Jump to content

George Caulkin


Tooj

Recommended Posts

If he isn't going to lookout for Rupert Murdoch who is?

 

Poor bastard will be nearly broke.

 

Eh? Newspapers are going broke left, right and centre. If you don't see how this affects the way people consume media and read news then you're nuts. The Washington Post was just sold for $250m, a fraction of its peak value. The Boston Globe was sold for $70m, a full $1bn less than its price 20 years ago. Advertising revenue doesn't cover the decline in traditional revenues. It shouldn't matter who owns it as the effect of this decline is far more damaging to the people who work in it, and also affects the way news is reported. This is not music where artists earn a majority of their money  from other sources, anyway, not that it makes downloading music something that is commendable.

 

It's not a good situation when news organisations which should be impartial are all tangled up in shitloads of conflicts of interests because they don't have enough subscribership revenue and have to depend on corporate sponsors instead, the same corporations that they report on. (coincidentally everyone is killing the Chronicle on their reporting on Wonga)

 

If you want good, honest, impartial reporting then you have to pay for it. People bitch and moan when the local journalists don't print stuff because they're afraid to offend the club's hierarchy yet fail to see that leaving news organisations completely beholden to corporate sponsors is by default forcing this status quo on editors and journalists.

 

Anyway, the mods have probably made this decision because posting articles behind a paywall could get this site in trouble, in the same way as posting copyrighted football videos once got this place shut down. I'm sure all the people bitching today would moan even more if this forum was shut down. I'm certain that the moral argument matters less to the mods than any possible legal consequence, but nonetheless they have merit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are we not allowed to copy and paste articles now? Bullshit if so.

 

Tricky ground when it comes to stuff from behind paywalls, but of course regular articles with links included, etc. are still fine :thup:

 

Aye, but some of us aren't situated in the UK and not online when it's available for free. Some of the yank lads are probably still asleep even now.

 

We'll just do without. Cheers pip.

 

Yeah, never once been able to catch it while free, so the pasting was always appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he isn't going to lookout for Rupert Murdoch who is?

 

Poor bastard will be nearly broke.

 

Eh? Newspapers are going broke left, right and centre. If you don't see how this affects the way people consume media and read news then you're nuts. The Washington Post was just sold for $250m, a fraction of its peak value. The Boston Globe was sold for $70m, a full $1bn less than its price 20 years ago. Advertising revenue doesn't cover the decline in traditional revenues. It shouldn't matter who owns it as the effect of this decline is far more damaging to the people who work in it, and also affects the way news is reported. This is not music where artists earn a majority of their money  from other sources, anyway, not that it makes downloading music something that is commendable.

 

It's not a good situation when news organisations which should be impartial are all tangled up in shitloads of conflicts of interests because they don't have enough subscribership revenue and have to depend on corporate sponsors instead, the same corporations that they report on. (coincidentally everyone is killing the Chronicle on their reporting on Wonga)

 

If you want good, honest, impartial reporting then you have to pay for it. People bitch and moan when the local journalists don't print stuff because they're afraid to offend the club's hierarchy yet fail to see that leaving news organisations completely beholden to corporate sponsors is by default forcing this status quo on editors and journalists.

 

Anyway, the mods have probably made this decision because posting articles behind a paywall could get this site in trouble, in the same way as posting copyrighted football videos once got this place shut down. I'm sure all the people bitching today would moan even more if this forum was shut down. I'm certain that the moral argument matters less to the mods than any possible legal consequence, but nonetheless they have merit.

 

Poor joke was poor.

 

Good point btw and one I agree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he isn't going to lookout for Rupert Murdoch who is?

 

Poor bastard will be nearly broke.

 

Eh? Newspapers are going broke left, right and centre. If you don't see how this affects the way people consume media and read news then you're nuts. The Washington Post was just sold for $250m, a fraction of its peak value. The Boston Globe was sold for $70m, a full $1bn less than its price 20 years ago. Advertising revenue doesn't cover the decline in traditional revenues. It shouldn't matter who owns it as the effect of this decline is far more damaging to the people who work in it, and also affects the way news is reported. This is not music where artists earn a majority of their money  from other sources, anyway, not that it makes downloading music something that is commendable.

 

It's not a good situation when news organisations which should be impartial are all tangled up in shitloads of conflicts of interests because they don't have enough subscribership revenue and have to depend on corporate sponsors instead, the same corporations that they report on. (coincidentally everyone is killing the Chronicle on their reporting on Wonga)

 

If you want good, honest, impartial reporting then you have to pay for it. People bitch and moan when the local journalists don't print stuff because they're afraid to offend the club's hierarchy yet fail to see that leaving news organisations completely beholden to corporate sponsors is by default forcing this status quo on editors and journalists.

 

Anyway, the mods have probably made this decision because posting articles behind a paywall could get this site in trouble, in the same way as posting copyrighted football videos once got this place shut down. I'm sure all the people bitching today would moan even more if this forum was shut down. I'm certain that the moral argument matters less to the mods than any possible legal consequence, but nonetheless they have merit.

 

Food for thought. Well said.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If he isn't going to lookout for Rupert Murdoch who is?

 

Poor bastard will be nearly broke.

 

Eh? Newspapers are going broke left, right and centre. If you don't see how this affects the way people consume media and read news then you're nuts. The Washington Post was just sold for $250m, a fraction of its peak value. The Boston Globe was sold for $70m, a full $1bn less than its price 20 years ago. Advertising revenue doesn't cover the decline in traditional revenues. It shouldn't matter who owns it as the effect of this decline is far more damaging to the people who work in it, and also affects the way news is reported. This is not music where artists earn a majority of their money  from other sources, anyway, not that it makes downloading music something that is commendable.

 

It's not a good situation when news organisations which should be impartial are all tangled up in shitloads of conflicts of interests because they don't have enough subscribership revenue and have to depend on corporate sponsors instead, the same corporations that they report on. (coincidentally everyone is killing the Chronicle on their reporting on Wonga)

 

If you want good, honest, impartial reporting then you have to pay for it. People bitch and moan when the local journalists don't print stuff because they're afraid to offend the club's hierarchy yet fail to see that leaving news organisations completely beholden to corporate sponsors is by default forcing this status quo on editors and journalists.

 

Anyway, the mods have probably made this decision because posting articles behind a paywall could get this site in trouble, in the same way as posting copyrighted football videos once got this place shut down. I'm sure all the people bitching today would moan even more if this forum was shut down. I'm certain that the moral argument matters less to the mods than any possible legal consequence, but nonetheless they have merit.

 

:thup:

 

To be fair, though, the local papers still had to cuddle up to the club even when advertising revenues were healthier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was spot on. Good to see some real journalism. He did leave out one key element though which is the injuries. Last season was bonkers with regard to injuries and if we manage to keep them down we have a fairly good chance of finishing comfortably in the middle of the table.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tend to agree with him, especially when it's classed as a "blog" rather than an "article" (though not sure if other's agree there should be a distinction there). He's our best journalist by a mile.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He is spot on, and that's the crazy situation we are in. A few signings made this summer and we would have had a top 8 team, but instead we are now in a situation where a few injuries to our first team and we are in big trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...