4 ms·

The Guardian, like other news sources relying on big advertising deals, is not that different when it comes to pleasing advertisers. See http://www.telegraph.co

by k1m 12y ago

The Guardian, like other news sources relying on big advertising deals, is not that different when it comes to pleasing advertisers. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11425580/Guardian-changed-Iraq-article-to-avoid-offending-Apple.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/media/11425580/Guardian-chan... and http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/788-a-conspiracy-of-silence-hsbc-the-guardian-and-the-defrauded-british-public.html http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2015/788...

exstudent2 12y ago
Regardless of anyone's opinion of GamerGate, they have uncovered quite a bit of unethical behavior on the Guardian's behalf. It's sad too because I really respected their Snowden coverage (obviously!). http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=guardian&restrict_sr=on http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=guardian&res...
- room271 12y ago
  Really? I'm no expert on this, but it seems like the Guardian game journalists have been pretty transparent they don't like the GamerGate movement.
  - exstudent2 12y ago
    Indeed, they have. That's part of the problem I think. Even if a journalist was reporting on a truly heinous group, like say the KKK, I would expect some objectivity. The Guardian has been very aggressive about their stance against GamerGate, often not labeling their articles as op-eds. For example, there are leaked emails from The Guardian with the subject Killallmen about how to handle GamerGate reporting: http://theralphretort.com/internal-email-shows-guardian-mind-made-gamergate/ http://theralphretort.com/internal-email-shows-guardian-mind... For those who don't know, Leigh Alexander was one of the journalists who wrote the most aggressive of the gamers are dead articles where she calls traditional gamers "obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers" among other things. http://archive.today/l1kTW http://archive.today/l1kTW To say she poured gasoline on the GamerGate fire is an understatement. The irony here is that The Ralph Retort is ALSO very unethical. Ralph isn't liked by many GamerGaters but in this case he did break this story and there was no other reporting on it. His outlet exists because mainstream media has created a vacuum by only reporting one side of the GamerGate story. He's an amateur and most definitely biased, but I'd expect more from the Guardian and if they were more objective, there wouldn't be as much a need for untrained reporting.
- albedoa 12y ago
  If you are going to bend over backwards to massage GamerGate into this conversation, you should disclose that your past account has been shadow banned and that your current account has the same trajectory. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=exstudent https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=exstudent You know, if it's about transparency and ethics.
  - exstudent2 12y ago
    I'm not bending over backwards. They asked a question. Yes, my account was banned, for very questionable reasons. Read my post history.
anon1385 12y ago
Note that the Telegraph article is just about the Guardian moving an advert from one page to another. It had nothing to do with changing the news or editorial content of the paper. The story about Iraq still ran. Advertisers not wanting their ads next to tragic stories is something that goes on in every paper and is substantially different to what happened at Buzzfeed and the Telegraph. The only reason The Telegraph published that article is that their chief political commentator had just resigned over the papers failure to cover the HSBC tax story (among other things) and the Telegraph were engaging in shit-tier whataboutery to try and stop their readership collapsing. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-... >The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril. The Telegraph is in the middle of a huge meltdown at the moment, and they are lashing out at everybody else. They also ran this particularly appalling story on their front page to try and detract from their own crisis: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/daily-telegraph-anonymous-report http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/daily-telegraph-anonymou... >A senior Daily Telegraph reporter wrote an anonymous front page story suggesting suicides at a rival newspaper may be connected to stress caused by commercial pressure – just days after the Telegraph itself faced allegations of blurring the lines between advertising and editorial.
- k1m 12y ago
  According to their source, "the headline of an article about Iraq on The Guardian's website was changed amid concerns about offending Apple, and the article was later removed from the home page entirely." Changing a headline of a story and making it much less prominent (removing it from the home page) so as not to offend an advertiser is quite a big deal. They quote the 'insider' at The Guardian saying: "If editorial staff knew what was happening here they would be horrified." I'm no fan of The Telegraph, and also think they published the piece because the Guardian revealed their own timidity in standing up to an advertiser (HSBC). But that doesn't mean the Telegraph piece about the Guardian is untrue. My own interpretation is that this kind of thing must be more common than we think when these publishers rely so heavily on advertising money. Of course it's not in their interest to be so open about it, so we probably hear little - except when they start flinging mud at each other.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by k1m 12y ago

exstudent2 12y ago

Regardless of anyone's opinion of GamerGate, they have uncovered quite a bit of unethical behavior on the Guardian's behalf. It's sad too because I really respected their Snowden coverage (obviously!). http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=guardian&restrict_sr=on http://www.reddit.com/r/KotakuInAction/search?q=guardian&res...

