I think I saw Simon with an account on here recently, not sure if it was genuine or not - but I'm sure he reads this forum (ego wouldn't allow him not to).
His job is measured on just number of clicks, not quality.
Yep, that's the Trinity Mirror model.
Isn't it strange that we get an apology from SISU each time they want our money for season tickets and we are debating on to buy or not?
Exactly.Well not that strange if they do it every year. And if as you say they do it all the time then people must be pretty stupid to fall for it if that means so much them on deciding whether to purchase or not.
People will buy STs or they won't. We have, but nothing to do with what Fisher has said or not. I think people are intelligent enough to make up their own minds.
Exactly.
You have the choice on getting a ST. Just like you do with clicking on a non story.
Exactly.
You have the choice on getting a ST. Just like you do with clicking on a non story.
Nothing is the same if you don't want it to be.Not quite the same thing really is it?
Nothing is the same if you don't want it to be.
You can click to see if there is a story. You can buy a ST and hope that Fisher keeps to his word.
I'll play my role as Devil's Advocate as has become my job on this site.
Firstly, normally reporters don't write their own headlines. They're done by another person whose sole job is to improve click through, shouting at the reporter is like shouting at the wholesaler of potatoes because you don't like the packet McDonalds sells them in.
Secondly, yes 21st century news is shit. The money is flowing out of it and people aren't paying for it. Local news especially. The main driver is ad revenue, just like commercial TV, just like free websites. That means views, that means clicks. Guardian does it, Mail does it, Telegraph does it and local papers do it more because they have fewer viewers, even the darling of the clique here the Coventry Observer. Hence half the headlines on that site starting with "BREAKING:" even though it's a two day old story. Over the last decade the CT has been shrunk to virtaully nothing and almost amalgamated with other bigger papers. If you don't like they way they're going then you need to buy the paper because proper circulation is the only thing that'll stop them going full click bait. The other alternative is like the Observer to be a free paper also supported by ads.
Thirdly, I do wish people would stop misusing "fake news", it's not just a shit story or one you don't like, it's a story made from whole cloth with the specific aim of influencing people or making ad revenue.
Edit: What annoys me most about the rhetoric on this site is that I fucking hate the CT. I've personally been on the end of their shit inaccurate reporting. Yet because of the frothing at the mouth on this site I end up defending them.
Don't disagree with most of this (not entirely sure the Observer gets much of a free pass around these parts, mind!). I do fear local journalism is dead however, and when we end up with shitstorms like our club, that's when we miss it!I'll play my role as Devil's Advocate as has become my job on this site.
Firstly, normally reporters don't write their own headlines. They're done by another person whose sole job is to improve click through, shouting at the reporter is like shouting at the wholesaler of potatoes because you don't like the packet McDonalds sells them in.
Secondly, yes 21st century news is shit. The money is flowing out of it and people aren't paying for it. Local news especially. The main driver is ad revenue, just like commercial TV, just like free websites. That means views, that means clicks. Guardian does it, Mail does it, Telegraph does it and local papers do it more because they have fewer viewers, even the darling of the clique here the Coventry Observer. Hence half the headlines on that site starting with "BREAKING:" even though it's a two day old story. Over the last decade the CT has been shrunk to virtaully nothing and almost amalgamated with other bigger papers. If you don't like they way they're going then you need to buy the paper because proper circulation is the only thing that'll stop them going full click bait. The other alternative is like the Observer to be a free paper also supported by ads.
Thirdly, I do wish people would stop misusing "fake news", it's not just a shit story or one you don't like, it's a story made from whole cloth with the specific aim of influencing people or making ad revenue.
Edit: What annoys me most about the rhetoric on this site is that I fucking hate the CT. I've personally been on the end of their shit inaccurate reporting. Yet because of the frothing at the mouth on this site I end up defending them.
Nothing is the same if you don't want it to be.
You can click to see if there is a story. You can buy a ST and hope that Fisher keeps to his word.
Yep, that's the Trinity Mirror model.
It is all papers but it only seems to be the Telegraph that gets called out on it on this website.Isn't it all papers? That is probably why Reid is at the Observer too, lots of outraged clicks.
