As for the BBC, their daily news agenda is shaped by the morning’s newspapers - Times, Sun, Express, Telegraph, Mail - go figure what slant their output will have.

PS belatedly, good to see you back Garry.

Yes, generally people are stupid, and/or malleable. The tabloids like to shout about how we lefties believe people are impressionable idiots, whilst taking advantage of the fact that, sometimes, they actually are. Combine football, boobs, astrology and agony aunts with a story on how terrorism is increasing, Muslims are terrorists, immigrants are Muslims, and immigration is killing our country, and you’re on to a winner.

The broadsheets can not afford to be quite so crass, but nevertheless push the same agendas.

I’d argue that the British newspaper market isn’t just a pure opinions market. If it was, I’d agree with you but for a rag like the Sun, the political output is just a small part of its sales pitch. It can chase sales in other ways; boobs, good sports coverage, cheap holiday offers, aggressive pricing and so on are used to good effect.

They then editorialise news reports, including in the stories they choose to cover, to promote or ridicule opinions (and sometimes individual politicians). Andrew Neil called it the “drip drip effect” if I remember rightly.

Changing tack slightly, if it is/was true that competitive media merely reflects public opinion, then surely that’d also affect the BBC. Although it’s publicly funded, it still has competitors. If it’s output was as slanted and out of touch as some people maintain, it’d lose viewers to its competitors just like any other broadcaster. As I understand it, that’s not happening.

Seriously though, there has been research into whether the media shapes opinions or reflects previously held ones. In competetive ons (like newspapers) it appears that they reflect, not create.