Paid for media appears to be dying a slow and painful death as subsequent generations don't understand or see the need for paying for online information. Sad times for those of us who appreciate good quality journalism in all its forms.

Perhaps the full-size Indy was the first example. I have been a Times subscriber (hardcopy) for about 10 years, and the price continues to rise exponentially, presumably because of a dwindling number of takers. Reading between the lines (as it were) it feels like an old person's paper, which is appropriate for the two of us. We like to do various sorts of puzzle in between reading the news, and hardcopy is better for that.

I agree that “paid for” must be struggling. The DT was, for me, an exception. The online version is technically a very good product and I prefer it to the hard copy, including for crosswords and the other puzzles.

They are going a bit tabloid with daily reports on “Strictly” and some clickbait headlines that misrepresent some stories. On a positive motoring note their current crop of motoring journalists are worth reading for example on surviving cars from the 70s and 80s.

Overall at my current rate of under 20p a day its good value.

The problem is that if in the future you wish to unsub, they may not be so helpful when doing so - you only have to read some of the reviews on Trustpilot to understand that they are, IMHO, on a par or even worse than, say Sky TV for how difficult they make it for you to unsub.

Even though you technically can do via the website, most people say the only wqay to do so is to telephone them, and even then they can find creative ways of not helping you.

Remember, you were just miffed at the hefty increase in the price and you just wanted a decetn reduction, hence why they gave you a way of doing so. If you'd just said that you were not happy with the paper and wanted out, you'd have probably been on the phone for ages and had an argument trying to get them to unsub you.

I was lucky because my credit card expired just before their next year's sub was due, so they had no way of continuing my payment. I unsubbed online nad got away with it.

Edited by Engineer Andy on 29/11/2022 at 16:54

Paid for media appears to be dying a slow and painful death as subsequent generations don't understand or see the need for paying for online information.

As a result the established press are trying to find new ways to justify their paid existence and are increasingly happy to gouge existing customers for their output.

You cannot blame them for trying to survive but I do wonder when they will have alienated enough subscribers to make it financially worthless to continue.

Which is why it is very chilling that so many are now mainly financed by, or should I say (IMHO) 'bought and paid for' by global corporations, shadowy lobby groups and government (taxpayer) money via propaganda ads, e.g. during the Pandemic.

In my view, the DT's 'Global Health Security' section, which is paid for by grants (several £Ms since 2017) from the Gates Foundation, is very sinister indeed. Other papers (all around the world) such as the Guardian also get this funding (its on that Foundation's website). Needless to say, most articles in that section rarely come with reader BTL comment facilities or those that do routinely get heavily censored.

I personally wouldn't trust most newspaper motoringsections or much of the motoring media, because they rely so heavily on coproate advertising and the freebie jaunts for testing weekends in nice places. I mean, why bite that hand that feeds it?

I was why I liked old Top Gear when they actually (properly) reviewd cars and HJ.

Autocar and their ilk appear to be really struggling.

Sad times for those of us who appreciate good quality journalism in all its forms.

Sadly, I think the mainstream media is done for. That's why so many popular (in terms of viewers' opinion) outlets across most subjects (not just motoring) are now independent reviewers who take no money / favours (freebies) from product manufacturers or service providers (e.g. hotel or restaurant owners in return for positive reviews).

The film and TV indie truly reviewers (not the Access media lot who do take the freebie jaunts, early access screenings and luxury goodie bags) and just pay to go and see a film (for example) with their own money on opening night (so we don't have to pay to see rubbish).

In return, some people show their gratitude via occasional very small donations on (say) livestreams, especially where honest reviews saves them a lot of money that would've otherwise been wasted.

What's a shame is that the MSM had a chance about 5-10 years ago to put things right, take the moral high ground and make the case for high quality, ethical, honest reporting paid mainly for by subscriptions, perhaps less coverage in some areas, but they just saw those corporate £/$ and influence and sold out.

Nearly all the best journalists are now either retired or passed on. Most of those that are left have mainly been sidelined because their corporate / lobby group overlords controlling their news outlets are calling the shots, not the Editors, who are just puppets.

((shakes head))

Or are you suggesting that my post was out of order?

Perhaps he'll shake his head again ?

What's the point in 'answering' such 'questions'? You are all supposedly intelligent people that read the news, and thus by rights you should already know what the / my answer would be.

Therefore I can only conclude that you asked such questions in a rhetorical manner in order to trap me or others into a(nother) petty spat in order to get the thread (and thus genuine discussion) shut down and to falsely portray their opponent as some nutbag ist and phobe to be shunned into silence. That doesn't give me any incentive to engage in a positive manner in a genuine debate, does it?

You see, I've seen a couple of other Backroomers of similar persuasions engage in the same tactics, both here and elsewhere, with the same end goal in mind. Of course, when I called them out, they kicked off in a rage to force the Moderators' hand.

