Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

niemanlab.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 365 posts

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#71

Post by pjc50 »

monksy wrote: post #49
calcifer wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That opinion piece is titled " If Milo Yiannopoulos has huge support in Australia, men must call him out". I wasn't aware of the article before your post, but now that I've read it, I don't see anything controversial (much less "atrocious") in it. Care to elaborate?

I just typed it directly from my phone. That must have been updated. Haven't read the article, because I've seen numerous others from the news source. The issue I have with an article with a title like this: Why is it a bad thing to support Milo? Why is it "men who need to be called to fight"? (I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that) T…

> platforms have been used to push political stances.

It's called a newspaper.

The British press have never had the American obsession with pretending to be impartial. This has its advantages and disadvantages, but one implication is that it's very clear which party and what politics is supported by which paper.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#72

Post by librvf »

calcifer wrote: post #55
monksy wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just typed it directly from my phone. That must have been updated. Haven't read the article, because I've seen numerous others from the news source. The issue I have with an article with a title like this: Why is it a bad thing to support Milo? Why is it "men who need to be called to fight"? (I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that) T…

> Haven't read the article Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title? > I don't care about reasons why you don't like Milo. I'm suggesting they're a person with different opinions, respect that Just a cursory search into who Milo is, what he says and does will show you he is a deeply, virulently intolerant person. And in order to…

> Wow, so you are complaining about, and asking questions to the author of, an article based purely on your perception of its title?

He's talking about The Guardian and how he doesn't read it anymore. He didn't attribute the author specifically. It doesn't matter whether it was the original author or Guardian's editors guilty of publishing the offensive content.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#73

Post by Chris2048 »

calcifer wrote: post #64
scandox wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my problem here is not the analytical over-reach - it's an editorial that mentions Taylor Swift...

I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.

> since the status quo is Trump

Why would a British newspaper think that?

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#74

Post by scandox »

calcifer wrote: post #64
scandox wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See my problem here is not the analytical over-reach - it's an editorial that mentions Taylor Swift...

I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.

Yeah I get that. It’s not crazy. It’s just a world away from the kind of thing I can engage with. If that means I’m on my way out in terms of relevance I’d accept that. I’m not cross about it...I just can’t take it seriously.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#75

Post by stdbrouw »

harryf wrote: post #61
drinchev wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note that Guardian is successful, because of "supporters" and not >subscribers<. It's different than WSJ, where they lock the content, until you pay. The Guardian way looks more like the Wikipedia one.

> The Guardian way looks more like the Wikipedia one Have any newspapers experimented with crowd-funding stories? This Niemanlabs report suggests none of the big names had as of Sept 2016 - http://niemanreports.org/articles/crowdfunding-the-news/ - wonder if that's changed?

The newspapers haven't but some of their journalists certainly have, through (now defunct) platforms like spot.us or even just Kickstarter. The way I see it, working as a data journalist, the problem is that you never know beforehand what will turn up and "we will spend three months investigating this thing and who knows, maybe something interesting will turn up or maybe nothing at all" is not something you can easily get people excited about.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#76

Post by disantlor »

Pxtl wrote: post #50
aleph_naught wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really like the wikipedia model, but I know it wouldnt work for every outlet. I’ve contributed more to public radio and wikipedia than any other news service subscription. Ideally, nytimes/wapo/economist would be completely open, and one would be able to ‘donate’ with a single press of the apple pay button. I prefer that over yet another username password combo + subscription + app echo system I need to maintain. O…

The big worry is that this doesn't work for local news at all. The nitty gritty details of governance happen at the local level - municipal and state/provincial legislatures. Journalism on that stuff doesn't scale.

but local ads on local content are legitimately useful and the only type of display ad i’ve ever clicked on.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#77

Post by calcifer »

Chris2048 wrote: post #73
calcifer wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.

> since the status quo is Trump Why would a British newspaper think that?

It's an international newspaper, which has significantly invested in their US presence [1] in the past decade.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#78

Post by dageshi »

Supernaut wrote: post #36
monksy wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would agree with the concept of only supporting the writers that you like. I used to like the Guardian because they had good journalism. However, the opinion pieces are absolutely atrocious and detract the quality of the paper. For example, there was an article in my google now articles recommended from the guardian that was "Milo Yiannopolous has huge support in Australia, men must call him out."

I too find some of the Guardian's columnists truly exasperating. However, isn't it important that they be given space to voice their opinions? Very occasionally, they give me pause for thought, and that's important. We've seen what happens (Trump, Brexit, etc.) when large sections of society retreat to personalised echo chambers.

The Guardian is catering to its own specific echo chamber demographic and everyone else is retreating to theirs. My personal level of exasperation with the guardians CIF section got me to the point where I just stopped going to the site at all, it's now right up there with Facebook with me as a pointless waste of time and source of annoyance.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#79

Post by bazoiks »

Not that surprising. Guardian readers (Champaign socialists) have money, and would rather donate it to the propaganda outlet that pushes their agenda, than to random internet ads. Not sure what bearing this has on any other news site, or any other website though. Unless it happens to have the same sort of readership which is very unlikely.

Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads

#80

Post by pjc50 »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #21
floatboth wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NY Times is far from "considered left-wing". It's currently heavily criticized for publishing terrible articles sympathizing with and humanizing literal neo-nazis.

Well, neo-nazis are humans, and we should never forget that fact. They're not mindless monsters, they're actual living breathing people, and only by understanding that fact can we surmise their motivations and act against them.

As someone pointed out, the coverage of neo-nazis was far more favourable and humanising than most of the coverage of black people wrongly shot by police. And surprisingly similar to a lot of the 1930s coverage of Hitler's charming dinner parties.

Fascism generally is charming until you're on the wrong end of the jackboot.

Post reply on HN