DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
you know 'netflix and chill' is the new 'would you like to come up for a coffee?' right. Its not all grey y-fronts and beans from a can cold. Its a brave new world.
Goodbye to the Independent newspaper
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
Gromit
International Man of Misery
Facts?
Newspapers' reliance on facts has dwindled more and more.
They sell spin and opinion.
If something can't be spun into entertainment or manufactured into outrage then it's no longer considered newsworthy. If it's truth too that's a bonus but it's no longer required.
Pickman's model
sunset spires and twilight woods
tbh if you look at the quantity of news reported in papers of the 1980s and before and the pisspoor number of stories in any contemporary newspaper you can see the decline in information provision: you might get 50 stories in a newspaper now where you'd have had 100+ (including news in brief) in the 1980s - and tbh papers then were imo a shadow of where they were earlier in the century. tho' the internet may have played a part in the diminishing reportage of recent years, it has i think only accelerated a pre-existing trend.
Sirena
Don't monkey with the buzzsaw
This thread has stimulated me to write to Rosie Waterhouse who was the Investigations Editor of the Independent and the Independent on Sunday.
It was Rosie who, single-handedly, punctured the whole insane bubble that was the Satanic Ritual Abuse Hysteria of the late 80s and early 90s.
I want her to come and give a talk for a talks forum I run......
It was Rosie who, single-handedly, punctured the whole insane bubble that was the Satanic Ritual Abuse Hysteria of the late 80s and early 90s.
I want her to come and give a talk for a talks forum I run......
Jeremiah18.17
Well-Known Member
Of late the so called Independent newspapers were sinking more and more into blatant shilling for the oil, gas, financial and aero interests of their oligarch - reaching a nadir in the last election where they took to fabrication to smear those opposed to said interests. Independent? It hasn't been - for a while....
Last edited:
It'll be interesting to see how many of the 55,000 Independent readers actually switch to the Guardian. The Guardian will obviously get some circulation boost from this but I doubt it will be as many as half that number.
Some will switch to the i, some to the Times, fewer to the Telegraph. Some might give up buying a daily newspaper altogether.
Some will switch to the i, some to the Times, fewer to the Telegraph. Some might give up buying a daily newspaper altogether.
Sad to see the Indy go. I remember the early days when it broke the rules of newspaper photography and was refreshing and new. I never have been a regular buyer of any paper though, perhaps it is my fault it died
Backed the Tories at the election. Good riddance.
Sirena
Don't monkey with the buzzsaw
That's because in 2010 it was bought by Lebedev, super-rich oligarch and also proprietor of the dreadful Evening Standard.
I loved the Independent back in the day. I wouldn't go near it now.
marty21
One on one? You're crazy.
I buy papers a lot less now, used to buy the Saturday Guardian and The Independent , and the Sunday Independent and Observer on a Sunday . I'll buy a weekend paper if I'm away for the weekend but can't be arsed when I'moved at home. Still buy the Guardian but maybe a couple of times a week rather than every day. Whenever I consider going for a subscription it still seems a bit costly, I'd go for a fiver a week but a tenner seems too much.
Used to like the Indy, worked for them in the late 80s (ad sales, I wasn't great at it
) At the time there didn't seem to be anything that would stop people buying papers 
Used to like the Indy, worked for them in the late 80s (ad sales, I wasn't great at it
) At the time there didn't seem to be anything that would stop people buying papers I think they technically they backed the coalition, pushing for a Tory-led repeat. However, that, and Lebedev's much reputed non-dom status made me drop the Indie for the Graun (although I know the latter is by no means perfect).
On the broader topic of newspapers, do any of them break even when you take into account all their operations? The Mail would seem the most likely, with their website recouping the loss from the print edition.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
print still carries advertising money with it. Thats across the board. The likes of the Sun and the Mirror make huge on that front. Cost of the paper means nothing, circulation is what values ad space and by god do the sun mail and mirror get about.
Well at least London Live TV isn't closing, that really would be awful
redsquirrel
This Machine Kills Progressives
By facts do you mean regurgitated press releases? The overwhelming majority of what goes into newspapers is simply a bunch of quotes from agencies and then a load of commentary. The whines and squeals of journalists about why we need a proper "fourth estate" are laughable when they simple parrot what they're told.
I was reading somewhere The Times is in profit. the graun lost a hundred million last year and hasn't made a penny in a decade. Dunno about the telegraph, but there's rumblings the Barclays are wanting to shift it, and their editorial problems highlighted by Oborne last year don't suggest an entirely healthy bank balance.
I think the Sun, Mail and Mirror probably do alright. I'd be amazed if The Express was anything other than a huge drain on Desmond's pocket.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I doubt that. Desmond is bargain-basement cheap. The Express/Star are incredibly shoddily made cos they're done on the cheap. Express still sells more than the Times.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It will be the print version of the exact same content available elsewhere. I guess the question is 'how many hard copies is it worth printing before you give up?' And the Indie has given an answer to that question - if you're a national paper and you're selling under 100,000 print copies, you're in trouble.
My guess is that in the short-term, next five years or so, the Murdoch firewall model may catch on. If you want more than the equivalent of free papers like the Standard or the Metro, you have to subscribe. Seems to me with netflix, etc, this kind of subscription model is becoming normalised. Murdoch wants to force it on us, and I don't see him failing at the moment.
That's the evil of Murdoch. He sees that by working against the common good, he can profit. He can cut the number of viewers/readers and still make more money than those that don't cut. And he'll do it first, forcing others to follow.
if you aren't paying, you're being sold. In theory at least - as the gruans troubles testify, no-one's buying liberals.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
There are rival models, of course. Not journalism, but Spotify, Chess.com are two I know of that remove advertising when you pay. Be interesting how successful that model might be.
The little I've seen of the i online, it's unbearably packed with advertising. Graun isn't so intrusive but would need to be presumably if it weren't losing money.
Pay and be sold to advertisers. That's the Murdoch model. So Murdoch and co make us accept a non-absurd level of advertising in return for a fee.
BigMoaner
Some Might Say
100 million is a mental figure for what is poxy paper in hard form and just fluff really in its online form.
Spotify is shit for the musicians, I know that much.
If you look at the subs only and advert only models, neither of them seem to work very well tbf.
Similar threads
