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

161–170 of 365 posts

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

#161

Post by te_chris »

monksy wrote: post #140
te_chris wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hea…

"This isn't about my own personal stances."

I'm not trying to 'slander' your character. Your complaint with the Guardian was literally about an article calling out Milo, a controversial bigot who, as was recently revealed by BuzzFeed, fraternises with Nazis for his own gain. This is a pattern I've seen recur among angry MRA/alt-right types - saying they got sick of news source because of something related to feminism.

If you're not MRA/alt-right then I'm sorry, but I'd suggest picking your examples more carefully.

I'm not sure why the editor owed you a reply either. You're free to not read it. It can't have meant that much to you as you didn't seem to fight it all that hard.

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

#162

Post by tspiteri »

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-...

How would offshore tax structures help them, considering they're making losses at the moment?

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

#163

Post by stillkicking »

Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. 'Member when The Guardian was one of the outlets boldly reporting the Snowden and Manning leaks? I member.

Right now on their front page I can read how democracy is being undermined "by not distinguishing between fact and opinion". And you know what? They're right on this front. But they categorically refuse to point the fingers at all guilty parties, and instead stick to the targets that are politically opportune and which they are ideologically opposed to.

e.g. I have yet to see any mainstream outlet bother to mention that Reddit's default news and political subs turned into pro-Hillary/anti-Trump mouthpieces in the months leading up to the US election, an effect that was presumably related to the millions her campaign pumped into Correct The Record, and which had a _huge_ effect in creating and calcifying the "right wing hate subreddits" they now hysterically complain about.

e.g. I don't see anyone talking anymore about how the US pwned European infrastructure and broke into politicians' accounts (including Merkel's). But when Russia is said to be _attempting_ this, it is presented as akin to cybernetic warfare. Well in that case, America has been fighting WW3 under our noses, and they are equally reprehensible for doing so. Otherwise, this is simply how the game is being played, and all is fair in love and war. Which one is it? Because "muh russia" isn't a consistent stance on this. The response appears to be for suspiciously many people to start posting complaints about "whataboutism", in a spontaneous attempt at misdirection away from the hypocrisy. How curious.

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

#164

Post by JoeMalt »

campuscodi wrote: post #160

LOL @ the type of journalism The Guardian promotes... I'd rather burn money than support a publication that published articles to support my country's corrupt politicians. God forbid law enforcement investigate them. The Guardian always has their back.

What country is this?

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

#166

Post by Spivak »

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.

I'm not the person you replied to. I'm in no way threatened by my personal behavior being called out. I'm threatened because I'm lumped into the category of 'men' and then loaded with all the baggage of every man who I have zero connection with have done or said.

Don't get me wrong, I despise those shitty people too, but I also have a bone to pick with the people who are, successfully, generalizing the behavior to men.

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

#167

Post by stfu »

calcifer wrote: post #84
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…

> 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. Sure, you may not be a fan of it, but you don't find it a big enough problem to complain to the city. For the editorial in question, the subject is Trump and their opinion is that finding Trump not big enough a problem to complain about is not an acceptable posi…

What they are doing is advancing the politicizing of everything and driving an agenda of divisiveness.

Why is an artist is not allowed to be an artist anymore but needs to be an political activist?

Even worse, because TS doesn't follow the Guardian's absurd logic, they are trying to shame her with their imaginative interpretation.

That's not journalism, that is a 6-year old's fantasy world, who dreams up stories about celebrities and why they are their imaginary friends/enemies.

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

#168

Post by asymmetric »

monksy wrote: post #140
te_chris wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hea…

What has become your primary source?

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

#169

Post by wtf_is_up »

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.

>We've seen what happens (Trump, Brexit, etc.) when large sections of society retreat to personalised echo chambers.

I can't tell if you're talking about pro-{Trump,Brexit} or anti-{Trump,Brexit} supporters. I think there was some significant part of Trump's moderate voterbase composed of people turned off by the purity tests of the progressives and echo chambers like those manifested in /r/politics.

Post reply on HN