• Hi all and welcome to TheWoodHaven2 brought into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming! We all have Alasdair to thank for the vast bulk of the heavy lifting to get us here, no more so than me because he's taken away a huge burden of responsibility from my shoulders and brought us to this new shiny home, with all your previous content (hopefully) still intact! Please peruse and feed back. There is still plenty to do, like changing the colour scheme, adding the banner graphic, tweaking the odd setting here and there so I have added a new thread in the 'Technical Issues, Bugs and Feature Requests' forum for you to add any issues you find, any missing settings or just anything you'd like to see added/removed from the feature set that Xenforo offers. We will get to everything over the coming weeks so please be patient, but add anything at all to the thread I mention above and we promise to get to them over the next few days/weeks/months. In the meantime, please enjoy!

Pay to read?

M

Mike Jordan

Sapling
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
430
Reaction score
19
Location
Littleover Derby.
Anyone else tired of clicking on what looks like an interesting story, only to find that it’s yet another item that you must pay to read?
I don’t think this will really bring in new subscribers and may damage the platform it’s on. It’s just driving me away,
 
It will increase. News outlets have costs and hardly anyone buys print media. Advertising is frequently blocked by software. It pushes news, both real and fake, to TwittereX, FB, TikTok etc and AI harvesting sites. Teh DM is a prime example of a site that was trialling a paywall, which has gradually taken over all of the most clickbaity content.

It is interesting that the Daily Telegraph appears to have widened it's acceptance of comments on-line as it descends ever closer to DM levels of pretend journalism, whereas the Guardian has gone the other way and now very rarely allows comments on anything serious, but bombards people with pleas for donations and subscriptions.

Much as I dislike the BBC's wokeism, excessive gayism and tendency towards black and of colour bias (not reflective of population strata) - as a news outlet they are not bad. Of course they have the unjust licence fee tax to cover them. It's interesting that news collection services, such as for example Apple News which uses AI harvesting, also harvests and does not appear to filter the clear source biases.
 
It is interesting that the Daily Telegraph appears to have widened it's acceptance of comments on-line ...

I'd think the opposite, they're not allowing comments on more and more articles. (The censorship at both The Telegraph and The Times has got ridiculously petty where they do allow comments.)

It irritates me that there's usually a symbol to click and forward an article ............... which then appears to the recipient behind a paywall. If I read an article in print and I thought it would interest someone I'd keep it and pass it to them. What's the difference? I'd think it was good advertising to allow articles to be forwarded.
 
AJB Temple said:
It will increase. News outlets have costs and hardly anyone buys print media. Advertising is frequently blocked by software. It pushes news, both real and fake, to TwittereX, FB, TikTok etc and AI harvesting sites. Teh DM is a prime example of a site that was trialling a paywall, which has gradually taken over all of the most clickbaity content.

It is interesting that the Daily Telegraph appears to have widened it's acceptance of comments on-line as it descends ever closer to DM levels of pretend journalism, whereas the Guardian has gone the other way and now very rarely allows comments on anything serious, but bombards people with pleas for donations and subscriptions.

Much as I dislike the BBC's wokeism, excessive gayism and tendency towards black and of colour bias (not reflective of population strata) - as a news outlet they are not bad. Of course they have the unjust licence fee tax to cover them. It's interesting that news collection services, such as for example Apple News which uses AI harvesting, also harvests and does not appear to filter the clear source biases.
Click to expand...


Adrian, you are going to have to stop talking sense, or someone will ban you.

Yeah, the Telegraph has gone revoltingly down market. But I’ve got used to the crossword setters.

And what you say about the BBC is true. Slow but generally reliable. But then I don’t have any televisions. (watch totally legally online , if I can be bothered). It has always slightly annoyed me that all families depicted are assumed to be multi ethnic and of variant sexuality. Not that I have any problem with it, but: Scotland has a non-white population percentage of, well, humm. let me quote the census – ‘the population in Asian, African, Caribbean or Black, Mixed or Other ethnic groups doubled to 4%’

That is one in 25. I’m not sure whether they data captured the Jedi and citizens of Alderaan. And of course it varies by area. I know, I know, I know.

