politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why politicians of all colours will have less to fear from
Sales drops & paywalls make press less important
When this Sun published in Sept 2009 sales 3,079,998
Now 2,258,359l pic.twitter.com/ak3sLVIVyZ
Comments
-
The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.0
-
I disagree - that the balance in sales is down - the influence of newspaper stories remains very high.
Most of the broadcasters rely on print journalists to generate their content. It's just a change in delivery mechanism. How often does the BBC or ITV or Sky or C4 generate its own *news* - not very often at all.0 -
Does the Indy figure count in (I) sales ?0
-
The Guardian takeover of Newsnight continues. The BBC2 programme’s new editor, Ian Katz (former deputy editor of the Guardian), drafted in his old colleague, Guardian TV critic Sam Wollaston, last night to report on the America’s Cup. Who on the Guardian payroll will be next to present an item on Newsnight? http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/who-on-the-guardian-payroll-will-be-next-to-present-on-newsnight-8841616.html0
-
I'd say that the Mail has more influence now than at the time of the 2010 GE. Certainly its print sales are down - though by the smallest amount in the Press - but the reach of its online articles continues to grow. Take these figures from wikipediaPulpstar said:The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.
The website reached 105.72 million unique web browsers in August 2012, up from 66 million in March 2011,[3] according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.[4] That figure makes it the world's most popular news site.
That's astounding.
Globally it was the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times website, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.[5]0 -
One thing's for sure - the Beeb will have Red Ed's back.0
-
That's astounding.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd say that the Mail has more influence now than at the time of the 2010 GE. Certainly its print sales are down - though by the smallest amount in the Press - but the reach of its online articles continues to grow. Take these figures from wikipediaPulpstar said:The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.
The website reached 105.72 million unique web browsers in August 2012, up from 66 million in March 2011,[3] according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.[4] That figure makes it the world's most popular news site.
Globally it was the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times website, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.[5]
It's the right hand column, it is the place to go for mindless celeb tittle tattle. But by God it's working.0 -
Did any PBer watch QT last night? I don't think I saw a single comment about it - I assume it was on?0
-
Funny how the ones which have lost the most are the 3 main 'quality' left-wing (and i'm including the FT) ones.
The independent is clearly due to the I taking some of it, although how economically feasible the I at 20p per copy without the independent backing it up might be questionable.
0 -
0
-
@Cyclingnewsfeed
this is where the action is at!
the UCI congress is on. politics! bribes! dirty deals! dodgy (or otherwise) dossiers!
(sorry for being off topic)0 -
I have to say the website I read the most is the Guardian. It's actually a good paper (away from the politics bit), but it's always good to see opinions which you don't agree with.
And its filled with some of the biggest nutters out there, both ATL and BTL.0 -
Philip Collins isn't comfy at all
"When I get round to writing my book on the doctrine of the British Left, I intend to call it Banned, Compulsory or Free because those are the three offers that Labour loves to make....Labour has no answer, in its comfort zone, to the question it avoided in Brighton. Keen to debate the fact that households have too little money, Labour has still to say how it would cope without money.
The most intriguing moment of the week was the less than lukewarm endorsement of high-speed rail by Ed Balls, the Shadow Chancellor. Mr Balls never so much as brushes his teeth without strategic intent and it is likely that he wants the £50 billion earmarked for the project to “spend” on other promises. There are always a lot of free things to be paid for.
There was nothing though, from anyone, that challenged the hall. This is the consequence of Mr Miliband’s finest achievement as a leader. He has prevented the Labour party from descending into recriminations and he has done that by flattery. Every one of his Shadow Cabinet, with the partial exceptions of Mr Balls and the Shadow Welfare Secretary, Liam Byrne, followed suit rather slavishly. There was hardly an uncomfortable moment all week..." http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/philipcollins/article3880123.ece0 -
The 'Man Made' global warming fraternity has closed ranks, fiddled the records and filed their excuses and are happily on more govermental payrolls than ever.
Of course the beeb and like minded are lapping it up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-242926150 -
It's the right hand column, it is the place to go for mindless celeb tittle tattle. But by God it's working.Pulpstar said:
That's astounding.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd say that the Mail has more influence now than at the time of the 2010 GE. Certainly its print sales are down - though by the smallest amount in the Press - but the reach of its online articles continues to grow. Take these figures from wikipediaPulpstar said:The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.
