The Guardian answers its own question but still doesn’t get it

You have to hand it to the left-wing media. The Guardian has put a puff piece together attacking the success of Sky News.

Journalist Jason Wilson noted, “since mid-2019 Sky has transformed itself into “one of Australian media’s digital leaders” by “focusing on producing highly partisan opinion content targeted at a global audienceThis has attracted a large international audience to Sky’s online offerings. On YouTube, in the last month, Sky attracted 100,000 or so new subscribers and now has 1.06 million in total, putting it just behind the ABC at 1.2 million.”

Imagine that? Make a product that consumers actually want and make money from it. Revolutionary idea! Versus a $1bn+ taxpayer funded behemoth which year after year posts ratings declines despite more budget poured into its coffers every year.

The Guardian fills the exact same space as the ABC, SMH, The Age, AFR and so on. There is no differentiation in product. More commoditized me too. If one were to remove the mastheads and journalist names no one would know which paper they were reading. If they had any sense they’d all merge and sack 80% of the staff.

Alas, Sky News has filled a massive void because it took the time to understand the marketplace rather than cry foul because dwindling eyeballs are a reflection of the mainstream media’s own poor content and lack of creativity. The irony is that media outlets like The Guardian will still demand that YOU are the problem for not reading the endless streams of climate alarmism and anti-Trump articles. And the claim of fake news is laughable when the paper self confessed to demanding journalists up the sensationalist prose in its articles on climate change.

That didn’t stop Wilson from tossing the toys from the pram at the end of his article:

There’s no indication that the Coalition government has any interest in policing the Sky-to-internet fake news pipeline. The companies that host Sky’s viral far-right disinformation bombs are in cahoots with them. Nothing about this is likely to change in 2021, outside the unlikely event of massive pushback on the channel from an Australian public that hardly knows the channel exists.

It’s enough to make you wish for the good old days of 2020.

Talk about sour grapes. 🍋 🍇

Isn’t it fascinating? The left wing media demand that a channel – one an individual has to voluntarily subscribe to and playing in the free market – must be investigated. Were the content to be so despised and off the mark, its ratings would plunge and the whole thing end up in the dustbin of history. Is it any wonder Fox News in America has higher ratings that CNN & MSNBC combined?

The difference between Sky and the ABC is that one has a legislated charter which demands it display zero partisan bias in its coverage (which it flagrantly flaunts). How proud we must be as Australians to forcibly fund an organization that tells us to “shut the f*ck up!” The other is merely beholden to shareholders. Yet the ABC is given a free pass because it is on the same side.

The Guardian would do far better following Sky’s business model rather than a strategy which begs for donations as it competes with the very organization that is guaranteed an income without even trying. If socialists understood economics, they wouldn’t be socialists.

One comment

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s