere, whilst also increasing the chance of the reader agreeing with the views presented, as it is easier to sympathise with someone’s views if you ‘know them’.
The ‘tabloidisation’ of the broad-sheets, is often though of as simply being represented by the move towards lighter material,. However, the actual size of the supplements is also affected by this, as can be seen with for example G2 in the Guardian and T2 in the Times. In the Guardian, a close look can reveal elements of conversational discourse, the most evident being Pass notes on page tree of G2, where one can read a simulated conversation, topped off with “Do say: …” and “Don’t say:…” These are all elements of the process undertaken by the up-market papers in an attempt to seem more friendly, readable, and entertaining.
DUMBING DOWN OR ENTERTAINING?
A conclusion one can draw from these findings, is that this development is caused by two instigators which, although closely entwined, separate the different sections of the newspaper-market: The tabloids aim to create an illusion of conversation, so as not to alienated the sections of their readerships which are not comfortable with the written form. The broad-sheets, on the other hand, cater to the more educated readers, and therefore are not afraid of using institutional discourse. However, to fill up the amount of space made available through the multiple sections now common also in daily editions, they draw from a seemingly bottomless well of ‘lighter’ material, and thus changes their style, if not so much in writing as in contents. This amount of ‘braindead’ material may be seen as proof that we are ‘dumbing down’ as a society, and at times it may seem that newzak has replaced proper news, but in reality it has not. The amount of ‘proper’ news is greater than ever, but because of the enormous amount of other material out there, it does not seem so. It is not a case of replacing more time-honoured reporting, rather it is adding different varieties of writing, so the claim of papers dumbing down does not add up.
A fact that seems to be understood by all papers, is that they are in a very competitive industry. Every day is a constant struggle to come up with interesting stories, so as to successfully sell the paper. It has always been important to build a steady readership, to have people identifying themselves with one specific newspaper. However, this is becoming less relevant, as the need for mass-sales overshadows all pretences of fixed policies. One no longer finds strong party-allegiance within the industry, something which would be evident to Tony Blair after a few years with New Labour. The harsh critique inflicted upon him in the papers does not only come from the right, but also, increasingly, from the left. This is a reflection of a society where party-allegiance is a thing of the past, and where most people have given up newspaper-subscription in order to have the ability to chose a different paper on different days.
The main reasons as to why the papers have changed so much, is the fact that they are responding to changes in our society. We have become more erratic in our interests and behaviour, we have less respect for authority, and we are no longer satisfied with being informed, we want to be entertained. If the papers want to keep the influence that they have enjoyed in this country, they have to pretend to give op their position of authority, and give people what they want to read: easy, conversational material. In this way, we get the press we think we want.
Fowler: Language in the news, page: 59
Fowler: Language in the news, page:37
Stuart Hall: dossier, page:43
Aspects of the French language lecture week 10, by Marie-Nöel Guillot
Halliday, quoted in Fowler, Language in the News, page: 62
Fowler, Language in the News, page: 62
Rusbridger, Diary, New Statesman, 4.12.2000, page7
Rusbridger, Diary, New Statesman, 4.12.2000, page7
Pass notes no: 1780 G2 12.12.2000
John Lloyd, Conviction journalists, New Statesman page 23-24