Asking members to support journalism, The Guardian raises more revenue than ads • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by ouid » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 6:50 PM UTC

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…

You and a friend go to a house on halloween and there's a bowl that says take one. You sheepishly take two, and your friend, after you, empties the entire bowl into his sack.

You ask of him, outraged, "How could you do such a malicious thing?!" and he responds, "Me?!?! what about you?!"

This is whataboutism, and yeah, you're guilty of it. Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing. Pointing fingers at "all guilty parties" means pointing fingers almost exclusively at republicans.

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

#202

Post by benchaney » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 6:51 PM UTC

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."?

Dante's Inferno is not actually a good source of morality.

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

#203

Post by Nursie » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 6:51 PM UTC

sideshowb wrote: post #199

Nursie wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

It's certainly not perfect, but I'll take it over the rest of what's on offer the vast majority of the time.

And 14 years is a long old time...

FWIW I agree with the findings in that piece, the BBC were too shy about holding the government to account during the buildup to the Iraq war.

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

#204

Post by standupstandup » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 6:52 PM UTC

funkythingss wrote: post #184

jrs95 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Lots of downvoting from Guardian fans in this thread. Other entertaining headlines:

"Teaching my child to cook does not make me a bad feminist"

"Why do women lie more than men? Because we're 'nicer'"

"Feminists don't hate men. But it wouldn't matter if we did"

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

#205

Post by hitekker » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

ouid wrote: post #201

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…

You and a friend go to a house on halloween and there's a bowl that says take one. You sheepishly take two, and your friend, after you, empties the entire bowl into his sack. You ask of him, outraged, "How could you do such a malicious thing?!" and he responds, "Me?!?! what about you?!" This is whataboutism, and yeah, you're guilty of it. Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left w…

I'd caveat this by saying that corrupt democrats do exist; not every democrat is pure and truthful. Far from it, a good swathe of them are likely just politicians with their own self interest. The left is very much not sunshine and rainbows.

However, you are correct in noting that the parent commenter desperately wants to paint both sides as biased, guilty, and debased, in order to excuse the wrongdoings of the cause he fervently supports.

"If I can convince myself that everyone did what we did, then there's nothing wrong if we continue to do it!"

Ah, projection; the mark of the politically insecure.

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

#206

Post by lucozade » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 6:53 PM UTC

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 is the only British newspaper that genuinely makes me laugh. Every now and then it gets so tied up in knots with its internal contradictions that it intellectually implodes.

Corbyn's been the main cause of that recently. Even the leftie journalists were starting to get a bit twitchy that he might actually do something leftie.

As I'm writing this, the UK edition is leading with Prince Harry marrying (presumably republicans can like royals). It's running alongside an opinion piece stating that the marriage will change Britain's relationship with race forever. Not entirely clear why other than there has to be a gender/sexuality/race angle (just because). So that story's shaping up nicely.

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

#207

Post by ogre_magi » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 6:56 PM UTC

ouid wrote: post #201

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…

You and a friend go to a house on halloween and there's a bowl that says take one. You sheepishly take two, and your friend, after you, empties the entire bowl into his sack. You ask of him, outraged, "How could you do such a malicious thing?!" and he responds, "Me?!?! what about you?!" This is whataboutism, and yeah, you're guilty of it. Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left w…

Both sides perceive the outgroup as the source of all evil in the world. You could replace left/right and republican/democrat in your comment and there would be people on the other side who sincerely believe it as much as you do.

Neither claim is accurate.

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

#208

Post by jimnotgym » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 6:58 PM UTC

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…

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

The Brexiteers as the leading group like to style themselves (I prefer BeLeaver), are a bunch of the most priviledged upper class old boys of the most expensive schools in England. Boris the Clown went to Eton. Jacob Rees-Mogg got his nanny to deliver election leaflets...and also went to Eton. Farage himself is an ex stock-broker and also attended a top school. This arguement does not hold water

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

#209

Post by kibwen » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 7:00 PM UTC

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 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

Presumably because that didn't happen in the slightest, but I'll forgive your lapse of memory. Before the nomination, all the presumably "left-leaning" subreddits (like /r/politics) were firmly in Sanders' camp and out for Clinton's head. After the nomination the battleground only intensified, and the schism continued through the election. Meanwhile, the news subreddits like /r/news and /r/worldnews oscillated wildly between pro-Republican and pro-Democrat, major subs like /r/trees were vaguely pro-Trump (on balance, /r/TwoXChromosomes was vaguely pro-Clinton), and /r/all was completely overrun at all hours of the day by /r/the_donald's successful exploitation of Reddit's front page algorithm. Anyone claiming that Reddit was "pro-Hillary" must have been in a coma for all of 2016 (not that I blame them, I bet half of us here wish we had been too).

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

#210

Post by hitekker » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 7:01 PM UTC

ogre_magi wrote: post #207

ouid wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You and a friend go to a house on halloween and there's a bowl that says take one. You sheepishly take two, and your friend, after you, empties the entire bowl into his sack. You ask of him, outraged, "How could you do such a malicious thing?!" and he responds, "Me?!?! what about you?!" This is whataboutism, and yeah, you're guilty of it. Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left w…

Both sides perceive the outgroup as the source of all evil in the world. You could replace left/right and republican/democrat in your comment and there would be people on the other side who sincerely believe it as much as you do. Neither claim is accurate.

For those curious, I'd recommend looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_equivalence or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance.

Sometimes, right and wrong isn't always obvious. To know one from another may require effort and thought.

Often times, the truth is somewhere in the middle, and so we develop instincts that ensure we can take a step back and not immediately point fingers.

That's good; most of us don't think of ourselves as political idiots, where any dog whistle will make us jump through hoops, raging at some invisible enemy.

But there are times when the truth clearly falls much more on one side than the other. And in those times, saying "well I thought both parties were wrong, but it turns out that one was and is right" can be a rather scary prospect!

But I think it's better to be a little embarrassed than to run away from the world's problems.