How to jazz up the tired newspaper review

When I worked at Sky News, one of the daily jobs in the radio team was to write a newspaper review. It was for radio stations across the UK to use, so they could talk about what was in the papers. When I was on the ‘red button’ team at Sky, we had to make sure we produced an edited version of the channel’s full paper review (or preview) to upload, because it was so popular.

I’ve been chatting to a colleague at Sky News about how that segment is still one of the most watched on the channel. I think it’s because it generates conversation and, obviously, opinion, which is more interesting than a lot of the linear news coverage away from breaking stories.

But it also surprises me how limited these paper reviews are. It’s often the same UK papers and the same voices digesting the coverage. I see or hear very little content from websites or international coverage. How are stories being reported around the world? Given the nature of news right now, I would find that fascinating. Why not see how newspapers across Europe, Asia and the Americas are talking about the stories affecting us or find out what stories are affecting them?

I also think the term ‘paper review’ is becoming increasingly irrelevant when so few people actually read newspapers. Yes, they still get exclusives, as we have seen recently with Reform UK, but stories can also emerge from other places — and so can the conversations around those stories.

It would be interesting to see and hear a ‘media review’ rather than something focused solely on newspapers. That could include significant ‘influencer’ voices, podcasts, websites and international media, broadening out the lens. It may also help traditional media connect more with younger audiences.

I remember when Radio 4 started throwing BuzzFeed into its paper review to try and be ‘young’, but that felt like a lazy nod towards a different audience. Like a lot of linear content that is stuck in certain formats, I think the ‘paper review’ could be a lot more dynamic.

And vary the guests more too, please. Drop some of the same old, mostly middle-class, voices we hear so much. Get different people on, with different views and insights, who don’t live in the media or Westminster bubble that tends to dominate these discussions.

The papers aren't the only place where the conversation is happening. So why are we still reviewing them as if they are?