So you are like most and don't believe him then.But as people like you tell he is lying all the time why would they do that if they felt that strongly about it. Fisher doesn't stop me buying one regardless of what he promises or says as I like to think I'm intelligent enough to make my own informed decision on spending £300 on an ST. I'm under no illusions.
So you are like most and don't believe him then.
With the way you are posting it seems that you think I have said you shouldn't buy one. You couldn't be further from the truth if so.
The thing they have in common is bullshit. Bullshit headlines and bullshit comments. If you don't agree then say which one it doesn't concern.
I'll play my role as Devil's Advocate as has become my job on this site.
Firstly, normally reporters don't write their own headlines. They're done by another person whose sole job is to improve click through, shouting at the reporter is like shouting at the wholesaler of potatoes because you don't like the packet McDonalds sells them in.
Secondly, yes 21st century news is shit. The money is flowing out of it and people aren't paying for it. Local news especially. The main driver is ad revenue, just like commercial TV, just like free websites. That means views, that means clicks. Guardian does it, Mail does it, Telegraph does it and local papers do it more because they have fewer viewers, even the darling of the clique here the Coventry Observer. Hence half the headlines on that site starting with "BREAKING:" even though it's a two day old story. Over the last decade the CT has been shrunk to virtaully nothing and almost amalgamated with other bigger papers. If you don't like they way they're going then you need to buy the paper because proper circulation is the only thing that'll stop them going full click bait. The other alternative is like the Observer to be a free paper also supported by ads.
Thirdly, I do wish people would stop misusing "fake news", it's not just a shit story or one you don't like, it's a story made from whole cloth with the specific aim of influencing people or making ad revenue.
Edit: What annoys me most about the rhetoric on this site is that I fucking hate the CT. I've personally been on the end of their shit inaccurate reporting. Yet because of the frothing at the mouth on this site I end up defending them.
Which is how it should be. The one thing I miss about Coventry is the football. I would be the same as you and taking my youngest lad all the time. I will have to wait until retirement until I can go to every game again. Less than 11 years to go at the most.To be honest I don't hang on his every worth and froth at the mouth about it. Like SISU he says what he wants when he wants and one day he will be a distant memory.
People will take the piss and have a go but really at the moment all I care about is buying a ST and spending 90 minutes every other week with my son doing something we enjoy together. The rest will sort itself out whether I start a thread called "More Fisher Lies!!!!!!" or not.
I think I saw Simon with an account on here recently, not sure if it was genuine or not - but I'm sure he reads this forum (ego wouldn't allow him not to). I'd be really interested to know the reasoning and nature behind this article Simon if you're out there: Did CCFC co-owner Joy Seppala meet Gary Hoffman at the weekend?
Against my better judgement, I read this article. It was blatantly obvious it was click bait.
Low and behold I was absolutely right. The article stats off saying it is based on a rumour (started by who, the Telegraph?), but then goes on to answer its own question by saying apparently the meeting hadn't taken place.
Other than that the article covered stuff we already knew. So Simon, as the Chief Reporter at the CET, how is this not pure click bait? How can you possibly justify that this article purely based on a rumour that is scotched by your own sources in the next paragraph, is possibly in 'the public interest' which you and your paper continuously use as the justification for your derisory articles on CCFC (not just sisu, but CCFC).
I know I'm preaching to the converted with users of this forum on Gilbert, but I genuinely don't see how the editor at the CET can possibly thing this is newsworthy and know that it is purely about clicks.
I for one won't be bothering with the CET any more, not that I was anyway, but this article Simon is nothing more than absolutely pathetic and even an egotist like you must sure be a little embarrassed that you have put this out under the title of Chief Reporter.
Gotta say and I know I won't be popular on this.
I thought it was usual to have itconfirmed from Gary Hoffman that he had not met Joy over the weekend.
However the rest of the article is the same as what Les Reid does, awhile regurgitation of the history. Totally pointless and just padding out. Just put a link on for someone if they don't know the history.
"Hoffman says joy meeting rumour is false"So why headline it "did they meet" when he knew they hadn't?
So why headline it "did they meet" when he knew they hadn't?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?