I see also that the word 'gaslighting' is the word of the year. How appropriate.

To return the discussion to the cost of the DT, it appears that there annual turnover is in excess of £200 M. Of this, less than 0.5 % is received from the Gates' foundation, specifically to report in an independent manner on the health issues in the developing world. Presumably this is objectionable to the blinker-wearing minority who fear such information providing is some form of proto-communist plot.

"I can only conclude that you asked such questions in a rhetorical manner in order to trap me or others into a(nother) petty spat in order to get the thread (and thus genuine discussion) shut down and to falsely portray their opponent as some nutbag ist and phobe to be shunned into silence. That doesn't give me any incentive to engage in a positive manner in a genuine debate, does it?"

I can answer only for myself, but when I post I have no intention to force the shut-down of any thread, nor to create a petty spat, nor to portray anyone as anything.

What motivates me is the steady drip-feed from certain quarters of contentious (and often disturbing) ideas alluded to as if they were generally-accepted fact. My questions aim get the poster to explain the full implications of what those ideas are, so we all understand what they are really trying to say.

For example, casually tossing in a reference to the Gates Foundation and labelling it as "very sinister indeed" needs justification. It is not an accepted view of what is ostensibly a benevolent charitable organisation and it may strike some as offensive.

Perhaps, sir, if you actually read some truly independent, quality news reports (outlets not funded by Gates), you'll see that, in my view, your last statement is untrue, and not by a small margin either.

A so-called benevolent organisation that that is, in my view (and a good number of others who are highly regarded in their respective field, as well as journalists more generally, especially on the conservative side of the aisle) does not benefit the general public, but is a means to an end for Gates himself to gain more power and wealth and to change society (not for the better) to suit his vision, avoiding the tedium of getting elected.

His foundation's 'funding' of vaccines generally and the COVID ones just so happened to coincide with him personally promoting their (mRNA) use by meeting with Western politicians and miraculously investing in the firms / organisations making them, so that money will be repaid 10-fold and more.

The funding of the Telegraph (to the tune of initiallly $3.2M in 2017 and again recently, with similar levels of funding for the Guardian and many other Western news outlets) is being seen as a propaganda tool to push his vision of the use of vaccines, though surely if he wanted to help more people take them, why not do this for newspapers in poor countries?

In my view (and many others), its to push governments to get more funding for things he will financially benefit from. A I recall, he also pushed for more draconian COVID response measures (which now are discredited), including working from home, which Microsoft benefitted hugely from with PC video conferencing. His wealth soared during the Pandemic.

It also has been, as I understand, been kicked out of many poorer nations, including Indai, for serious ethical breaches by running trials of drugs / vaccines on locals without telling them about side effects and at a far earlier stage in their development than would ever be the case (and legally allowed) in the West.

It also funds Planned parenthood', which aborts well over a million otherwise healthy feutuses (unborn babies) in the US each year and, according to many reports, supports terminations right up to and even after birth for no reason other than the baby is unwanted. His dad was apparently a hardline eugenacist and it is reported that the apple didn't fall far from the tree on that score either. He has said he wants to reduce the world population via the use of vaccines (TeD talk I think).

Why also is he now (only over the last couple of years or so) the largest landowner of farmland in the US when he is also the advocate of the WEF's eating bugs and artificial (lab-grown) meat for us plebs? I don't recall him ever partaking himself, but he and his foundation appears (to me from reports I've read) to push for the same change from livestock to bugs / artificial meat.

That famous interview with him and his 'former wife' smiliong like Chesire cats at the Pandemic makes my skin crawl. Note he was reported to only have started his foundation as a PR exercise when his (IMHO) very unethical business practices at Microsoft (regarding competition and product quality / customer service) was seriously damaging his firm's reputation in the late 90s.

In my view, he parallels Tony Blair very closely, given both have, in my view, 'foundations' that are not beneficial to the rest of us. If you cannot see or understand this, you ain't right-of-centre politically. Much more likely globalist elite, which includes the 'Islington' type professional set.

If you actually read the 'articles' in the Telegraph's Global Health Security section, you'll see (where comments are actually allowed and before they get deleted) most DT readers have also seen through this charade. The readship gets more angry at their own paper for going 'Establishement / globalist' by the day. Today, we have a scoop from Guido Fawkes that shows the DT 'library' stuffed full of woke/far Left books. Why would they be there in a conservative newspaper's library?

IMHO you aren't a DT reader, Times maybe, but then that paper hasn't been a true Tory supporter for two decades now - it's a globalist (Blairite) elite rag in my view. They probably support the current (WEF puppet) 'government', given few in cabinet are actual conservatives.

