[Andy McDandy]

Outside of magazines and, erm, actual journals, pretty much all journalism works on that model. Before the Internet, newspapers were (since the 1980s at least) loath to take on full time staff, preferring instead to have an army of casuals they could call on when needed. Indeed, depending on how truthful you take it to be, if Bill Bryson's accounts of staffing at the Times prior to the Murdoch takeover were true, it's hard not to admit that ol' Rupe kinda had a point*.

Clickbait is the current business model, like it or not. Have a read of this, from Cracked the other day:

http://www.cracked.com/personal-experie ... s-out.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

*NATSOPA was a notoriously parochial, combative and closed shop union that demanded support from other unions in times of strife but never supported another union reciprocally. The paper was ludicrously overstaffed and salaries were sky high. Productivity was rock bottom and it was running on obsolete technology. Of course, that's Bryson's take.

[Kreuzberger]

Of course Andy is correct but this Canary chat is like an infantile remix of "speaking as a muvva."

In the old days, we had the NRS and the Reading and Noting Studies. At best, you had a snapshot of either 26,0000 or 30,000 individual on a monthly or quarterly basis upon which to plan your editorial decisions. You can get than in an hour now and be able to sift these data to the most granular of levels.

Clicks mean nothing. In fact, they cost you money in server, maintenance and CDN charges and it is only click-throughs to advertising that actually deliver real revenue. That is not the only metric though. A softer analysis is time spent on page and bounce rate. These are all indicators of a propensity to return, engage and guess what? Yep, click on the ads.

Moreover, how many times a piece is shared (as a proportion unique page views) is seen as a measure of reader endorsement.

And that is why the Canary's model is all about living or dying on the long-term its content. Of course, Buzzfeed are fully aware of this but are happy to bash up a rival outlet. As the prime movers on click-bait, they know that it is a zero sum game have moved on but with their noses in the air. Laughably so.

That, in a few brief words, is broadly how post-paper publishing works.

And we wonder why media studies degrees are considered worthless. Even the basics aren't taught any more. Or so it seems.

[The Weeping Angel]

Another example of just what a vile shitty rag the canary is.

[mattomac]

Well it's not a rag it's just idiot bait isn't it.

[Abernathy]

Absolute cast iron proof that getting lots of Twitter followers really does win elections:

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/12/02/ever ... ip-tweets/

[Andy McDandy]

Yeah, forget ousting that racist hooray Tory MP, it's the council election in Crewe that really mattered...

[mattomac]

It was also a town council by election....

Then again he was the incumbent so it's kind of positive for Labour, it probably is the only way forward going local.

[lord_kobel]

Evolve, rather than Canary, but didn't think it was worth starting a new thread. Anyone else think it's a bit cuntish that Evolve have quoted the Chief Executive of Citizen’s Advice as saying

"…today’s price rise will … hit longstanding customers hardest. This price rise has been issued despite costs for energy firms dropping in recent months."

When the full quote is actually

“British Gas has in recent years been offering one of the less expensive standard variable tariffs from a larger firm, but today’s price rise will close this gap and hit longstanding customers hardest. This price rise has been issued despite costs for energy firms dropping in recent months.”

They've completely cut out the context of the quote or is it just me?

[bluebellnutter]

https://www.thecanary.co/2017/08/04/cor ... now-media/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Corbyn’s Labour just won a historic victory. But you wouldn’t know it from the media

Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party just won a historic victory. But you wouldn’t have noticed it from the mainstream media. Labour won a seat on Worthing Borough Council for the Marine ward. The first time the party has held a seat there for 40 years.

It's a fucking council seat.

West Sussex County Councillor Michael Jones described the victory as “seismic”. And Jones is in no doubt that this is a historic victory:

"In West Sussex politics terms, it’s the equivalent of the asteroid striking the Earth and wiping out all the dinosaurs."

Clearly these people have never heard of "Crawley", a swing constituency which has returned Labour MPs several times. Although that was mostly under Blair so clearly doesn't count.

[The Weeping Angel]

Yes I heard about that victory from that notorious Blairitie Luke Akehurst. Whilst I do think it's a good result I think it's important not to get too carried away about it.

[youngian]

"In West Sussex politics terms, it’s the equivalent of the asteroid striking the Earth and wiping out all the dinos

Calm down dear. Very good result all the same even with the usual low turnout caveats. As was the Labour win from UKIP in Margate which the Tories failed to capitalise on. Changing demography from being priced out of London and Brighton has been noted in both places.

[mattomac]

I think the context in which Jones spoke those words had a little humour to them.

[The Weeping Angel]

New Media, same old shite.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/m ... erg-clicks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During the bit of Jeremy Corbyn's speech to Labour conference where journalists were just beginning to drift off, Buzzfeed Political Editor Jim Waterson posted about a story on The Canary. The pro-Corbyn "alternative" site had posted an article by Steve Topple headlined: "We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She’s listed as a speaker at the Tory Party conference."

As Waterson put it, "It took me two mins to call the event organiser and find out this is bollocks. She's not speaking at Tory conference. Already going viral regardless."

[The Weeping Angel]

Just a reminder that the author of that hatchet job is a rabid anti-semite

[Tubby Isaacs]

New Media, same old shite.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/m ... erg-clicks" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

During the bit of Jeremy Corbyn's speech to Labour conference where journalists were just beginning to drift off, Buzzfeed Political Editor Jim Waterson posted about a story on The Canary. The pro-Corbyn "alternative" site had posted an article by Steve Topple headlined: "We need to talk about Laura Kuenssberg. She’s listed as a speaker at the Tory Party conference."

As Waterson put it, "It took me two mins to call the event organiser and find out this is bollocks. She's not speaking at Tory conference. Already going viral regardless."

Mr Another Angry Voice had a go at defending the Canary, then shut up when Adam Bienkov told him they were trying to mislead.

The "invited to speak at my shit event" is the oldest trick in the book. Poor old Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela seemed to get themselves lined up for every other bit of crap happening in England.