I'd love to be able to microdonate to individual pieces of content on not just The Guardian but across the web.
have you seen Flattr? Sounds like exactly that
Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
181–190 of 365 posts
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#182Now 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 fro…
I remember seeing an article from them arguing that we get rid of white emoji to punish white people for racism written by someone woman with pink hair and half her head shaved. Ever since then I've wondered if they're actually doing journalism, if they're actively trying to sabotage the left, or if they're really just that off their fucking rocker.
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#183Now 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 fro…
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#184Now 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 fro…
I remember seeing an article from them arguing that we get rid of white emoji to punish white people for racism written by someone woman with pink hair and half her head shaved. Ever since then I've wondered if they're actually doing journalism, if they're actively trying to sabotage the left, or if they're really just that off their fucking rocker.
I can't say that's a surprising headline for them anymore
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#185Earlier 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.
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 Guardian was so like the Wikipedia model that Jimmy Wales was a board member of the trust. I would add a link to his wiki entry but it seems a bit recursive
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
Similarly, I'd pay for a publication that brought me news I was interested in and covered both sides of every debate, instead of obviously catering to one side or the other constantly. They'd have to cover each side well, obviously.
This is the problem with modern media IMO, each side presents their own side to their viewers in a logical matter-of-fact way (almost dismissively, though, of finer details) but only picks the most egregiously bad logic / moral failings of the other side to show to their supporters. So each side thinks the other is crazy because they only see the ~1-5% of the other side that gets paraded around for their idiocy. Even…
Agreed. It would be great if news pieces would constantly steel man "the other side" instead of constantly pushing their readers towards one of the extremes by confirming all of their already held stereotypes.
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm no fan of Milo (kinda hate the guy honestly), but I'm not sure if "talking with sources about the topic of an article" really qualifies as fraternizing. That sort of thing is somewhat of a job requirement if you intend to write about the topic honestly. What's he supposed to do, not treat this like real journalism and just publish whatever negative quotes he can get from anyone about it?
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#188Now 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 fro…
> e.g. I don't see anyone talking anymore about how the US pwned European infrastructure and broke into politicians' accounts (including Merkel's).
The Guardian did, however, break the story of the connection between the Brexit campaign and Bannon and Cambridge Analytica and Mercer et al. See Carole Cadwalleder's long series on this
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#189Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
As I stated before: I don't care about why you don't like Milo. What is important and what the news should be covering: Why are people taking a liking to him. (And do so in an impartial way without trying to fill the article with 80% hit-pieces) What is he saying and doing is catching a lot of attention? Why are his speeches resonating? How is he in existence? (Is his actions/his character in response to others) > th…
You don't seem to grasp the difference between news articles and opinion pieces. The latter is by definition subjective, and is featured to provide an outlet for subjective views, as opposed to the former that is supposed to at least strive to be neutral, objective, and fact-based.
The article you started your rant with is an opinion piece and is clearly marked as such. It is not a news story.
Re: Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads
#190Now 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 fro…
> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces.
They've always published clickbait. But member donations will make it worse since the guardian has to cater to their members.
It's why NPR is so skewed and biased. They have to cater to their members who are extremely biased. If they stop being biased, their members will stop supporting them.
> 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,
Because the news organization employees took over major subreddits. There was NPR and WaPo employees begging everyone to support their organizations on the politics sub. It was ridiculous. It's why I stopped using reddit altogether.
It's pretty much "I hate Trump" and "support media by joining or buying a subscription.