This Just In!

[Pale Rider]

That there was a twitter flurry is neither here nor there, and is no metric of the extent of public interest.

Newspapers tend to gauge the popularity of story by the reaction it gets on social media, but I did say we are well behind the times when it comes to social media, audience data, and other complicated stuff we don't understand.

It turned the story into a mystery for the nation to solve..."senior BBC figure".

If you are the print media your business model no longer revolves around printed copy. It is reliant on social media click throughs to advertising.

So to suggest that the movement of the story to social media was a bad thing for The Sun is not only nonsense, but is antithetical to the reality. You could not be more wrong.

As I said, making decent money on the internet has proved very difficult for the newspapers.

Last accounts I saw for a newspaper group showed the printed paper was by far the biggest contributor to profits.

Big worry for the proprietors because print, while resilient, is undoubtedly on the way out.

The interests were commercial. T

So do you now agree, as I've posted many times, the biggest driver is to make some dough?

Barmy conspiracy theories about aiming for world domination are just that, barmy.

 

[multitool]

As I said, making decent money on the internet has proved very difficult for the newspapers.

Last accounts I saw for a newspaper group showed the printed paper was by far the biggest contributor to profits.

What you say was absolutely true up until only 2 years ago. Now though...different story. Online revenue is markedly where it is at.

Have a read of this (with a receptive mindframe )

https://pressgazette.co.uk/comment-analysis/marc-edge-re-examining-uk-newspaper-industry-economics/

In particular, pay attention to how Murdoch has dealt with online advertising giants like Google, FB, and MS.

 

[monkers]

Newspapers tend to gauge the popularity of story by the reaction it gets on social media, but I did say we are well behind the times when it comes to social media, audience data, and other complicated stuff we don't understand.



As I said, making decent money on the internet has proved very difficult for the newspapers.

Last accounts I saw for a newspaper group showed the printed paper was by far the biggest contributor to profits.

Big worry for the proprietors because print, while resilient, is undoubtedly on the way out.



So do you now agree, as I've posted many times, the biggest driver is to make some dough?

Barmy conspiracy theories about aiming for world domination are just that, barmy.

I never disagreed that point, putting money before lives is not acceptable. Scum paper, scummy industry.

 

[Deleted member 28]

I can clearly see why so many folk have taken a dislike to you.

What makes you think you're so popular, what the f*ck even are you?

 

[BoldonLad]

It turned the story into a mystery for the nation to solve..."senior BBC figure".

If you are the print media your business model no longer revolves around printed copy. It is reliant on social media click throughs to advertising.

So to suggest that the movement of the story to social media was a bad thing for The Sun is not only nonsense, but is antithetical to the reality. You could not be more wrong.

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just trying to clarify:

are you saying that the Sun (say) makes money out of clicks on Social Media, other than their own website(s)?

Was the "name game" occurring on Sun Website(s), I don't follow them, personally, so, would not know

 

[multitool]

Not agreeing or disagreeing with you, just trying to clarify:

are you saying that the Sun (say) makes money out of clicks on Social Media, other than their own website(s)?

Was the "name game" occurring on Sun Website(s), I don't follow them, personally, so, would not know

Yes. If you read the article there is plenty of info, especially on how Murdoch strongarmed the big web players

 

[CXRAndy]

I just find you very tedious. You seem to have taken to stalking me. But you are not so bright as you may think.

Oh so superior from your seedy bedsit

 

[monkers]

What makes you think you're so popular, what the f*ck even are you?

Oh I'm in with the in crowd. I'm a creature from the island of Lesbos.

Brexit's going well isn't it?

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes. If you read the article there is plenty of info, especially on how Murdoch strongarmed the big web players

Will do, I asked the question before you had posted (or I had seen your post) with the article link.

 

[monkers]

Oh so superior from your seedy bedsit

The inside of your head must be a very strange place.

 

[Pale Rider]

What you say was absolutely true up until only 2 years ago. Now though...different story. Online revenue is markedly where it is at.

Have a read of this (with a receptive mindframe )

https://pressgazette.co.uk/comment-analysis/marc-edge-re-examining-uk-newspaper-industry-economics/

In particular, pay attention to how Murdoch has dealt with online advertising giants like Google, FB, and MS.

Good stuff, although I would say the online percentage increases can be misleading - a 25% rise on naff all is still naff all.

Profits remain relatively low, and if you have phone hacking to pay for (entirely your own fault, of course) the outlook is still stormy waters ahead.

A big problem with phone hacking is the liability is open-ended, or as one former News of the World hack put it, it is the windmill that keeps turning.

Was the "name game" occurring on Sun Website(s),

If you mean the speculation over Edwards' name, the answer is 'no', so the millions of posts speculating give no direct benefit to The Sun, other than driving traffic to its website.

At least some of those visitors will click on an advert which will earn The Sun a tiny sum.

If The Sun can show their website is very busy, they can charge more for ads in future.

 

[Pale Rider]

The director general of the BBC has said, among other things, there is a legitimate public interest in this story.

I've always thought that, but the thoughts of the DG have a tiny bit more impact than mine.

The lad has no skin in the game because he remains anonymous, so public interest is effectively a dead duck, even if it was ever alive

Unless Edwards wants to launch a solo attack on The Sun.

He should be careful about that, backing the paper into a corner will result in it coming out fighting, which will certainly not be good for his mental mental health.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-66233882

 

[multitool]

The director general of the BBC has said, among other things, there is a legitimate public interest in this story

That does not mean the reporting was 'in the public interest'. It just means Davie understands why members of the public are interested. I wouldn't read too much into that. After all, the BBC was under attack for sheltering a paedo (or so it was said), so Davie is probably trying to placate rather than inflame the public.

 

[Pale Rider]

That does not mean the reporting was 'in the public interest'. It just means Davie understands why members of the public are interested. I wouldn't read too much into that. After all, the BBC was under attack for sheltering a paedo (or so it was said), so Davie is probably trying to placate rather than inflame the public.

The phrase he used was 'legitimate public interest' which indicates he understands the difference between that and 'interesting to the public', as he ruddy well should do.

Only a court, if asked, can decide the legal point, or the press regulator could make a judgement, not that I've heard they've (yet) received a request to investigate.

That the BBC accepts the story was in the public interest really is a kick in the nuts for those hoping to spear the paper on that particular altar.

 

[multitool]

That the BBC accepts the story was in the public interest really is a kick in the nuts for those hoping to spear the paper on that particular altar.

But they haven't.

Davie is saying 'the public is interested' and that's legitimate. He's is validating their interest. He has chosen his words carefully by omitting the word "in".