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

341–350 of 365 posts

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

#341

Post by ogre_magi »

yesenadam wrote: post #325
ogre_magi wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You talk about something being: 'wrong, full stop' How can you tell if this full stop "wrongness" is occurring? Any answer you give is going to be an explanation of how the full stop "wrong" thing violates some set of principles or reduces something you value. Not all people will agree on which principles or values to privilege as the arbiters of right and wrong. The whole thing will become a game of definitions. To…

'How can you tell if this full stop "wrongness" is occurring?' Well, I get why you would ask this, but that's an extremely strange question; I sense false assumptions in there somewhere. Yes, "wrong, full stop", otherwise known as wrong. That's what the word 'wrong' means in English. I had to create terms because you are (what seems to me) pretending you 'have no need of' any judgement-words whatsoever. You, I presum…

There's so much strawman nonsense in this comment I don't even know where to begin.

I don't go around murdering people because doing so would harm the society I live in and care about, i.e. harm things I value. I support stopping people from murdering for the same reason. I don't have to believe in some kind of naive "wrongness" to take a position on something.

Your position is that a simple and intuitive sense of "wrong" is easily derived. So let me know if abortion is "right" or "wrong." Should be easy to do, right?

People will come down on drastically different sides of that issue, and neither will be correct in an objective sense. It will depend on their values and moral matrices.

To be honest, I don't have a lot of hope I'll get anywhere with you. This comment makes you seem like a retard.

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

#342

Post by Nursie »

ghaff wrote: post #269
Nursie wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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.

I'm not sure how common it is but I agree with your basic point. Physical distribution is actually surprisingly a surprisingly small part of the cost of most books but unless there's some very funky royalty agreement or whatever in place, there's no reason for eBooks to cost more.

I see it relatively often - it's just as often the other way around, of course. Sometimes it's that way at launch, sometimes afterwards (I presume because physical stock is taking up warehouse space and needs to be shifted. I presume there's a built in convenience premium with e-books and the market has discovered you don't need to discount them.

Meh, it's just another small way in which the world refuses to make sense!

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

#343

Post by asfdsfggtfd »

ghaff wrote: post #53
asfdsfggtfd wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in that case, the publishers ended up being able to hold the line fairly effectively. By effectively you mean steadily declining sales as people return to printed books.

The decline is fairly small on a percentage basis and the reasons are debated--although it's definitely happened. A fairly sharp increase in audiobooks seems to be one reason. I suspect that people have also figured out that eBooks are good for some materials and not for others. Once you get away from books that are mostly flowing plain text, fiction in particular, eBooks don't generally work nearly as well. I haven'…

I suppose anecdote is not the singular of data. But my family, friends and I have largely rejected e-books based on price. I read a lot.

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

#345

Post by sgift »

tome wrote: post #143
tclancy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For most papers, I'd say it's safe to assume the editorial staff do not make financial decisions.

Are the editorial staff allowed to report on the financial decisions of their owners?

Yes. If you follow the chain of articles back to its end you will find: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/may/03/1

A report by the Guardian on the very same topic.

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

#346

Post by AndrewOMartin »

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…

You sound like an ideal Private Eye subscriber.

Current affairs, investigative journalism, literary criticism, Commentatorballs, [That's enough. Ed]

Edited by the great, and clean, Ian Hislop.

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

#347

Post by twic »

louthy wrote: post #324
twic wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Although not a newspaper, I find the Economist to have similar traits to your list for the FT. They'll also go properly in depth with many stories (multiple pages)

I like the economist a lot. They are a lot more ideological than the FT, though. As long as you bear that in mind while reading, it's still a good read.

Private Eye is also a remarkably good, although very specific, and often extremely depressing, read.

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

#348

Post by portref »

nailer wrote: post #326
rstoj wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just checking the references in this article. The offshore tax claim seems to be referenced to "Guido Fawkes" ( https://order-order.com/ "Guido Fawkes Blog of plots, rumours and conspiracy") which seems to be a collection of conspiracy articles about all kinds of stuffs, written by this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Staines

Fawkes is a well respected media-watch type site in the UK. They're humorous, but respected - think The Register but for media.

Is it fuck. It's about as respected as a shitstain.

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

#349

Post by sideshowb »

Nursie wrote: post #203
sideshowb wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Me too, I will use BBC for most news.

14 years is long but the power dynamic hasn't changed: they still rely on the government's blessing in one way or another.

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

#350

Post by rwmj »

AndrewOMartin wrote: post #346
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…

You sound like an ideal Private Eye subscriber. Current affairs, investigative journalism, literary criticism, Commentatorballs, [That's enough. Ed] Edited by the great, and clean, Ian Hislop.

Private Eye and The Economist are really the only titles worth subscribing to [I subscribe to both]. Private Eye is the only news outlet that takes investigative journalism seriously these days too.
Post reply on HN