room271 12y ago
Really? I'm no expert on this, but it seems like the Guardian game journalists have been pretty transparent they don't like the GamerGate movement.
- exstudent2 12y ago
  Indeed, they have. That's part of the problem I think. Even if a journalist was reporting on a truly heinous group, like say the KKK, I would expect some objectivity. The Guardian has been very aggressive about their stance against GamerGate, often not labeling their articles as op-eds. For example, there are leaked emails from The Guardian with the subject Killallmen about how to handle GamerGate reporting: http://theralphretort.com/internal-email-shows-guardian-mind-made-gamergate/ http://theralphretort.com/internal-email-shows-guardian-mind... For those who don't know, Leigh Alexander was one of the journalists who wrote the most aggressive of the gamers are dead articles where she calls traditional gamers "obtuse shitslingers, these wailing hyper-consumers, these childish internet-arguers" among other things. http://archive.today/l1kTW http://archive.today/l1kTW To say she poured gasoline on the GamerGate fire is an understatement. The irony here is that The Ralph Retort is ALSO very unethical. Ralph isn't liked by many GamerGaters but in this case he did break this story and there was no other reporting on it. His outlet exists because mainstream media has created a vacuum by only reporting one side of the GamerGate story. He's an amateur and most definitely biased, but I'd expect more from the Guardian and if they were more objective, there wouldn't be as much a need for untrained reporting.
albedoa 12y ago
If you are going to bend over backwards to massage GamerGate into this conversation, you should disclose that your past account has been shadow banned and that your current account has the same trajectory. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=exstudent https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=exstudent You know, if it's about transparency and ethics.
- exstudent2 12y ago
  I'm not bending over backwards. They asked a question. Yes, my account was banned, for very questionable reasons. Read my post history.

anon1385 12y ago

Note that the Telegraph article is just about the Guardian moving an advert from one page to another. It had nothing to do with changing the news or editorial content of the paper. The story about Iraq still ran. Advertisers not wanting their ads next to tragic stories is something that goes on in every paper and is substantially different to what happened at Buzzfeed and the Telegraph. The only reason The Telegraph published that article is that their chief political commentator had just resigned over the papers failure to cover the HSBC tax story (among other things) and the Telegraph were engaging in shit-tier whataboutery to try and stop their readership collapsing. https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-have-resigned-from-telegraph https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/peter-oborne/why-i-... >The coverage of HSBC in Britain's Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril. The Telegraph is in the middle of a huge meltdown at the moment, and they are lashing out at everybody else. They also ran this particularly appalling story on their front page to try and detract from their own crisis: http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/daily-telegraph-anonymous-report http://www.buzzfeed.com/jimwaterson/daily-telegraph-anonymou... >A senior Daily Telegraph reporter wrote an anonymous front page story suggesting suicides at a rival newspaper may be connected to stress caused by commercial pressure – just days after the Telegraph itself faced allegations of blurring the lines between advertising and editorial.

k1m 12y ago
According to their source, "the headline of an article about Iraq on The Guardian's website was changed amid concerns about offending Apple, and the article was later removed from the home page entirely." Changing a headline of a story and making it much less prominent (removing it from the home page) so as not to offend an advertiser is quite a big deal. They quote the 'insider' at The Guardian saying: "If editorial staff knew what was happening here they would be horrified." I'm no fan of The Telegraph, and also think they published the piece because the Guardian revealed their own timidity in standing up to an advertiser (HSBC). But that doesn't mean the Telegraph piece about the Guardian is untrue. My own interpretation is that this kind of thing must be more common than we think when these publishers rely so heavily on advertising money. Of course it's not in their interest to be so open about it, so we probably hear little - except when they start flinging mud at each other.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]