A story.or two.

One of my agency colleagues was selling a retail property on Princes Street. Some squatters got in. A senior partner came up from London. First words when he came into the office:’ I hear you a problem with some West Indians. We’ll soon sort that’. To his eternal credit the partner in charge said ‘if so, they are the only f***ing c**ns in Edinburgh’. They were white eastern Europeans.

I employed a delighful Asian woman. Non-drinker, so could always tell you where you’d left your car keys. Took her to a job, introduced her to the client. Later, when she was doing the survey, the chap took me to one side and :, well here we go:

Is she any good?

Yeah, otherwise I wouldn’t employ her.

Yes, but does she understand.

What do you mean?

Are you shagging her?

D’yah know what. I found a conflict of interest that stopped me acting. Lender pissed off. borrower pissed off. Funnily enough, I seemed to take the flack.
 
Phil Pascoe said:
It is interesting that the Daily Telegraph appears to have widened it's acceptance of comments on-line ...

I'd think the opposite, they're not allowing comments on more and more articles. (The censorship at both The Telegraph and The Times has got ridiculously petty where they do allow comments.)

It irritates me that there's usually a symbol to click and forward an article ............... which then appears to the recipient behind a paywall. If I read an article in print and I thought it would interest someone I'd keep it and pass it to them. What's the difference? I'd think it was good advertising to allow articles to be forwarded.
Click to expand...
Just on the point of the paywall issues of sharing content, are you aware of https://archive.is/ perchance?

Wonderful site, you paste the URL of the paywall page into the site and it archives the content off, then you can send the archive URL to your friend which they can read fine. Obviously one person needs the paywall access in the first place, but it gets round your issue of you having it but not being able to share.
 
I get my news from the BBC which is pretty reliable. I detest it when I glance at 'Stripey' news (Apple) on the iFone where 85% of it is available only on prescription 😁 so most of the time I switch away from it. SWIMBO on the other hand obtains much of her info from the online Daily Wail, most of which has to be taken with a very large pinch of sodium chloride - Rob
 
TrimTheKing said:
And this is why we NEED over representation, to bring things back round to a normal level, because there are a massive number of racists and bigots in this country that have been lingering under the surface for years but been legitimised by the Tango Buffoon in the past 8 years!
Click to expand...
I agree 100% Mark. What I don't agree with is the skewed representation. For example, the Trans lobby gets a lot of attention. However, it was very recently shown in census results that there were more Trans people in centres of dense ethnic population than in Brighton. It overestimated the results by an unknown amount but could have been a hudredfold. The cause was ethnic groups not understanding what Trans meant. It did not mean transitioning from one country to another. Scotland, or at least the SNP, really misinterpreted this big time.

We also have huge skewing from the black lobby which gets a disproportionate amount of attention, whereas the highly industrious and successful Asian community has far less representation.

Overall I suggest it creates an impression that certain organisations respond to lobbying, the BBC for example, and end up skewing representation in a way that does not reflect the true make up of our population. The acting tribe is a prime example of this, with colour blind casting being a thing now, just so long as that colour is black. It's fine, as we control what we watch, but it is certainly not representative.

Racism and bigotry exists in all population groups and I suppose is part of the human condition. Telling people what to think and say possibly makes it worse. I think there is also a risk that the media is actively looking for things to take offence at and exaggerates the problems. My father worked in the car industry in Coventry in the 1950s to 1980s. Coventry had a hugely mixed population of indigenous white, Indian, Pakistani, West African in the factories and on the assembly lines. There was a lot of banter using terms today regarded as offensive, but very little trouble - everyone rubbed along fine. My brother worked in engineering in the same area (father and brother did not want to go into farming - grandfather had the farm then) in the 1990s onwards and at least 50% of the workforce in the factories originated from various parts of Asia and a few from Africa. Fruity language was the norm (in all directions), but actual racism was not. It was never politically correct in terms of language and doubt it ever will be.
 
