Pages

Sunday 4 December 2022

Numbers and the Grauniad

 


A strange message encountered on a recent Guardian website visit. I only visit the place occasionally while browsing the latest mainstream nonsense. 52 articles in the last year sounds about right for the Guardian - one per week. 

Surely that can't make me one of the top readers globally. If so, the Guardian would be facing an unprecedented catastrophic tipping point. Can't be right.

Simplest explanation - it's the Guardian and numbers. 

6 comments:

Graeme said...

Isn't it odd that they never mention their financial dependence on a website for trading second hand cars fuelled by evil fossil fuels

Sam Vega said...

Yes, I've had that before, and I only ever visit when there are links on blogs and other sites. I usually steer clear on principle, on the grounds that another click means that they can present infinitesimally better stats to gain more advertising revenue.

I always thought that "top reader" meant that I was being congratulated for noticing that most of what they print is sixth-form rubbish. I'm extremely proud of having been banned from CIF. Whether or not it's still active, they can't take that away from me.

DiscoveredJoys said...

Perhaps many papers are printed and many pixels posted, but few articles are read?

I used to comment in the Guardian and you could have a good debate e.g. about Brexit or the troubles of political parties. You got a better grasp of the issues if you considered others' viewpoints.

But then the comments became infested with people than not only couldn’t debate they wouldn’t debate preferring to denigrate the person rather than their competing ideas. The moderators became more and more restrictive and for some important topics no comments were allowed at all. So I cancelled my registration.

A K Haart said...

Graeme - it is odd and I believe their tax arrangements would meet with their disapproval if anyone else did it their way.

Sam - banned eh? That is something to be proud of. I don't like visiting the site either, because of the clicks, but it's too dire to ignore completely. I assume it is influential, but I'm not entirely convinced that it is. More useful idiot perhaps.

DJ - over the years I've noticed a similar decline in how the orthodox climate change narrative is defended. As if people capable of reasoned argument have backed off and their place has been taken by arm-wavers who merely denigrate sceptics and won't argue. It appeared to happen quite rapidly some years ago.

Ed P said...

The hive mind behaves in strange ways. The few times I can be bothered to look at their site, I try to donate £0.01, but for some reason that's not acceptable. Ungrateful oxygen thieves!

A K Haart said...

Ed - I'm surprised they reject it, seems pretty generous to me. It's a pity we can't send them stuff in collection bags like those charities shove through the door.