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

Post by chickenfries » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 8:12 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #260

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…

As a literally card-carrying socialist, i'd pick the Financial Times over the Guardian. They write about stuff that is actually important, in what seems like an intelligent and even-handed way. And the pages of bond prices are good for standing your muddy boots on. I grew up in a Guardian-reading household, and i want to like it, but it's too full of self-absorbed middle-class metropolitan smugness. And i'm a smug se…

Post by twic » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 8:14 PM UTC

fareesh wrote: post #257

vog wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A right wing extremist would technically be more like someone who destroys traffic lights and stop signs. The political left believes in the idea of government and authority, the right wants to be left alone.

Post by hsod » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 8:17 PM UTC

ogre_magi wrote: post #232

hsod wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by kakwa_ » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 8:18 PM UTC

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…

Post by ghaff » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 8:21 PM UTC

Nursie wrote: post #220

ghaff wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that paid subscribers (and newsstand sales) largely went into paying for printing and distribution while ads paid for basically everything else. Therefore, I expect that part of the thinking was that ads by themselves could pay for digital content creation and delivery. It's also the case that most people assume that an outsized percentage of costs goes into the physical copy of things. At one poi…

>> t one point, this came up a lot when eBooks were getting big--though, in that case, the publishers ended up being able to hold the line fairly effectively. I still get miffed when the e-book costs more than the paper copy. It's not like I expect them to be free, but when I'm buying the same product without the physical distribution, I would expect it to be <= the paper price.