I took the DT for 20 years (and before that reading my dad's paper copy), so I know what it's changed from/to, as have many others who also unsubbed. Note that many of their journos get a LOT of stick from readers, including some well known to the Backroomers who work for their Cars (no longer Motoring) section.

In my and a lot of readers' view, the DT has (like many legacy media outlets) sold out. Some readers only stay because in their view, other papers like The Times, Mail etc are even worse, never mind all the other tabloids and left wing papers. No comprehensive news reporting alternative I'm afraid to say.

Edited by Engineer Andy on 30/11/2022 at 18:07

The wonderful thing about the internet is its anonymity.

www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-exposes-sick-russian...a

Just noticed the recent additions to this thread. It has developed a familiar theme, as usual with little if any relevance to the thread title. This time the Telegraph sub.

The mods have told me previously about their fervent belief in free speech but I am beginning to wonder if they have a liking for some brands of off-topic material.

Misar - I demand censorship, or ELSE! Threads on on my side's terms or milktoast subject matters!

Looks like several own goals by the other side over the past 24 hrs, whose egos cannot admit they've got it wrong so often and thus have to double down on censorship, deflection and to attack their opponents or try to bring down the platform if they can't silence us otherwise.

It's almost as they have nothing else to do in their lives. If only they didn't support lockdowns. Even the Chinese people are going up against their own government for the authoritariansim and censorship, and yet here we have supposedly freedom-loving Brits who feel it's their duty to shut down different viewpoints / individuals and facts that show up their views.

How sad. I'm off to do something more important.

www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-bill-gates-fa...D

A pity that wasn't the video I was referring to. It was an actual TeD talk BY BIll Gates. Here's the excerpt, though I'm sure the full video can be found someone, unlike all that pre-pandemic Chatham House videos with Van Tam and his equivalents laughing and joking about propagandising their populations, which was 'deleted' once it got out (rather like the WEF 'you'll own nothing and be happy' video):

www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrFvKmUV88U

If you actually read the 'articles' in the Telegraph's Global Health Security section, you'll see (where comments are actually allowed and before they get deleted) most DT readers have also seen through this charade. The readship gets more angry at their own paper for going 'Establishement / globalist' by the day. Today, we have a scoop from Guido Fawkes that shows the DT 'library' stuffed full of woke/far Left books. Why would they be there in a conservative newspaper's library?

Why would they not be there? They should have books looking at all viewpoints and not just their own - it's how you gain knowledge and don't just follow what you already know. I'm glad they have a range in their library.

Most of the books were of that type. And they don't need to be all there in such great numbers (and the type of book) to get a perspective on leftist ideology.

There's more than enough leftist stuff out there that's free. This is pure indocrination.

I seriously doubt if any conservative publications find their way into the libraries of The Guardian, Indie, i, Mirror etc.

- The story about the Gates Foundation and unethical drug trials in India has been debunked many times. The study was cancelled in 2010 following local media reports highlighting the death of seven girls taking part. Science Magazine reported that investigations carried out by a committee designated by the Indian Government later determined the deaths were unrelated to the vaccine demonstration. “Five were evidently unrelated to the vaccine: One girl drowned in a quarry; another died from a snake bite; two committed suicide by ingesting pesticides; and one died from complications of malaria. The causes of death for the other two girls were less certain: one possibly from pyrexia, or high fever, and a second from a suspected cerebral haemorrhage.”

Interesting to know about this as Andy has brought this up a few times and not been able to show that it was true so interesting to see what actually did happen.

Thank you to FP for dealing with this so fully.

I started to research it but got no further than Wiki - as a pointer to sources rather than being one itself.

I've spent some time researching the issues raised here. To summarise: I can find no evidence of Gates and his Foundation being a malign influence. However, I do agree that the astonishing reach of its activities and its financial muscle suggest the world should be on their guard.

“Perhaps, sir, if you actually read some truly independent, quality news reports (outlets not funded by Gates)…”

- Without saying which news outlets you mean, you are from the off setting up the position that you have access to certain reliable sources which others, for whatever reason, haven’t taken into account. I’m not sure if you’re saying that, as long as it’s not funded by Gates, it’s OK, or whether there’s more to it. It is fact that the Gates Foundation (along with others) has donated millions of dollars to media organisations. It is not clear how far, if at all, this has affected the independence of their journalism. There may well be some, but I can find no gross examples of it. (“…if you actually read…” sounds very condescending.)

“A so-called benevolent organisation that that is…”

- This paragraph is purely speculation, apart from the incorrect assertion that covid vaccines do not benefit the general public.