The website reached 105.72 million unique web browsers in August 2012, up from 66 million in March 2011,[3] according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.[4] That figure makes it the world's most popular news site.
Globally it was the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times website, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.[5]
I guess the question is how many of their impressive number of readers ever move left from the celebrated sidebar of shame. Otherwise the only impact may be an increase in approval for the "all grown up" party "flaunting" its "curves".0 -
The Mail has quite a strong online presence, but much is outside the UK.
Swing voters are more likely to be newspaper readers, and with these the Sun may be most important. You see a lot of copies on building sites and white vans. Professionals like me have internet at work. I rarely buy a paper.
Smartphone internet access is easier also, but the Sun may be bought for the Sport but the front page seen also. Surfing a sports website doesnt get the same passing trade.
I do not think Murdoch likes the two Eds, I expect they will be getting both barrels.
That's astounding.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd say that the Mail has more influence now than at the time of the 2010 GE. Certainly its print sales are down - though by the smallest amount in the Press - but the reach of its online articles continues to grow. Take these figures from wikipediaPulpstar said:The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.
The website reached 105.72 million unique web browsers in August 2012, up from 66 million in March 2011,[3] according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.[4] That figure makes it the world's most popular news site.
Globally it was the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times website, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.[5]
0 -
"...It’s nonsense, of course. Anyone who lived through the 1970s knows that price caps fail everywhere they are tried. Government can create shortages (through price controls) or surpluses (through subsidy). But ministerial diktat can never make a market work properly; only proper competition can. This, anyway, is the conclusion from the past four decades of economic history. But Miliband thinks differently. As he told Charles Moore in an interview with this newspaper, he regards capitalism as iniquitous and socialism as the remedy. He is now saying that, if elected, he would try to prove it..." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10336902/The-scale-of-Ed-Milibands-ambition-is-both-breathtaking-and-terrifying.html0
-
...and UKIP had a great night at last nights by-electionsanotherDave said:Ranulph Fiennes is a UKIP supporter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranulph_Fiennes#Politician0 -
I guess the question is how many of their impressive number of readers ever move left from the celebrated sidebar of shame. Otherwise the only impact may be an increase in approval for the "all grown up" party "flaunting" its "curves".Polruan said:
It's the right hand column, it is the place to go for mindless celeb tittle tattle. But by God it's working.Pulpstar said:
That's astounding.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd say that the Mail has more influence now than at the time of the 2010 GE. Certainly its print sales are down - though by the smallest amount in the Press - but the reach of its online articles continues to grow. Take these figures from wikipediaPulpstar said:The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.
The website reached 105.72 million unique web browsers in August 2012, up from 66 million in March 2011,[3] according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.[4] That figure makes it the world's most popular news site.
Globally it was the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times website, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.[5]
The Mail understands human nature. We want to be outraged and disgusted at others antics. It makes us feel better about ourselves.
Oh, and sex sells...always has done, always will do.0 -
ONS @statisticsONS
Services grew by 0.2% between June and July 2013: bit.ly/19yRF9h0 -
FPT.
Fitlass said:
This is a pearl beyond price ! Posters who get almost everything wrong about everything are the best guide in the blogosphere when in comes to instant reaction to political developments?You missed a word out....the site is the best for instant over reaction to political developments.fitalass said:I couldn't disagree more. The PB community as a whole have been about the best guide in the UK blogsphere when it comes to instant reaction to political developments since before the 2005 GE. That is why the site is so highly regarded, and why its followed by many in the political and media Westminster bubble. What has been interesting recently, is the sudden rise in trolling posters who seem determined to spend their time here on the site undermining and trashing other posters as a collective under various tagteam nicknames.
We have had various times in the past where the dividing lines here on certain issues have crossed partisan political lines, or the instant reaction of the media has been challenged and proved incorrect. I remember the way that Blair's defence of Gordon Brown as the 'clunking fist' at PMQ's was initially regarded a masterful defence of his colleague when it was in fact no such thing. It was in fact Blair sticking the boot into his nemesis and portraying him in the most unattractive light. Some of us here on PB called it as a backhanded compliment from the moment Blair sat down.
