Begging for support is no longer working as hoped it would seem. Although condescending its audience would. The Guardian is now quoting the generosity of souls to help ‘secure its future’. Thomasine F-R would have us believe that no paywall is [somehow] democratic. Isn’t it democratic to allow people to choose what they want to read? In fact if there were fewer of the ride but not pay brigade among its readers Thomasine wouldn’t need to virtue signal her compassion. Secretly I’m sure she prefers it this way because all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. She got the ‘commodity’ bit spot on. There is no real differentiation to attract the masses. People can stream or listen to the BBC to get Guardian-esque left wing bias for free. Does the public require two such offerings? With any luck if Corbyn wins he might nationalise the newspaper alongside utilities, mail and rail.
These days it would seem that most reading starts and ends with the clickbait title. 99% of the Likes and Shares are based on pre-formed bias. Just read the comments to most social media posts and it is easy to see how little time is spent on absorbing content. It is the equivalent of digital Chinese whispers. Still so much of the media can’t escape self-praise. The construction of narratives in an echo-chamber about ‘their opinion matters’ is the problem. Indeed it should limit the number of articles under the paywall and see how many line up to pay for the privilege of accessing such journalistic brilliance or whether they ration the monthly morsels.
Shame on Murdoch for not allowing his subscribers to appeal to readers about how their wealth is what keeps the plebs from accessing the content for free.