TrimTheKing said:
And this is why we NEED over representation, to bring things back round to a normal level, because there are a massive number of racists and bigots in this country that have been lingering under the surface for years but been legitimised by the Tango Buffoon in the past 8 years!
Click to expand...
I disagree and think that it alienates more non-racist people. It will make damn all difference to the rabid racists and bigots view of life.
 
TrimTheKing said:
And this is why we NEED over representation, to bring things back round to a normal level, because there are a massive number of racists and bigots in this country that have been lingering under the surface for years but been legitimised by the Tango Buffoon in the past 8 years!
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I agree Mark. Things should be represented as they are.

But I’m quite open to be convinced that my way is not the only way.

More vignette from my working life: L and T (one of my departments) is generally female. At one point my employees were the only reason we hit our diversity target. OK they pop off to have children. It’s a cost. Can be anticipated. The biggest problem employee I had was male. And verging on an alkie. Dangerous to all who relied on him (bailed him out once, literally, and he tried to get out of paying back what he owed. Didn’t work.) Agents, eh?

Oh, and we appear to have had a rational conversation about something most would avoid. And I agree on cheesie whatsit head.
 
Yep good conversation chaps.

I'll rephrase my statement slightly, we don't necessarily NEED over representation in media, but it's one of the ways to bring things back to an equilibrium where it should be. If you over compensate in one direction, thus becoming the 'norm' then things naturally come back round to where they should be. It's not the only way, and I'm not for one second professing to be an expert in this field, I can just see why it happens.

Particularly with the BBC and the aforementioned license fee. I truly feel for the BBC, those who run it and all involved in working there (OBVIOUSLY not everyone who has EVER worked there, because we all know there's been a LOT they have to be sorry and ashamed of...!) . If you look at the political landscape of the past 10 years, I have read and listened to the blue followers whining that the BBC couldn't be any more leftie and woke, while simultaneously hearing the red persuasion spouting that the Beeb give the blues an easy ride for their blatant cronyism and stealing from the public purse.

Well call me wrong, but both sides cannot be right..! If both sides aren't happy with the representation and impartiality of the BBC towards their persuasion, then surely the BBC have the balance about right, no...?

I'm not saying they're perfect, far from it, but they're also not anywhere near as bad as some like to make out. Regarding the over/misrepresentation of particular groups by the Beeb, again yes they probably ARE over compensating, but the same things happen. One group who feel ignored or under represented make a noise, the Beeb respond, but it isn't enough for that group so they do more, all the while every other group looks and says "Bl00dy hell, this is all good and well, but this is a small proportion of the country but they're in/on EVERYTHING now!".

They can't win.

Until the bulk of this country, and probably the entire planet, learn to be generally more tolerant of everything that they don't stand for themselves, and start to treat each other with more respect, then nothing will change. Division and squabbling will continue and we'll be here in 1000 years (well WE won't) having the same discussion.

As they say on The Last Leg (before they got a bit too far up their own backsides), it's pretty simple, "Don't be a d*ck! "

Good day to you all my friends
 
The BBC has lost all direction in terms of impartiality. For example, the recent and well-documented report that was led by British lawyer Trevor Asserson, into their bias regarding coverage over Israel, Hamas and Gaza. A brief extract below ..

The Asserson report identified no fewer than 1,553 breaches of the BBC’s editorial guidelines, including impartiality, accuracy and public interest. Well-known reporters like Jeremy Bowen and Lyse Doucet come in for serious criticism. The BBC’s Arabic channel’s coverage of the war is one of the worst offenders. Eleven cases are mentioned where its coverage has featured reporters who have previously made public statements in defence of terrorists, and specifically Hamas, without making this history clear to the BBC’s audience.
 
Often perceived racism should be considered alongside the socioeconomic status and level of education of the person being seen as racist ( misogynistic, biggoted etc etc). Many times words used are often intended as descriptive and to define someone who is “other”, the language used purely that of the work place, upbringing and from the peer group.

On lookers with different , education, upbringing etc will be horrified and rush off to complain.
Without doubt there are the genuine racists and their attitudes , behaviours and language is copied by those influenced by them. It’s a matter of picking out the real troublemakers.

Racism is rife across the world, arab africa is blatantly dicriminatory towards “black” africa. Different sections of “black”african countries detest each other ( i worked in Guinea in 1992 when there was a national election, the violence and intimidation between the two main ethnic groups aiming to gain control was frightening).

In many carribean islands white tourists/ workers are seen solely as pockets to be lightened.

Then you might as well throw religion into the mix and look at the animosity, violence and widespread consideration in some faiths that others are lesser beings.

Massively complicated and convoluted, tiny indiscretions blown totally out of proportion when it suits and huge scandals ignored and covered up when it equally suits. Until those double standards are dealt with within our government, councils and law enforcement ( though they are politically led for the most part) , nothing will change as such attitudes only embolden or enrage those involved in or watching, the situations in question.
 
Thing that cheeses me of is the constant reference to Islamist terrorists or criminals.
You never hear about Christian terrorists or criminals. The faith of Muslims that I know totally condemn such behaviours.
But MSN still use it as a shorthand for everyone who originates from predominantly Muslim countries.
 
That's because the goal of MSM is to pander to the lowest common denominator that the owner of that media outlet wants to enrage at any given time.

Since time immemorial the rich and powerful have sought to create division amongst the masses to distract from their wealth hoarding, nothing new there. The most annoying thing is how the majority of people fall for it, the majority of the time! Either that or they can see it happen but allow it to...
 
Lurker said:
Thing that cheeses me of is the constant reference to Islamist terrorists or criminals.
You never hear about Christian terrorists or criminals. The faith of Muslims that I know totally condemn such behaviours.
But MSN still use it as a shorthand for everyone who originates from predominantly Muslim countries.
Click to expand...
Well, we are in danger of straying into areas that the forum doesn't allow.

I do agree with you to a certain extent but would make the following observations

1) I cannot recall any 'terrorist' act carried out in the name of Christianity in the, what, last 100 years or more. Perhaps that is why you never hear anything about 'Christian' terrorists.

2) There is a distinction generally accepted that there are Islamists (who wish world domination of Islam - ie the terrorists) and true Islam - as practised by more tolerant Muslims.

3) However, you say that they (the tolerant Muslims) totally condemn such behaviours but I see little evidence to support that. They might say this in private but I see little evidence in public. Let me expand a little. Remember those Danish cartoons ? Remember the riots, the protests, the demonstrations everywhere? Now fast forward to Bataclan. Manchester. Where were the protests in the street by those Muslims who condemn such behaviour ? "Not in my name", that sort of thing. Not very evident as far as I recall

4) The 'state' (police, politicians, councils etc) cannot see the difference between Islamists and Islam (see 2 above). 'Mustn't upset the Muslims' seems to be the 'states' mantra. And the end result of that is events such as Rochdale.

5) I think that the tolerant Muslims really need to step up to the plate more than they seem to be doing. We can't go into mosques and challenge imams who are spouting the Islamist viewpoint but they can. My sense is that not many of them do.
 
Just been reading bbc news website.
The BoE will announce interest rates at midday.
A very useful paragraph tells me
  • Interest rates are the extra money that gets charged on top of a loan or paid on top of savings.

Who knew??
 
Yep, Mrs T noted last night that the US dropped theirs by more than expected yesterday, which she believes/hopes will spark the same from the BoE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top