It's The Sun wot lost it

By abandoning Labour the day after Gordon Brown's conference speech, The Sun has sent shock waves throughout the political establishment. Or so its editors like to think.

After 12 years of support for Labour, the defection is indeed significant: with a daily circulation of 3m, The Sun reaches more people than any other newspaper in the country. As in previous elections, The Sun clings to the belief that its front page will sway British voters. The underlying rationale is that suitably provocative rhetoric will naturally swing voters into the political orbit of its proprietor, Rupert Murdoch.

But The Sun's latest political defection is a stunt, and little else—and will have a negligible impact on the electoral process. It is designed solely to boost newspaper circulation at a time when both readers and advertisers are abandoning print for the interactivity of the web. In today's media environment, political debate and public opinion are increasingly shaped by a much wider range of digital sources, leaks and connections.

As I wrote in Prospect's May issue, what we’re witnessing is the development of a real-time media environment that fundamentally challenges the operating logic of old media. The dynamics of political decision-making are becoming more dispersed, more fragmented, and more social. In elections worldwide, social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook are becoming alternative platforms for dialogue, commentary and political mobilisation—as well as real time sources of news. And with few exceptions, the power of the traditional brand—the newspaper—is waning. The web engenders a new age of instant accountability that threatens to bypass many newsrooms entirely.



Power is shifting from organisations towards networked individuals: journalists, commentators, experts, even citizens themselves. “Here comes everybody,” argues Clay Shirky in his recent analysis of contemporary media. On the web, the production and consumption of news is marked by promiscuity not loyalty, by active participation not passivity. People are spending less time around traditional sources; instead, they are choosing to "power browse" a kaleidoscope of sites and feeds.

So what does this mean for a tabloid like The Sun?

The basic challenge for any paper, especially a tabloid, is remaining relevant. As consumers and advertisers move online, newsrooms are under growing pressure to produce “tent pole” stories, the purpose of which is two-fold: first, to generate spikes of attention on the web and in print; second, to create a focal point for subsequent coverage and, in turn, an even greater share of attention in the digital news cycle. Thanks to the web, newsrooms can determine, with greater accuracy than ever before, what content will appeal to audiences and advertisers. With billions of clicks now logged each week, the web is becoming a real-time mirror of public opinion.

The danger in the digital transition, however, is that by avidly following the trails of the real-time clickstream, newspapers like The Sun will morph into little more than a '”digital windsock.” In other words, they will follow public opinion rather than actively shape it. And that, perhaps, is what is most revealing about today's front page story. It mirrors rather than directs the public mood. The days when a tabloid could claim to sway an election are long gone.

None of this, however, is necessarily good news for Labour—only that the media frenzy surrounding The Sun is overrated to say the least. As a stunt, the story deserves top marks for its timing, but as a meaningful intervention in today's political drama, and the forthcoming election, it is marginal at best. Even the language of the story, as Roy Greenslade suggests, reflects an outdated attachment to nationalistic thinking—read the closing sentence for example: “The Sun believes—and prays—that the Conservative leadership can put the great back into Great Britain.” All of which is proof, Greenslade continued, “that the paper, though still Britain's bestselling daily, remains locked in the past. It is a follower rather than a leader. And when it seeks to lead, it sounds like a paper from the 19th century rather than the 21st.”