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

191–200 of 365 posts

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

#191

Post by mitjak »

stfu wrote: post #167
calcifer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 abou…

But everything is already political? They're saying that _this_ specific person should have a more explicitly political stance, and not taking one is a political stance still.

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

#192

Post by khawkins »

stillkicking wrote: post #163

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 fro…

> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces.

Won't this crowdfunding potentially polarize journalism even more? In general, individuals are more passionate about their political opinions and social causes than for neutral, high-quality journalism which sometimes confirms, sometimes rejects their world-views. You also invite strong pressures from well funded special interest groups, seeking to borrow on the credibility of journalism to promote a particular world view.

At the very least, it's much harder to get businesses to openly profess a particular political view. Often those which do face huge backlash and more ill-will towards their brands than the good-will they're trying to foster with ads.

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

#193

Post by eighthnate »

jimnotgym wrote: post #188
stillkicking wrote: post #163

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 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

Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations? It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda.

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

#194

Post by vanderZwan »

caoilte wrote: post #18

That certainly highlights the importance of the right UX, but I wish they had invested in Patreon style features to allow support for specific authors. I would pay £5/month to the Guardian and be happy for them to take a 30% administrative cut if they ring fenced the rest for writers I want to support. The Scott Trust has failed to preserve a newspaper that is fiercely independent. Only experimenting with democratisa…

> That certainly highlights the importance of the right UX, but I wish they had invested in Patreon style features to allow support for specific authors.

They undoubtedly keep track of which articles generate most clicks. Then again, clicks are a terrible metric.

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

#195

Post by Nursie »

stillkicking wrote: post #163

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 fro…

I have to agree, the Guardian has degenerated substantially. I think the stuff on the Panama papers is good, but a lot of the content seems to be loony-leftie territory, and very divisive.

Then there's the constant undercurrent of finger-wagging superiority.

The right-wing UK press have a superiority complex too, which I'd describe more as arrogant than finger-wagging. I'd generally rather read the guardian than most of the rest, but TBH in this day and age I'd be happy enough to watch them all sink without a trace.

Long live the BBC. Now if they can just clone David Attenborough and get the clones to read the news and pretty much any other factual programs, we'd be on to a winner.

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

#196

Post by mitchty »

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.

Its a stupid stance, and rather easy to refute. Good reasons for Taylor not to say anything: she doesn't want to.

Nobody complains about my stance of not talking about unicorns as being pro unicorn. Complaining about Taylor Swift not taking a stance on trump as being pro trump is a failure in logic at the most basic level.

How about we stop caring so much what celebrities think instead?

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

#197

Post by dominotw »

mayneack wrote: post #183
stillkicking wrote: post #163

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 fro…

The Guardian on "Correct the record": https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awww.theguardian.com+%... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/13/wikile... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/sep/15/bernie-sande... https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/17/when-is-a-ca...

> "Correct the Record, that is solely focused on defending her record."

> “Correct the Record”, a rapid rebuttal unit

Portraying them as some sort of superhero warriors/defenders is precisely what OP was talking about.

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

#198

Post by standupstandup »

khawkins wrote: post #192
stillkicking wrote: post #163

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 fro…

> Now imagine how much more they'd make if they actually published quality material instead of culture war clickbait and freshman opinion pieces. Won't this crowdfunding potentially polarize journalism even more? In general, individuals are more passionate about their political opinions and social causes than for neutral, high-quality journalism which sometimes confirms, sometimes rejects their world-views. You also…

Yes. That's probably why the Guardian feels so much more extreme and polarised than it used to. I thought a lot of it was due to Rusbridger leaving, but I guess the switch to begging for donations is a contributor too. Subscribers have made a conscious choice to pay for a long term stream of news because they want a service they can get only by paying. Donators get it for free so will only donate if it pushes their emotional buttons, it's not a trade.

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

#199

Post by sideshowb »

Nursie wrote: post #195
stillkicking wrote: post #163

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 fro…

I have to agree, the Guardian has degenerated substantially. I think the stuff on the Panama papers is good, but a lot of the content seems to be loony-leftie territory, and very divisive. Then there's the constant undercurrent of finger-wagging superiority. The right-wing UK press have a superiority complex too, which I'd describe more as arrogant than finger-wagging. I'd generally rather read the guardian than most…

The BBC has its own problems. https://www.theguardian.com/media/2003/jul/04/Iraqandthemedi...

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

#200

Post by Arnt »

Chris2048 wrote: post #105
Arnt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That's a strange question. Do you perhaps mean: as opposed by judging by proxies like nuance, complicated sentences, absence of sensationalism, etc?

Hindsight is one way. A reader looking for quality publications can wait a month, reconsider and form a conclusion.

Post reply on HN