As for people in the media and Westminster following this blog, they do so because of the knowledge and experience of Mike Smithson, not for the claptrap and hysteria that comes underneath in the comments section,0 -
Clearly Cameron thinks differently too going by his announcement about what tariffs energy companies should place consumers on. Only Cameron's intervention didnt launch 100s of articles and posts on pbc about how the world was about to end.Plato said:But ministerial diktat can never make a market work properly; only proper competition can. This, anyway, is the conclusion from the past four decades of economic history. But Miliband thinks differently.
0 -
@Plato
I've just been watching QT on catch-up and it was one of the most boring sessions in years.
LAB had Duggie Alexander and CON Michael Gove who are both incredibly polite which adds to the tedium.0 -
Does anyone outside the Westminster bubble, journalists and avid supporters of one side or another watch QT these days? Surely it's a concept which is 10-15 years past its sell-by date. It's worth noting that when QT began, the public couldn't even watch parliament in action (though they could listen). Now, the opportunities for interaction with MPs and ministers is immeasurably greater than it was in the early '80s and as such the role for a programme like QT is greatly reduced. The fragmentation of the party structure and the improved media message discipline since then doesn't help much either.Plato said:Did any PBer watch QT last night? I don't think I saw a single comment about it - I assume it was on?
0 -
It's not possible for scientists to close ranks in that way. There are too many rewards for proving the status quo wrong.MikeK said:The 'Man Made' global warming fraternity has closed ranks, fiddled the records and filed their excuses and are happily on more govermental payrolls than ever.
Of course the beeb and like minded are lapping it up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-242926150 -
The Mail understands human nature. We want to be outraged and disgusted at others antics. It makes us feel better about ourselves.Slackbladder said:
I guess the question is how many of their impressive number of readers ever move left from the celebrated sidebar of shame. Otherwise the only impact may be an increase in approval for the "all grown up" party "flaunting" its "curves".Polruan said:
It's the right hand column, it is the place to go for mindless celeb tittle tattle. But by God it's working.Pulpstar said:
That's astounding.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd say that the Mail has more influence now than at the time of the 2010 GE. Certainly its print sales are down - though by the smallest amount in the Press - but the reach of its online articles continues to grow. Take these figures from wikipediaPulpstar said:The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.
The website reached 105.72 million unique web browsers in August 2012, up from 66 million in March 2011,[3] according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.[4] That figure makes it the world's most popular news site.
Globally it was the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times website, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.[5]
Oh, and sex sells...always has done, always will do.
Hey, I'm not judging... it's not a curve unless it's flaunted, and it's not flaunted unless it's a curve. One of the more unusual tautologies of recent journalism. My point was more that I'm not sure there's much read-across (literally) from perving on the sidebar and absorbing the Mail's detailed political wisdom.0 -
I read the Times most, then Telegraph blogs, then Indy/Mail then Guardian, finally Mirror/Sun.Slackbladder said:I have to say the website I read the most is the Guardian. It's actually a good paper (away from the politics bit), but it's always good to see opinions which you don't agree with.
And its filled with some of the biggest nutters out there, both ATL and BTL.
Each paper has a niche specialist set of strong points - the Times is very good on Law/Crime, the DT on Business and Health etc - the Guardian on the media.
Anyone who doesn't read something because they dislike its broader political agenda is a daft IMO - know thine enemy if nothing else.0 -
Messrs Herdson and Smithson - thanks for letting me know it wasn't worth something worth watching! I tune in maybe half a dozen times a year - AQ is a bit better - just....0
-
I thought it was a relatively lively episode. Michael Gove and Will Self had a minor dust up. Because of his "cool" Self tends to get away with dangerous claptrap by playing to the dumber and more impressionable members of the audience and which would be pounced upon if others said it - in Gove though he met someone who wasn't going to give way.Pulpstar said:
Was it ? Might catch it on iplayer. Whih talking heads did they roll out - lets have a look.Plato said:Did any PBer watch QT last night? I don't think I saw a single comment about it - I assume it was on?
