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

101–110 of 365 posts

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

#101

Post by walshemj »

gadders wrote: post #92
alva wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Important to note that the Guardian is not actually financially successful at all. They have been suffering heavy losses for years http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/02/01/heavy-losses-...

They also make use of offshore tax structures to minimise their taxes, such as the £302m profit from selling Auto Trader magazine. https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-...

Yes some what ironic given there role in the paradise papers etc newspapers and the media are always do what I say not what I or my owner does

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

#102

Post by muro »

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?

Don't opinion pieces work like that?

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

#103

Post by m00g00 »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #45
scandox wrote: post #42

I sometimes feel like there isn't much alternative to The Guardian - on the other hand the opinion pieces are often wearisome and at times the whole thing starts to feel like a parody of itself. It is as if, in becoming "worthy" of "support" it has to crank itself up to an insane degree...just as sugary drinks become more sugary over time to retain their core drinkers. This is especially noticeable when ludicrous lif…

What about the recent editorial condemning Taylor Swift: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu...

Notice also, no byline, and no comments allowed. The Guardian often panders to culture war outrage bait then hides behind taking responsibility or criticism with tricks like this, and the fact that an occasional decent article exists.

Why again does this failing rag deserve support, and why is this obvious propaganda upvoted to the top of HN?

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

#104

Post by calcifer »

gadders wrote: post #100
calcifer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. > nepotist trap it has fallen into. Would you care to elaborate on these a little bit? I'm a long time supporter of Guardian and this is the first time I've seen a nepotism complaint.

I guess it's Alan Rusbridger employing his wife and daughter: http://www.anorak.co.uk/393065/reviews/nepotism-watch-the-gu...

Nice find, thank you. If this is true, the Guardian should definitely address it. I'll probably write to them myself after investigating a bit.

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

#105

Post by Chris2048 »

Arnt wrote: post #20
amriksohata wrote: post #6

The physcology behind this is more political than business, the guardian is a lefty newspaper and is getting political support

You're making an unsupported assertion that people pay for leftist writing rather than for quality writing. Please supply arguments to support that.

Assuming "quality" means accuracy/truthfulness, how can the average reader rate the quality of any writing?

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

#106

Post by Chris2048 »

radmuzom wrote: post #8
amriksohata wrote: post #6

The physcology behind this is more political than business, the guardian is a lefty newspaper and is getting political support

While this comment is down-voted, it is not necessarily wrong. As an Indian, I was so exasperated after Americans voted a criminal as the President that I subscribed to multiple organizations which are considered left-wing by American conservatives or libertarians. These include regular fees to NY Times, Propublica and Guardian with occasional donations to various organizations in the United States.

> I was so exasperated after Americans voted a criminal as the President

The other candidate was Hillary, so the Americans had no choice in voting for a criminal.

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

#107

Post by throwawayyx96 »

calcifer wrote: post #85
throwawayyx96 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not so much the message as its persistence, timing and size. It shows up every time and takes up half the screen. It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. Feels like one of those many many sites that immediately ask you to fill out a feedback form before you've even browsed anything. If it's not a beg, it's most certainly a nag.

> its persistence, timing and size. > It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. What do you mean ? It's an inline box that always appears after the article. It's not a popup, it doesn't hinder navigation, it doesn't even have position:fixed so you can just scroll by it if you want. I don't think they could be nicer about it if they trie…

You're mistaken. There are two separate messages - a popover that appears at the bottom of the screen every time you browse a page (whether it be the front page, an article, etc.) AND the more innocuous inline text at the end of every article that you mention.

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

#108

Post by Chris2048 »

pjc50 wrote: post #80
KozmoNau7 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Where is this pointed out?

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

#109

Post by calcifer »

throwawayyx96 wrote: post #107
calcifer wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its persistence, timing and size. > It would also be nice if the reader was given some time to read actual content before being blasted with the message again. What do you mean ? It's an inline box that always appears after the article. It's not a popup, it doesn't hinder navigation, it doesn't even have position:fixed so you can just scroll by it if you want. I don't think they could be nicer about it if they trie…

You're mistaken. There are two separate messages - a popover that appears at the bottom of the screen every time you browse a page (whether it be the front page, an article, etc.) AND the more innocuous inline text at the end of every article that you mention.

Ah, sorry. I never saw such a popover. Probably due to adblock.

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

#110

Post by return0 »

r3bl wrote: post #48
return0 wrote: post #27

Imagine if browser vendors added some form of online payment directly into the browser (like , i don't know , bitcoin).

Try to convince every website owner ever to accept the same payment methods. Both Brave and Flattr are attempting the same, both have little to no success for that simple reason.

To be fair those are not major browsers. Firefox would be an obvious experimental vehicle, and the choice of bitcoin would be the least objectionable payment method (of the alternatives).
Post reply on HN