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

131–140 of 365 posts

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

#131

Post by m00g00 »

joosters wrote: post #127
m00g00 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Show me a comments section of an online newspaper that isn't full of bile and hate? It unfortunately seems unavoidable, and so many publications are just removing their comments sections. Much better than leaving the hate in, IMO.

It's the selective nature of their disabling of comments. Notice on this very article, at the top, is a link to a review by The Guardian of Swift's new album, and comments are enabled for it.

Both articles are obviously opinions, so why the difference? Only thing I can think of is one is more likely to see a backlash in the comments (because the article is ridiculous and deserves it) than the other.

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

#132

Post by dv_dt »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #65
guelo wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make your content only available for paid subscribers than it doesn't get talked about. If you don't get talked about you lose the importance of being the so-called "newspaper of record". And if you don't get talked about you lose the new subscribers that come from word of mouth. In the old days there was just a few options available in a city and a handful of national papers. Today there is an almost infinite…

> If you make your content only available for paid subscribers than it doesn't get talked about This doesn’t seem to apply to the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal .

Having a market catering to an older, richer, and more data driven niche has it's advantages. They are subject to some the same pressures as newspapers, but likely will gain effect at a later time frame then more general newspapers. They also deliver data that is more niche, and less likely to be delivered by alternate channels.

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

#133

Post by combatentropy »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #91
f055 wrote: post #10

This. Years ago it was obvious to most newspapers that paid subscribers are their lifeline. Advertisers come and go, daily sales come and go, but long-period subscribers keep you afloat. Somehow, when the respected newspapers moved to the web, they forgot that, and kept pumping ads like crazy. This, in essence, moved the sense of their product from quality content to clickable content - these two don't mix. Consequen…

Also, individuals paying for a subscription have no effect on the editorial line of a given newspaper. There's been a case recently in France where a billionaire was involved in the infamous Paradise Papers. Some newspaper wrote a lengthy piece about it and it turns out said billionaire pulled 600.000 euros of ads from the outlet a few weeks later. Totally coincidental of course :) That cannot really happen with actu…

37Signals said the same thing about applications. Better to have 10,000 users at $30 per month than 100 at $3,000 per month.

If a single customer is paying a lot, then you are tempted to make whatever changes they ask for to your application, and it's harder to stand up against featuritis or illogical design.

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

#134

Post by lin_lin »

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...

What utter rubbish. Just when you think it's already reached "Peak Guardian", they come out with that.

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

#135

Post by stfu »

nasredin wrote: post #120
stfu wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo No, they are assuming that everyone must have an opinion. It seems outside of their reality to accept that people don't care about the things they care about. Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. I…

"The hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who in time of moral crisis preserve their neutrality."?

A 'moral crisis' for the Guardian's editorial board is not a moral crisis for a 20-something popstar.

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

#136

Post by vixen99 »

tclancy wrote: post #119
walshemj wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For most papers, I'd say it's safe to assume the editorial staff do not make financial decisions.

What they (the finance department) do (minimization of their tax bill) is legal and sensible and necessary for the paper's survival. If it were not and this was known to the staff, it would be no excuse morally or legally to say that the staff 'don't make these decisions'.

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

#137

Post by squeeeeeeeeeee »

Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian - I'm sorry, is this a joke? Buzzfeed (yes, that Buzzfeed... well when they're not making one of their retarded videos and actually do some investigative journalism) has higher journalistic value than The Guardian.

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

#138

Post by untog »

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…

It's an opinion column. It contains opinions. Why should we be tolerant of Milo's opinions, but intolerant of someone who says we should speak out against his opinions?

Complaining about newspaper opinion sections being a platform for pushing political views... that's what they're there for, and why they've existed for hundreds of years before now. You haven't even read the article, so you've obviously arrived with an axe to grind and are just trying to find something that fits.

> Brexit happens despite the upper class talking down and ignoring the larger population

Yeah, no. Brexit is very popular with the upper class. They're going to make a lot of money from it.

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

#140

Post by monksy »

te_chris wrote: post #38
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?

Some men feel weirdly threatened by the possibility of a world where their less than stellar behaviour towards women might be called out. Every comment like the one you're replying to is the same "I loved X until they lost all credibility and became biased by Y" where Y = calling out shitty MRA/Alt-right activist figures.

Nice try at attempting to slander my character or political stances: but no dice for you. This isn't about my own personal stances. It's about the publication and if you can call it news.

I'm really not sure where the MRA or comments on women came from in my original comment.

The Guardian (And the BBC) used to my main source for international news, and cultural trends until about 2012ish. That's when they started heavily featuring columnists that put out articles similar to the one that I mentioned. I wrote a letter to an editor with a concern, it got ignored. I stopped taking them seriously (as a whole) and reading as a primary source.

Post reply on HN