0 -
Hey, I'm not judging... it's not a curve unless it's flaunted, and it's not flaunted unless it's a curve. One of the more unusual tautologies of recent journalism. My point was more that I'm not sure there's much read-across (literally) from perving on the sidebar and absorbing the Mail's detailed political wisdom.Polruan said:Slackbladder said:
I guess the question is how many of their impressive number of readers ever move left from the celebrated sidebar of shame. Otherwise the only impact may be an increase in approval for the "all grown up" party "flaunting" its "curves".Polruan said:
It's the right hand column, it is the place to go for mindless celeb tittle tattle. But by God it's working.Pulpstar said:
That's astounding.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd say that the Mail has more influence now than at the time of the 2010 GE. Certainly its print sales are down - though by the smallest amount in the Press - but the reach of its online articles continues to grow. Take these figures from wikipediaPulpstar said:The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.
The website reached 105.72 million unique web browsers in August 2012, up from 66 million in March 2011,[3] according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.[4] That figure makes it the world's most popular news site.
Globally it was the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times website, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.[5]
What I find fascinating about the Mail is that it's generally v good at identifying a bandwagon to jump on - but sometimes it gets it totally wrong when it goes into stereotype/voyeurism territory and its readers call foul. They're a pretty sentimental lot who really don't like being mean to those who are clearly mentally ill but happen to be found eaten by their cats.
I hope to be treated well when I appear in an edition :^ )0 -
FPT:
Surely the principled thing to have done upon finding out the dirty-tricks McBride was up to would have been to confront him directly rather than going behind his back and maintaining the friendly face?surbiton said:
OK, let me get this right ! He finds out McBride is upto no good. He goes and tells their boss this. And, he was "scheming and pouring poison" ?
Huh ?
No?
I'm often confused by people who come here with obviously such a low opinion of the quality of comments here, and instead of trying to improve said quality just bleat. Look at me, i'm obviously superior to all you know nothing Hodge wannabe PBTories. Ya boo.HortenceWithering said:FPT.
Fitlass said:
This is a pearl beyond price ! Posters who get almost everything wrong about everything are the best guide in the blogosphere when in comes to instant reaction to political developments?You missed a word out....the site is the best for instant over reaction to political developments.fitalass said:I couldn't disagree more. The PB community as a whole have been about the best guide in the UK blogsphere when it comes to instant reaction to political developments since before the 2005 GE. That is why the site is so highly regarded, and why its followed by many in the political and media Westminster bubble. What has been interesting recently, is the sudden rise in trolling posters who seem determined to spend their time here on the site undermining and trashing other posters as a collective under various tagteam nicknames.
We have had various times in the past where the dividing lines here on certain issues have crossed partisan political lines, or the instant reaction of the media has been challenged and proved incorrect. I remember the way that Blair's defence of Gordon Brown as the 'clunking fist' at PMQ's was initially regarded a masterful defence of his colleague when it was in fact no such thing. It was in fact Blair sticking the boot into his nemesis and portraying him in the most unattractive light. Some of us here on PB called it as a backhanded compliment from the moment Blair sat down.
As for people in the media and Westminster following this blog, they do so because of the knowledge and experience of Mike Smithson, not for the claptrap and hysteria that comes underneath in the comments section,0 -
The Daily Mail has a genius about it. Catering for both sides of the argument and unspoken passions.
"Outrage at public nudity", photos page 3,6,8 & 130 -
Those circulation drops are depressing . Reading online is all well and good but ,by its nature, it encourages superficiality. Nothing like relaxing for an hour reading a paper paper!! I notice the Lloyds list has joined Newsweek in abolishing print. It cannot be long before a quality newspaper does so as well0
-
Michael Gove dominated. Will Self was a prat who seemed to think the Westgate mall massacre was our govts fault. The other panel members were numpties. Michael Gove and Douglas Alexander got on well and seem to like each other despite their politics.
Gove came over very well. I can see him as next leader. He is articulate and not afraid to stick up for what he believes. I can see him as LOTO if Miliband wins.Plato said:Messrs Herdson and Smithson - thanks for letting me know it wasn't worth something worth watching! I tune in maybe half a dozen times a year - AQ is a bit better - just....
