Press

I just don't think people read the ES anymore. Time was when you were commuting home everyone was reading it, now you seldom see a person with one, most are just on their phones.
If I'm out late at the theatre when I get back to my home station there are hundreds of copies still there so also bad for the environment.
And it's a bit of a biased right wing paper.

I too am torn on this. On one hand I am more than aware of the limitations and prejudices of the Standard and most other papers. However, I think having a range and choice of print media is healthy. A means of employing actual journalists, who can learn their trade and not rely on copy writing adverts is a good thing.

Even if someone reads a single paper every day, and that paper is as unashamedly focused on a particular world view as the Daily Mail, if they read more than a handful of stories from it, they are probably better read and have more awareness of a range of issues than a lot of people who complain about MSM bias, and instead get their news from a carefully curated social media bubble.

But as you say Kathryn, the ES has turned into a mouthpiece for its owner, with a mix of political propaganda and advertorial, so I'll not bother mourning its demise. I can't see any date for the switch, which I'm guessing will be after the election. Would it be overly cynical to think they were holding off in the hope of influencing it one last time?

Curious you would choose the Daily Mail as an example when the Guardian is the obvious example of every single thing you mention - for example over 50% of their journalists are privately educated even though that is exactly the sort of identity politics issue the Guardian tends to be bothered about. Maybe you are a Guardian reader and so have been controlled by them to criticise the Daily Mail and their readers instead ? Or maybe people just read the newspapers that reflect views they already have and there's no "control" involved at all. 

I very much embrace the current regulatory requirement -- albeit that it is very poorly enforced -- for radio and tv news to be balanced and fair.

The term "free press" is banded about as some Utopian ideal, but, in practice, it largely means the freedom of those with wealth to garner greater influence. What it ought to mean is the right to report accurately free of state interference. It should not mean the right to spread misinformation.

I am not sure how to improve matters, especially since most influence now comes via electronic media, but, as a start, I would require all newspapers to be registered as such if they wished to continue to be free of VAT, with a requirement that their news reporting adhere to the same standards as tv/radio. Those that wish to continue to be propaganda arms of political parties can pay VAT.

Exactly