3. Make more money than you did before.
May 1, 2019 12:23 PM   Subscribe

 
Hey, that's by MeFi reader crabwalk!
posted by crabwalk at 12:33 PM on May 1 [45 favorites]


MeFi reader chappell, ambrose thought it was great!
posted by chappell, ambrose at 12:40 PM on May 1 [11 favorites]


Nice!
Right now I'm reading crabwalk's excellent and terrifying article from two days ago,
"A doorbell company owned by Amazon wants to start producing “crime news” and it’ll definitely end well Because what good is a panopticon if you can’t generate some clicks?," linked in the sidebar at the same NiemanLab site.
posted by Iris Gambol at 1:08 PM on May 1 [9 favorites]


The only reason is that it’s still going is that is been being bailed out by its own tax free offshore trust. I wish I had one.
posted by Middlemarch at 1:10 PM on May 1 [1 favorite]


I'm not interested in a (recurring, regular) digital subscription to the Guardian or to the other publications that I read online but I throw The Guardian some money a few times a year because I like their work and want to see it continue. I'd happily give some other publications money on an ad hoc basis if there was an opportunity to do it. But once your publication disappears behind a paywall I can't find my way around, I'll stop reading it online. (I'm reading too much stuff online as it is...looking at you metafilter...)
posted by kaymac at 1:10 PM on May 1 [5 favorites]


Middlemarch, you'll be pleased to know that the article spends plenty of time talking about the Scott Trust.

It's a good article. And I'm glad the world has The Guardian.
posted by ambrosen at 1:16 PM on May 1 [4 favorites]


I read enough about US politics on The Guardian that I forget that it's not actually a US newspaper.
posted by octothorpe at 1:19 PM on May 1 [5 favorites]


I used to support The Guardian until their constant platforming of TERFy shit led me to cancel my subscription.

It was a good few years, and suddenly it's a lot of UK-based news organizations that I'm not having to pay for anymore.
posted by anem0ne at 1:22 PM on May 1 [12 favorites]


Quite a flexible use of the term 'profit'.
posted by matthewr at 1:37 PM on May 1 [2 favorites]


Yeah, the TERF population at the Guardian is bafflingly large. I don't think there's an equivalent U.S. paper that has so much of that content. Even the Atlantic only runs an occasional Jesse Singal piece.
posted by praemunire at 1:40 PM on May 1 [9 favorites]


I was an English Football (soccer) fan in the 90's and remember having to use the internet in order to get scores. I first would go to the FA Carling site and then at some point I started going to the Guardian's Football Unlimited site. Getting football match results and reports over lynx. Good times. But since that time they've been the first place I go to for football news. Slowly I started reading the other sections and now that and my local paper (The Toronto Star) are the two newspaper sites I'll check every day.
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 1:40 PM on May 1


In 2014 they moved from a .co.uk domain to a .com, I wonder how big a part that played?
I'd expect such a move to cause a short term drop in SEO and then a longer term boost which seems to be what happened.
posted by Lanark at 2:44 PM on May 1 [2 favorites]


I'm glad. It's a good publication as can been seen from the many times it is linked here.
It's not perfect and definitely has some flaws however it's the nearest thing to a progressive mainstream paper out there and we should be thankful for it.
I have some reserves about Viner after Rusbridger, but maybe that is progress and moving on.
Certainly they lead in many investigative and environmental stories bringing a global viewpoint.
Good on them.
posted by adamvasco at 4:00 PM on May 1 [2 favorites]


I support it by giving a few bucks a month, because I’m happy to see mainstream feminists and their bylines included in a way which is unheard of in US newspapers, plus their attention to climate science and US corruption is impressive.
posted by JLovebomb at 4:11 PM on May 1


This is the thing that made me get off my butt and pay for the Guardian. (Well, I'm on my butt, but the general concept applies.) Thanks for posting this.
posted by rednikki at 7:30 PM on May 1 [1 favorite]


I liked when the US branch shamed the UK one for their terfy shit.
posted by fleacircus at 5:36 AM on May 2 [8 favorites]


TERFs are much more powerful in the UK than i. the US. There was an article about it, apparently it has to do with Mumsnet.
posted by pelvicsorcery at 7:43 AM on May 2


Mumsnet is a symptom rather than a cause, I think, but it has done for transphobia in the UK what e.g. Reddit and 4chan initially did for Gamergate - acted as a gathering place where people could stir each other up, targets could be identified and the periphery could be radicalised.

And, as with Gamergate, as the mods start to anticipate real-world consequences for hosting increasingly violent speech and start trying to control it, the extreme end is moving to places where their views are supported and validated as part of a raft of far-right positions.

More broadly, I think a specific strain of mainly middle-class, usually establishment-educated and very white feminism has been seen as effectively the default mode in centre-left/liberal UK media for a long time. Inspired by founding figures like Germaine Greer and Julie Burchill, this form of feminism is explicitly trans-exclusionary.

The hard version of this mode of mainstream British media feminism argues that trans women are not women, and must be excluded from all women's spaces for that reason. The soft version concedes that trans women are in a qualified sense women, but that they must be excluded from some women's spaces because those spaces must be reserved for "natal" women, and must be excluded from other women's spaces because trans acceptance would create the possibility of exploitation of that access by men.

I think the recent growth of trans-exclusionary/gender-critical/whatever editorial and op-ed pieces is driven in part by the growing realisation that trans-exclusionary/gender-critical/whatever white feminists in the media are not effectively reaching the next generation. Millennials are more intersectional and trans-inclusive in their feminism, so the youngest of the current cohort of columnists are moving into and through their forties with their stance on trans issues looking increasingly alien to the next generation of readers.

Meanwhile younger left-wing writers like Dawn Foster, Ash Sarkar and Reni Eddo-Lodge are acquiring growing audiences while explicitly supporting trans rights, and younger feminist celebrities like Alexandria Occasio-Cortez and Emma Watson are also explicitly coming out in support of trans rights.

This is leading to some feelings, and those feelings are being worked out through lots of opinion pieces and also growing amity with the right wing, where hostility to trans rights and indeed trans people is more generally acceptable.

Anyway, in terms of the practical upshot, and the OP... I am logically the exact type of person who would fund the Guardian, but its commitment to supporting and foregrounding the feelings of its trans-exclusionary old guard creates enough friction that I don't. And, since I am not a very unusual person, that means that there are probably a bunch of people like me, and the Guardian has presumably priced that friction into their decision-making.
posted by running order squabble fest at 8:07 AM on May 4 [2 favorites]


« Older “Learning to breathe and dodge is just the first...   |   HOWAR FIX ME Newer »


You are not currently logged in. Log in or create a new account to post comments.