4 ms·

The more likely explanation is that people got tired of Assange's story and so the articles didn't get the clicks to justify covering them any more. The Guardia

The more likely explanation is that people got tired of Assange's story and so the articles didn't get the clicks to justify covering them any more. The Guardian can get more clicks with a steady drip of vegan opinion pieces, stories laughing at Tories and the dreadfulness of brexit so that's what they'll do. Same as the Telegraph will feed its readers "the glory of Boris", "forwards unto brexit" and "Good lord look what Corbyn said today, he's a dreadful little man isn't he?" News organisations are slaves to their audiences and will just produce what their audiences want.

k1m 7y ago
That's not a likely explanation when it comes to Assange. The Guardian has been terrible, and even its previous star reporter Glenn Greenwald (who won them a Pulitzer on the Snowden reporting) has been extremely critical. See for example https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Brought up again earlier this month: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296 That piece of fake news from the Guardian has been shared more than 25,000 times on Facebook. I don't agree that honest reporting on Assange simply won't get clicks. But sensational fake news certainly does.
- foldr 7y ago
  What makes you so sure it's fake news? No-one really knows for sure whether or not that meeting took place.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
jeltz 7y ago
Pretty much. Click metrics like this might become the death of journalism. I used to read a lot of news but have stopped due to how every news paper became more and more about click bait and about appealing to the audience. Sure, I presume I too clicked on more news until I one day stopped reading entirely.

k1m 7y ago

That's not a likely explanation when it comes to Assange. The Guardian has been terrible, and even its previous star reporter Glenn Greenwald (who won them a Pulitzer on the Snowden reporting) has been extremely critical. See for example https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-guardians-viral-blockbuster-assangemanafort-scoop-no-evidence-has-emerged-just-stonewalling/ https://theintercept.com/2019/01/02/five-weeks-after-the-gua... Brought up again earlier this month: https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296 https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1191681248453943296 That piece of fake news from the Guardian has been shared more than 25,000 times on Facebook. I don't agree that honest reporting on Assange simply won't get clicks. But sensational fake news certainly does.

foldr 7y ago
What makes you so sure it's fake news? No-one really knows for sure whether or not that meeting took place.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

jeltz 7y ago

Pretty much. Click metrics like this might become the death of journalism. I used to read a lot of news but have stopped due to how every news paper became more and more about click bait and about appealing to the audience. Sure, I presume I too clicked on more news until I one day stopped reading entirely.