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

241–250 of 365 posts

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

#241

Post by m00g00 »

mitjak wrote: post #191
stfu wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"Everyone is jumping off cliffs therefore so should you"

This is nothing but grade-school peer pressure coming from adults and supposedly legitimate news organizations.

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

#242

Post by Chris2048 »

Arnt wrote: post #200
Chris2048 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes. But what conclusion can time bring? What independent conclusion can be better formed at a later date?

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

#243

Post by jimnotgym »

A quick review of UK print media

1) The Times - Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece. Employs MP Michael Gove for £100k a year after he was sacked for being a backstabber.

2) The Mail - "The EU and immigrants want to kill your children and sleep with your sister and may even affect your house price". Billionaire owner too.

3) The Telegraph - "The Torygraph" former paper of the ruling classes, now mouth piece of two weird billionaire brothers who live in a castle on an island like particularly boring bond villains.

4) The Express - "Princes Diana wanted Brexit". Owned by billionaire Richard "not a pornographer" Desmond

5) The Sun - Rupert Murdoch's gutter mouthpiece

6) The News of the World - Rupert's other paper that had to close because they hacked the voice mail of a girl who was murdered, and therefore delayed the police investigation.

7) The Mirror - low grade leftism, but mostly celeb gossip

8) The Financial Times - Pretty good journalism and then pages of bond prices etc

9) The Independent. No longer in print. Billionaire Arab and Russian owners

edit: from comments there is a number 10

10) The i - a lower case Independent. Thinner, cheaper and still in print. This main use for the i seems to be to leave it on train seats when the Metro (a free paper they give out in railway stations) is just too cheap. The journalism seems OK. Owned by establishment media PLC

So if you didn't want Brexit, think immigration is helping demographics, think Princess Di should be laid to rest now and don't think the world is full of benefit scroungers, there is only the Guardian left.

edit: formatting and a sad inability to list numbers

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

#244

Post by hitekker »

theoh wrote: post #236
hitekker wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Good point, but I did actually mean to put down 99% of democrat leaders. To be "pure and truthful" to me is a high standard, which most of our representatives do not currently meet.

I have updated my comment to clarify.

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

#245

Post by root_axis »

ogre_magi wrote: post #212
hitekker wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

We probably don't share the same values, and would not be able to reach consensus on the "right side." This is an acceptable and unavoidable situation that technocrats need to learn to live with. People will want different outcomes, and will have different moral matrices. People on the left and right will each disagree with the other side's characterization of their politician's sins. Edit: Just want to note that the…

People on both sides pretty much share the same values; social issues are a big exception, but the crux of the disagreement between the right and left very often comes down to a disagreement about facts on the ground (e.g. lowering taxes on the rich creates jobs, net-neutrality harms customers and innovation, a minimally regulated market provides better and cheaper healthcare than single-payer, human behavior has no or negligible impact on climate etc)

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

#246

Post by ouid »

f055 wrote: post #10

This. Years ago it was obvious to most newspapers that paid subscribers are their lifeline. Advertisers come and go, daily sales come and go, but long-period subscribers keep you afloat. Somehow, when the respected newspapers moved to the web, they forgot that, and kept pumping ads like crazy. This, in essence, moved the sense of their product from quality content to clickable content - these two don't mix. Consequen…

in a society with such dramatic wealth inequality, subscription can never be a viable business model for journalism. If you aren't charging people more based on how much they have, You're not going to be able to make it up on quantity, since most people have zero disposable income.

Donations, however, scale with the inverse of the "marginal utility of money". Even though donations are completely voluntary, because they scale with wealth, at some level of wealth inequality, they become more profitable than a subscription service at any price point.

(ad revenue also ostensibly scales with wealth, but not as well, since consumption doesn't scale very well with wealth)

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

#247

Post by jimnotgym »

eighthnate wrote: post #193
jimnotgym wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Sure. But did they break the story on the connection between anti-brexit organizations?

If you think there is a story here report it to the Electoral commission. I'm sure they could run this in parallel with the Arron Banks investigation

> It's funny how the guardian mostly published anti-brexit propaganda.

Leaving the pro-Brexit camp with just The Times. Oh and the Mail... and the Express, the Sun, the Telegraph....

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

#248

Post by dominotw »

ouid wrote: post #218
root_axis wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Pointing fingers at "all guilty parties" means pointing fingers almost exclusively at republicans. Almost exclusively? That's definitely an unhelpful exaggeration. I agree with the spirit of your analogy, but even invoking the term "exclusively" when referring to political behavior, qualifiers or not, is going to undermine your argument.

Alright, say you had to sort them from most guilty to least guilty. I don't have the resources to do this, but start listing off republicans until you find one who is "less guilty" than a democrat. How many places on this list does that take you? Probably more than 100.

>most guilty to least guilty

Guilty of what precisely?

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

#249

Post by [deleted] »

jimnotgym wrote: post #243

A quick review of UK print media 1) The Times - Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece. Employs MP Michael Gove for £100k a year after he was sacked for being a backstabber. 2) The Mail - "The EU and immigrants want to kill your children and sleep with your sister and may even affect your house price". Billionaire owner too. 3) The Telegraph - "The Torygraph" former paper of the ruling classes, now mouth piece of two weird billio…

[deleted]

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

#250

Post by hardlianotion »

vog wrote: post #238
dominotw wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Maybe. I think the reverse is as true.
Post reply on HN