For those that haven't noticed I have a side bar on the blog template that lists some pet 'hates'. To be honest they are not so much 'hates' as dislikes or irritants but pet irritant, or pet dislike didn't have the same ring...
Anyway, one of them is;
People that crudely categorise others by the newspaper they read
A couple of days ago I received a comment from Sarah taking issue with my pet hate. The comment ended up in my spam filter and when I tried to remove/retrieve it, I lost it. So apologies for this rather unorthodox way of replying.
Re. your pet hate no. 12...
Surely newspaper choice is an excellent guide to an individuals views/political outlook/level of interest in celebrities. Why would anyone read a newspaper they disagreed with or didn't enjoy?
Newspaper readership may well be indicative of peoples outlook/views on life but there are any number of reasons why someone would choose a particular paper to read or browse. People will buy a paper for the sports section or the racing tips or even the crossword but never read the editorial or give any credence the political stance of the paper. Associating their political outlook therefore with that of the paper would not be very sophisticated would it? So no, I don't accept that newspaper choice is an excellent guide at all, but an indicator maybe..
I have also noticed that people that tend to use newspaper choice to categorise sections of society have a tendency to couch it in a rather sneering, derogatory fashion, perhaps you have noticed that also? Statements like.. "Typical Daily Mail, Torygraph (Telegraph) or Grauniad (Guardian) readers.." There seems to be some snobbery or inverted snobbery at play and I think it says far more about the writer/speaker than about the readership of any newspaper.
What do others think??