主播大秀

Paper Monitor

11:00 UK time, Tuesday, 25 November 2008

A service highlighting the riches of the daily press.

WHAT DOES IT ALL MEAN FOR ME??? That's what Paper Monitor really wants to know today. Thank heavens then that all the papers are falling over each other to answer exactly that question.

So what imaginative ways do they find to promote their "what it means for you" guides to the casual newsstand browser? And - crucially in these tough times - who offers the MOST COVERAGE?

"What it means for you" (Times 20-page guide)
"WHAT IT MEANS FOR YOU" (Daily Telegraph's "19 pages of brilliant analysis")
"Inside: What it means for you" (Independent's 16-page pull-out)
"What it means for you" (Guardian, prolix as ever, offers a "special 12-page section with the best analysis of the pre-budget report including our special at-a-glance guide to how it will hit your pocket")

The Daily Mail offers 15 pages, but for reasons unknown fails to badge that coverage as "what it means for you". This is very, very out of step with prevailing practice.

(Disclaimer: Naturally, 主播大秀 News website also offered an article entitled "What it means to you". Yesterday.)

The Sun's headline says it all really - "UP TO ARREARS" - proving that the job of a 20-page special pull-out can be done in just three words.

This does make Paper Monitor wonder though... is there any way the physical weight of publications can be indicative of wider trends?

This is worth further thought. Forget Natch, Porridge, Formulas et al (thanks Rick P, Your Letters, Monday). Perhaps this is the dawn of something new. Let's call it Paperweight. Anyone with an accurate pair of scales is invited to weigh a publication of their choice and let's see if we can't draw some conclusions.

Here's something to kick it off. The frankly ridiculous GQ 20th anniversary special which has nearly 600 pages comes in at 1.7kg or 3lbs 13oz. It is pictured on Paper Monitor's scales. (All those gender speculators out there should rest assured there is a bumper copy of Glamour just out of shot.) By comparison, a 1978 edition of Radio Times, with Ian Botham, Sharron Davies and Daley Thompson on the cover comes in at just 188g or 6ozs.

(Wondering why that old Radio Times was to hand? It's amazing what you find when you start saving money under the carpet in the airing cupboard.)

So submissions for Paperweight are welcome in the usual way (for the uninitiated, there's a comments button at the foot of this entry).

And there's one futher thing to say.

The Times reports today that Australians who have for so long enriched the cultural life of the United Kingdom are deciding to go home. But there is one rather large elephant in the room. Read these sentences from the paper's leader article and see if you can guess which massively influential Australian isn't mentioned. (Clue: he's now American.)

"It is no longer true, if it ever were, that the Australian migrant to Britain is a West London barworker whose only cultural contribution is a strange habit of posting statements as questions... [T]he cultural contribution of the expatriates - Clive James, Germaine Greer, Barry Humphries, Nick Cave, Peter Porter - means that it is silly and patronising to say the Australians had to come here to sample the culture they lacked at home. And that is without even mentioning Rolf Harris. Or the Minogue sisters, for that matter."

Bookmark with:
|
|
- What's this?

Comments Post your comment

Comment number 1.
At 25th Nov 2008, EvoRacer wrote:

That wouldn't be Rupert Murdoch, would it?

Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 25th Nov 2008, DannyDannyC wrote:

Taxi for Racer?

Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 25th Nov 2008, Candace9839 wrote:

The weight of the online version of the 主播大秀 is surely due to the 1s rather than the 0s in the underlying code.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 25th Nov 2008, Amy S wrote:

Is that the pointy toe of a woman's shoe in the bottom left of the GQ photo?

Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 25th Nov 2008, Le Dave wrote:

One question, PM, why do you say that GQ weighs 3lbs 13oz when it clearly says 3lbs 12oz on the scales. Does PM need some more glasses?

Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 25th Nov 2008, Ruaraidh Gillies wrote:

Spotter's badge for amysm82, although I think it might actually be the pressed crease of a trouser leg rather than a shoe (bit too narrow).

However, as a pair of men's shoes invariably stick out from under the trouser leg when viewed in this way, I would agree that your ultimate conclusion is sound: Photograph Monitor is female.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 25th Nov 2008, teaandbikkies wrote:

It would be very useful to have an equivalent to paperweight for electronic publications. This would allow both the producers and purchasers of the paper version to see precisely how much of the paper version most people read online. If people persistently read far under the weight online, publishers perhaps would trim their paper copies (and price tags) accordingly.

Apologies for the awful alliteration.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 25th Nov 2008, DaveySwavey wrote:

If you look really carefully, I think you'll find that the point is merely a shadow and the "foot" is actually a spoke of a swivel chair. PM has clearly been very careful with this photo.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 25th Nov 2008, teazeldad wrote:

Are we sure it's not a small blackbird??

Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 25th Nov 2008, JudgePix wrote:

Kitchen scales, kitchen flooring - clearly a female photographer...

Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 25th Nov 2008, teaandbikkies wrote:

But it's not a real kitchen: Someone has left their headphones in there (top-left corner). If it was a real kitchen, it would have had to be tidied to appear in a photograph: anything from wiping the surface down to removing a month's worth of washing up. One of the first things to go would be the electrical headphones.

That or it's an electric toothbrush, which would imply bathroom. Also an area commonly tiled, and scales turn up in there, too.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 25th Nov 2008, Blythy wrote:

here's something you can try - weighing GQ without adverts.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 25th Nov 2008, Flux Redux wrote:

I assume the one ounce difference between the article's stated GQ weight and the photographic evidence is due to Kate Moss having been removed.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 25th Nov 2008, papermonitor wrote:

Thanks, everyone. Specifically:
EvoRacer: Yes, it would.
DannyDannyC: Be nice, now.
Candace9839: What's 9839 in binary?
amysym82: Maybe.
madcaesar: You can't see the tiny three-quarters symbol. It's just rounding up.
redbyname: Maybe.
Teaandbikkies: Time for a cup of tea.
DaveySwavey: Naturellement
teazeldad: In a kitchen? Ready for the pie perhaps.
Judgepix: Men have kitchen scales too. Or access to them. Think again.
Teakandbikkies 2: Men leave stuff around, true. But lots of women have men. So inconclusive.
Blythy_vxr: Ripping idea. Quite lidderally.
Unitedabroad: Piers is still there though.

Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 25th Nov 2008, JudgePix wrote:

A man would have taken the scales into another room to photograph them (always supposing he knew where to find them) and that flooring was definitely chosen by a woman: men don't 'get' the terracotta tile effect laminate thing :)

Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)
Comment number 16.
At 26th Nov 2008, Normski81 wrote:

"Candace9839: What's 9839 in binary?"

10011001101111.....

Complain about this comment (Comment number 16)