It’s no secret that the newspaper industry is in trouble. Advertising revenue is going down as fast as a well-paid call girl.
It’s the internet what done it.
Now that everyone expects to get news and information free on line, why should they pay for a paper? Newspapers haven’t been able to work out a new way to make money. Ruthless Rupe – smartest journalist on the planet – has sunk billions into buying internet “social networks” whose valuation is based not on profit, but on expectations.
(Does that sound a little reminiscent of the Great Dot Con, by the way?)
Every morning I get a copy of London’s free paper Metro “delivered” to my computer. I am greeted by the sort of crass overclaim papers have been using since I started reading my parents’ Daily Express in the ’40s: “Welcome to your favourite newspaper”.
What patronising, assumptive rubbish. The intellectual level of Metro – a reduced version of The Daily Mail with the best bits missed out – is so low that only a halfwit could make it their favourite (though it’s miles more intelligent than the vapid pair of evening freesheets we get here.)
The thing most interesting about Metro online is the clunky technology. They haven’t worked out a way of making it easy. They repeatedly ask me to register, though I’ve done so maybe twenty times, and the tortuous process of actually getting to read the whole paper is maddening. They haven’t grasped that the key to online success is to make everything quick and easy.
Yesterday all the people in infoland were getting all fired up because someone commissioned a “typical teenager” to tell them about his reading, eating and browsing habits.
He revealed nothing new or surprising to anyone with teenage kids, but one question is this: can you think of any other circumstance in which intelligent, highly paid people would take a sample of one as a guide to what millions are doing?
A second question is, even if this particular youngster accurately represents all the others, what are you going to do about what you have learned?
I can tell you. You will have lots of pointless meetings and discussions, at considerable expense, with no practical conclusions.
Talking of which, did you know there is a Minister for Equality? What the fuck for?
Get rid of her – for it is the loathsome Harriet Harman – and send the money to the army.
Perhaps going online disturbs the sanctity of my bed coffee habit. On the other hand, it could be the inexplicable urge to feel uncoated newsprint between my fingers. Whatever the reason, I cannot do without my often rain-soaked morning broadsheet. What on earth is wrong with me?
As I said the day before yesterday, media don't replace each other; they tend to complement each other. More to the point, we are all different (even the teenagers) which is why the sample of one I mentioned is so meaningless. I like to read books – but rarely watch TV. I don't read the papers much, but do read some magazines. And so on.
I completely agree, Drayton. That comment of mine was residue from a recent discussion with an internet zealot.
Reference your comments on that Harman bint, I noticed that her title is Minister for Women and Equality. I took a look through nearly closed fingers at this troughing Bolinger Bolshevik's web site and found this little piece on 'equality;
Helping to increase the number of ethnic minority women councillors. There are only 149 ethnic minority women councillors in England. Better representation will ensure
that the voice of ethnic minority women is heard, and local councils better reflect the communities they serve.
Presumably there are not many ethnic minority women councillors because a) they don't want to stand for election or b) nobody can be arsed to vote for them.
A little survey might have saved them the trouble of inserting this crap into the new Bill.
Bye the way, can we now have a Minister for Men and Equality? I'm sure that his first rule would be that you get where you are by merit, and not gender, race or because you are a socialist crony.
“Helping to increase the number of ethnic minority women councillors. There are only 149 ethnic minority women councillors in England. Better representation will ensure
that the voice of ethnic minority women is heard, and local councils better reflect the communities they serve.”
Interesting.
What's she implying?
Is it:
That “ethnic minority” councillors are more likely to use race in their decisions/voting than white councillors…
(i.e. that they're racist and self-serving)
or
That white councillors – including Labour councillors past & present – are generally racist and sexist… and govern according to their prejudices…
(and that the best solution is to balance it out by electing some people who are prejudiced in the other direction)
or
She's just talking a load of shite she doesn't believe in order to pander to a voter demographic…
or
She's not really thinking anything because she's a New Labour idiot who couldn't think her way out of a paper bag…
Steve
I think the answer is “yes” to all four, isn't it?