“His foundation's 'funding' of vaccines generally and the COVID ones just so happened to coincide with him personally promoting their (mRNA) use…”

- Taking the Oxford/AstraZeneca research as an example, by far the majority of the money for that (£65m) came from the UK and foreign governments; £23m came from “charity”, presumably including the Gates Foundation. Did Gates benefit from the production of vaccines? Some sources have taken published figures of “return on investment” as meaning financial profit, whereas the Gates Foundation includes lives saved and economic growth as a result of the use of vaccines. The whole issue of “big pharma” and profiteering is complex and I can’t find any definitive information about how much Gates may have benefited.

“The funding of the Telegraph (to the tune of initiallly $3.2M in 2017 and again recently, with similar levels of funding for the Guardian and many other Western news outlets…”

- It is true that the Gates Foundation supported the Guardian (and presumably still does). How far a left of centre paper is likely to be receptive to right-wing emphasis as a result is dubious.

“In my view (and many others), its to push governments to get more funding for things he will financially benefit from. A I recall, he also pushed for more draconian COVID response measures...”

- I can find no evidence Gates wanted harsh social restrictions during the pandemic. Of 15 billionaires surveyed in August 2021, Gates’s wealth increased by the smallest percentage. I don’t understand the reasons behind a massive increase in the wealth of the mega-rich, but it seems Gates’s interest in vaccines is not relevant.

“It also has been, as I understand, been kicked out of many poorer nations, including Indai, for serious ethical breaches…”

- The story about the Gates Foundation and unethical drug trials in India has been debunked many times. The study was cancelled in 2010 following local media reports highlighting the death of seven girls taking part. Science Magazine reported that investigations carried out by a committee designated by the Indian Government later determined the deaths were unrelated to the vaccine demonstration. “Five were evidently unrelated to the vaccine: One girl drowned in a quarry; another died from a snake bite; two committed suicide by ingesting pesticides; and one died from complications of malaria. The causes of death for the other two girls were less certain: one possibly from pyrexia, or high fever, and a second from a suspected cerebral haemorrhage.”

“It also funds Planned parenthood', which aborts well over a million otherwise healthy feutuses…”

- The International Planned Parenthood Foundation is supported by a host of governments, trusts, and foundations. It supports abortion, but I can find no evidence it supports late abortion. The stuff about Gates’s father is completely irrelevant.

“Why also is he now (only over the last couple of years or so) the largest landowner of farmland in the US…”

- I can’t see what this paragraph is supposed to show, except Gates’s supposed hypocrisy. (Fact check: Gates owns about 0.027% of U.S. farmland; he is the largest private owner, not the largest owner.)

“That famous interview with him and his 'former wife' smiliong like Chesire cats at the Pandemic makes my skin crawl…”

- The “famous interview” may have upset you, but you have chosen to read into it stuff which other people didn’t and don’t. Where is there any evidence that the Foundation was started – cynically – as a PR exercise?

“In my view, he parallels Tony Blair very closely, given both have, in my view, 'foundations' that are not beneficial to the rest of us. If you cannot see or understand this, you ain't right-of-centre politically. Much more likely globalist elite, which includes the 'Islington' type professional set.”

- It is vacuous to argue that is someone who doesn’t agree with you about Gates and Blair cannot be “right-of-centre politically” and must be “globalist elite, which includes the 'Islington' type professional set”. What does that even mean? You seem to want to stereotype me and it’s another example of personal stuff creeping into the discussion.

“If you actually read the 'articles' in the Telegraph's Global Health Security section, you'll see (where comments are actually allowed and before they get deleted) most DT readers have also seen through this charade…”

- What you claim about “most DT readers” may or may not be true, but it adds nothing to whether the Gates Foundation is a bad thing. (I note again the condescension of “If you actually read”.)

“IMHO you aren't a DT reader, Times maybe....”

- I’m not a DT reader. The Times? – Occasionally, if I see a copy lying around. But I don’t read or follow any newspaper. I dip into many of them. Anyway, another largely irrelevant paragraph. More personal stuff.

The rest of your post adds nothing to the topic.

All that time and effort just for this? What an accomplishment. I'm glad I was elsewhere this afternoon.

Here's something you might recall though:

"My take? It's sad if a virtual community which is based on messages which are sometimes misunderstood, sometimes needlessly combative, occasionally overly sensitive and frequently "willy-waving" (thank you, Pat) - it's sad if such thing becomes that important in people's lives.

I've always been cynical about the whole concept of "online communities", where people present a persona and, sheltering behind it, behave in ways they would never do face-to-face. Far better to engage with the real world and treat the forum as a piece of fun - where, nevertheless, certain standards should of course prevail.

If c4p ceased to exist it would be a cause for regret, but not the end of the world. Certainly its fate lies largely in the hands of its members, as Pat says. Perhaps the real problem is that the regulars spend too much time here, with too little to say apart from scoring points. I'm guilty of it myself. We could certainly do with a lot more new members."

* * *

Rather puts you contributions here into context, I think.

TTFN.