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

#281

Post by jimnotgym » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 8:53 PM UTC

ygaf wrote: post #276

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…

>because they hacked the voice mail of a girl who was murdered, and therefore delayed the police investigation. This sounds like a fabricated implication. Lots of people (famous ones) were hacked, and I can't find a sign that delaying a police investigation caused the NOTW to nosedive.

I'm sorry, but rigorous logical argument seemed out of place in any discussion of the NOTW. I thought condensing their sad sad criminal behavior into one sound bite was absolutely in keeping with their style.

Wikipedia has a primer on the News of the world, Milly Dowler and Andy Coulson. I suspect a formal discussion over why the paper actually closed (popularly to save the criminal investigation from going upwards to the owners) could fill a very sad book.

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

#282

Post by hateduser2 » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 8:57 PM UTC

te_chris wrote: post #38

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?

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.

It’s not weird that they feel threatened, they have a lot to gain from that behavior and some may be dependent on it. I think it’s normal to feel threatened by it given their potential lifestyle.

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

#283

Post by hsod » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 9:21 PM UTC

ogre_magi wrote: post #274

hsod wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying evil is a matter of perspective is relativism.

This is going to drift into a problem of definitions, as value conflicts often can. If your deontology considers me "evil," there's nothing I can do about that. I'm not going to complain about your use of the word. People are going to have conflicts, and some of them are going to become holy wars. Best of luck in the wars to come.

"People are going to have conflicts, and some of them are going to become holy wars. Best of luck in the wars to come."

What does this mean? I'm genuinely interested in your perspective, not trying to play gotcha or argue semantics.

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

#284

Post by Arnt » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 9:34 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #242

Arnt wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

(This feels weird.)

Newspapers often print news. Things not yet confirmed or denied elsewhere. Today I see a headline about which ministers knew about a particular evil deed before it was too late. Right now the article rests on anonymous sources, in a week all of of the relevant people will have spoken on the record.

The fairness of a summary or clarity of an interpretation is similarly easier to judge after the people involved have had the opportunity to react to the article.

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

#285

Post by mirimir » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 9:48 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #139

return0 wrote: post #27

Imagine if browser vendors added some form of online payment directly into the browser (like , i don't know , bitcoin).

Really? You want your bitcoin wallet online?

You can have many Bitcoin wallets. And yes, at least one online, to pay stuff from. But you don't keep substantial balances in them.

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

#286

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #240

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.

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.

[deleted]

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

#287

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 9:50 PM UTC

stfu wrote: post #229

mitjak wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

58.9% of Americans voted last election. Has the Guardian already lost that much touch with reality to accept that those 41.1% of the population exist who don't care about their outrage theater?

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by mirimir » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 9:52 PM UTC

I would be happy to support The Guardian etc. But this persona does not have credit/debit cards. So I have no way to pay them. I do support GnuPG and Riseup, however, because they accept Bitcoin.

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

#289

Post by mitjak » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 9:53 PM UTC

stfu wrote: post #229

mitjak wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

58.9% of Americans voted last election. Has the Guardian already lost that much touch with reality to accept that those 41.1% of the population exist who don't care about their outrage theater?

America is not the world but that's not even the point. You're claiming they're politicizing the world. Election numbers don't represent willingness to make something political or whether it is. Not voting is a political decision.

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

#290

Post by calcifer » Mon, Nov 27, 2017, 10:13 PM UTC

Jedd wrote: post #86

As much as I enjoy the quality of journalism from them, claims of The Guardian struggling, or being without sin (in the context of throwing stones around tax avoidance, especially post-Panama & Paradise papers, and at the risk of being labelled a whatbouter) should be considered in context. That context is that they've got some pretty serious claims of tax avoidance in their not-too-distant past. The Spectator ran a…

The Guardian responded to various such claims over the years in quite a bit of detail [1].

A choice quote:

> The Guardian's current position on tax is not immensely complicated, not least because it is not making any profits. When GMG makes taxable profits, it does of course pay full corporation tax. It is officially regarded by HMRC as "low risk".

> When we did our series on tax avoidance in 2008, we commissioned Richard Murphy, the scourge of tax dodgers the world over, to cast his eye over GMG's accounts.

> This is what he wrote:

> "Now let's be clear: what this shows is that on trading, the effective rate of tax was 46%. If goodwill were added back to profit the rate would be about 21%, a rate that is low largely because much of the profit came from the disposal of assets. If that were adjusted for then [year ended 30 March 2008], the rate would be above the statutory rate. There is nothing abnormal to comment on as a result.

> The low charge is on the exceptional part sale of the Auto Trader group. No complicated planning was needed to produce a low tax-charge: the government allows for tax to be deferred in this case if funds are reinvested.

> The Guardian did reinvest the funds. That's not artificial, offshore, or complex. Indeed, it is tax compliant: the company is doing what the government wants, and for which it provides a relief. So let's stop the nonsense about low tax rates now: it's just wrong."

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/help/insideguardian/2011/feb/22/...