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

231–240 of 365 posts

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

#231

Post by dominotw »

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…

>Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing.

How is that?

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

#232

Post by ogre_magi »

hsod wrote: post #227
ogre_magi wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't subscribe to an objective morality. There are things that I value and attempt to maximize, but I don't feel the need to compel all sentients in the universe to adopt my position. I'm willing to "live and let live," with the understanding that conflict will still happen sometimes and that's okay.

There need not be an objective morality for us to bring our values into our politics. Politics is the way we make collective decisions about things of mutual importance. What's important to you? What would a society full of people who refuse to advocate for their own values out of a sense of meta-ethical relativism look like?

I'm not telling you not to bring your values into politics.

I'm not some kind of relativism evangelist. That's a strawman that multiple commenters here are standing up.

This all started with one commenter saying that his outgroup is uniquely evil, and me replying that it was a matter of perspective. Both sides get to bring their values into politics.

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

#233

Post by te_chris »

Spivak wrote: post #166
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.

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 me…

No you're not, I explicitly said 'some'. I'm also a man. I abhor the shitty behaviour, but I recognise that our current conceptions of masculinity enable it - and trap us too. I've been through a few phases with my discovery and reconciliation with feminism, from ignorance, to ridicule, to acknowledgement and some very uncomfortable realisations about my own past behaviour, to now being full-on on board. Feminst arguments aren't just about women, they're about everyone living in a society where masculinity is just one of many forces, balanced with others. Parts of my life are now like this and it's awesome, and actually freeing from all the dullness of traditional masculinity and dominance.

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

#234

Post by hitekker »

hsod wrote: post #227
ogre_magi wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't subscribe to an objective morality. There are things that I value and attempt to maximize, but I don't feel the need to compel all sentients in the universe to adopt my position. I'm willing to "live and let live," with the understanding that conflict will still happen sometimes and that's okay.

There need not be an objective morality for us to bring our values into our politics. Politics is the way we make collective decisions about things of mutual importance. What's important to you? What would a society full of people who refuse to advocate for their own values out of a sense of meta-ethical relativism look like?

If I recall correctly, the leadership of LessWrong espouses "Politics is the mindkiller".

Consequently, their followers will find all manners of justification to avoid applying their rationality to political subjects, in the guise of some holier-than-thou enlightenment.

Ironically, this actually helps to sustain their membership. Broaching politics would risk schisms within their enervated movement, as a group who believes "Global Warming is irrational" but wouldn't otherwise discuss it, would be forced to confront an opposing group which does.

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

#235

Post by stabbles »

Can't be happier with this! Proof that people are willing to pay for quality.

In The Netherlands we just got news that public service television etc sees an unexpected drop of income through ads (they're 60 mln euros short on budget in 2019). The quality of the online public news service is declining (clickbait titles for instance). Hopefully The Guardian sets an example!

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

#236

Post by theoh »

hitekker wrote: post #205
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…

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…

You presumably don't mean "99% of democrats are not pure and truthful." Did you mean that apart from 1% bad apples, they are? Because what you wrote condemns 99% of them. Difference between "not everyone is pure" and "everyone is not pure".

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

#237

Post by m00g00 »

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."?

You meant "moral panic" right?

"They're burning all the witches even if you aren't one..."

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

#238

Post by vog »

dominotw wrote: post #231
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…

>Our right wing is at least two orders of magnitude more corrupt than our left wing. How is that?

Maybe this is easier to understand when looking across the borders, to the extremists.

Here in Germany I often hear the phrase: "Left extremists set fire to cars, right extremists set fire to people."

Of course this is oversimplified, yet there is quite some truth in it.

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

#239

Post by caoilte »

ChrisSD wrote: post #29
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…

Ring fencing a percentage for specific authors sounds like a good idea but in practice you end up giving a portion of editorial control to wealthy donors. This is not good for any independent news media.

Theyre already doing that with the sponsored content section and some really worrying companies (eg Facebook).

Individual contributions towards specific causes could very easily be capped if they were worried about distortion.

In practice, as the UK Labour party has shown - create the right structures and you can drive out mega donors. The UK Labour party has gone from majority funded by millionaires to majority funded by small donors. The guardian could very easily take up the same democratic clarion call.

But they don't want to.

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

#240

Post by icebraining »

jrs95 wrote: post #182
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 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.

Meh, it's an opinion column, and fairly innofensive at that. In the same period, the NYTimes had an opinion article literally called:

"To Stop Iran’s Bomb, Bomb Iran"

I prefer the war on the white emoji, personally.

Post reply on HN