Yes, but it's pretty complicated when you take online figures into account. I mean, what articles are they actually reading? What other sites do they visit?
Here are some online figures that suggest that the BBC is far and away the most influential online news source (with five times the viewing figures of DMG Media, the Daily Mail's parent group).
https://www.theguardian.com/media/gr...ine-news-viewsA survey reveals that the top 10 biggest media publishers are responsible for nearly two-thirds of the news consumed by British people online.
An analysis, based on the desktop and mobile page views in the UK in 2015, shows that they generated 65.1% of the traffic share compared to the next 140 biggest publishers.
And the study, conducted by the digital market intelligence company, SimilarWeb, found that the BBC dominated digital news last year by generating a 30% market share.
The corporationís two sites, bbc.co.uk and bbc.com, secured 18.9bn page views, more than three times the traffic of its nearest competitor, msn.com, with 5.6bn.
In third place was DMG Media, whose sites include Mail Online, generated a 6.6% market share (4.1bn page views). Fourth was Trinity Mirror, which has 31 news sites, and in fifth place was theguardian.com.
In any case, what about the need successive Prime Ministers have felt to pander to Murdoch? They must have considerable influence for politicians to be so eager to suck up to them, no?
Whereas they constantly beat the BBC with a big stick.
I think it's less obvious for print because people will flick through a newspaper from start to finish, whereas I expect they just go direct to articles of interest online.
Anyway, if you mean that online market-share makes up for dwindling print circulation, perhaps it does to an extent (if you're the Daily Mail or the Guardian), but it's not a market dominated by the tabloids.
You can't compare the BBC with newspapers - print or online editions - because it doesn't deal in big, bold, single-message headlines like the tabloids (and often even the broadsheets) do.
Surely if the Leave campaign earlier this year and Trump's candidacy and then election campaign going on right this second have taught us anything, it's that the most effective message is the loudest and simplest? A semi-nuanced article on the 'magazine' section of the BBC News website about EU migrants working as NHS nurses or whatever is as nothing next to a headline in huge black block capitals about TEN MILLION BULGARIANS LINING UP TO STEAL YOUR JOB AND SHIT IN YOUR FRONT GARDEN or whatever.
the mail/sun are pure propaganda/incitement, how useful is it to compare their readership with that of the bbc? it's not 'news' in the same way so they don't influence in the same way, so im not sure a comparison of the numbers can do this conversation justice
Lol at you lot. Why are you letting him lead you by the nose?
some very small circulation publications such as the weekly standard or national review have had substantial impact in the past by pushing out ideology and influencing the political dialogue.
obviously this is slightly different from what you're discussing, since those journals are read by a small number of elites/wonks and not a general consumer audience, but one could argue that aspects of those journals' ideology make their way into general news publications/websites through their influence.
If you've watched game of thrones you know one thing. Power is perception. So that's a starting point. Deny him his premise. That influence is measured in sales figures.
And Corpsey you gestured towards this. Everyone from the prime minister down acts as though rothermere, Dacre, Murdoch are powerful. Turn the question around. Why?