Letter from the editor: The typical i reader
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.You really are a curious bunch, you readers. We’ve been observing you quite a bit recently at research groups, and one thing has become abundantly clear: there’s no such thing as a typical i reader.
For every one who likes a certain aspect of our paper, there’s another reader who speaks up passionately with the opposite view. You do, however, concur on a few things, the most consistent of which is that you don’t want too much celebrity gossip.
But how much is too much? There are certain stories which involve celebrities - the Ryan Giggs super-injuction for example - that it would be rather perverse to ignore altogether. And a relentless diet of “hard” news would make the paper pretty tough going. This issue has become more pertinent in the wake of the advertising watchdog telling us off for claiming that we had “no celebrity gossip nonsense” in the paper.
In this letter yesterday, I was mildly critical of their ruling, and this provoked quite a response from our readers. And, typically, it was hard for us to form a settled view from your letters.
First came Mary Duncan, who sprung to our defence. “I thought for a moment it must have been April 1. Carry on regardless,” she said, “you have almost no celebrity rubbish and that’s good enough.” Then came Val Murray, who, as well as upbraiding me for making light of our reprimand, says that we should get rid of Caught and Social, the “infantile rantings” of Deborah Ross and Cooper Brown, and the “inane articles” on lifestyle. She wants a paper with just news in it. See what I mean? We celebrate your individuality, dear i readers, but, boy, do you make it hard for us sometimes!
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments