I suspect if you cut out the number the Independent hand out for free via hotels it would be even worse. I think now they don't even have a physical edition?
These guys must pay next to nothing and demand articles that get "eyeballs", produced in little time.
Plus all are captive to their main advertisers: cars, banks, realtors.
That's very interesting. Seems like the FT is the only one to buck the trend - I wonder what they're doing differently. The Guardian also seems to be stemming the rot.
Is this a case of two globally oriented forward looking publications that are embracing new distribution mediums?
I've never read the other ones really - maybe this in itself gives a hint, though I am just a sample population of '1'.
I just noticed The Times in there as well. Okay I'm guessing from these 3 data points that it might be because they're actually charging for content, but in exchange actually providing content that is good.
Yes, but most don't sub. Traditional media is a shadow of its former self. The content is shockingly bad. I'd love to bring back to life the editor of these papers from 30 years ago, pretty sure they would want to be dead again.
http://imgur.com/NJ4F8Tt.jpg
I suspect if you cut out the number the Independent hand out for free via hotels it would be even worse. I think now they don't even have a physical edition?
These guys must pay next to nothing and demand articles that get "eyeballs", produced in little time.
Plus all are captive to their main advertisers: cars, banks, realtors.
Why not just read blogs?