0 -
"The heat is on" says Ban Ki Moon, on the IPPC climate dossier. I love it when the high and mighty make puns like that; shows what uncaring thoughtless slobs they are.0
-
Why would anyone pay to read a newspaper?
The influence of individual columnists is now often bigger than their newspapers, thanks to twitter and blogs. Those who write for the Times are severely handicapped on that front though. I can't recall the last time I troubled to read anything by Matthew Parris.0 -
Two more results from last night's by elections
Cherwell Banbury Lab hold Lab 758 Con 323 UKIP 206
Mid Devon Way Con hold Con 189 LD 130 UKIP 60 Ind 150 -
Wee Dougie is probably just about the safest choice from both sides of the house for a telly debating show. I'd disa gree a bit on Gove, he's like a latin master in school who doesn't really care if he comes across as slightly pompous. Both Gove and Alexander do tend to be on top of their briefs though and generally perform passably (Neither will make for the best telly though). And Gove is representing the Gov't so as Gov't ministers always have to be, they are generally slightly dull.MikeSmithson said:@Plato
I've just been watching QT on catch-up and it was one of the most boring sessions in years.
LAB had Duggie Alexander and CON Michael Gove who are both incredibly polite which adds to the tedium.
Probably wasn't a patch on this one though - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmv2sL2qkIM
Note the byline - David Dimbleby chairs political debate from Aldershot. The panel includes: Christopher Hitchens, Boris Johnson, Baroness Williams and Peter Hitchens.
And some other chap - Tony Mcnulty. Apparently he was the security minister at the time. Remember him ? No neither do I.0 -
Why not pay the princely sum of £2 a week and have access in that case - you're making a very strange argument given 336k of us already do pay to read their journalism and opinion.antifrank said:Why would anyone pay to read a newspaper?
The influence of individual columnists is now often bigger than their newspapers, thanks to twitter and blogs. Those who write for the Times are severely handicapped on that front though. I can't recall the last time I troubled to read anything by Matthew Parris.0 -
Tony McNulty is quite fun on Twitter and worth following.Pulpstar said:
Wee Dougie is probably just about the safest choice from both sides of the house for a telly debating show. I'd disa gree a bit on Gove, he's like a latin master in school who doesn't really care if he comes across as slightly pompous. Both Gove and Alexander do tend to be on top of their briefs though and generally perform passably (Neither will make for the best telly though). And Gove is representing the Gov't so as Gov't ministers always have to be, they are generally slightly dull.MikeSmithson said:@Plato
I've just been watching QT on catch-up and it was one of the most boring sessions in years.
LAB had Duggie Alexander and CON Michael Gove who are both incredibly polite which adds to the tedium.
Probably wasn't a patch on this one though - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmv2sL2qkIM
Note the byline - David Dimbleby chairs political debate from Aldershot. The panel includes: Christopher Hitchens, Boris Johnson, Baroness Williams and Peter Hitchens.
And some other chap - Tony Mcnulty. Apparently he was the security minister at the time. Remember him ? No neither do I.0 -
Well it seems less and less are but for me to pay a £1 to read the Times in paper form is hardly onerous ,hurts my eyes less and in a nice convenient form .antifrank said:Why would anyone pay to read a newspaper?
The influence of individual columnists is now often bigger than their newspapers, thanks to twitter and blogs. Those who write for the Times are severely handicapped on that front though. I can't recall the last time I troubled to read anything by Matthew Parris.
0 -
I guess the question is how many of their impressive number of readers ever move left from the celebrated sidebar of shame. Otherwise the only impact may be an increase in approval for the "all grown up" party "flaunting" its "curves".Polruan said:
It's the right hand column, it is the place to go for mindless celeb tittle tattle. But by God it's working.Pulpstar said:
That's astounding.OblitusSumMe said:
I'd say that the Mail has more influence now than at the time of the 2010 GE. Certainly its print sales are down - though by the smallest amount in the Press - but the reach of its online articles continues to grow. Take these figures from wikipediaPulpstar said:The paper (Combining online and print) with the most reach and influence is the Mail at the moment I'd say.
The website reached 105.72 million unique web browsers in August 2012, up from 66 million in March 2011,[3] according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations.[4] That figure makes it the world's most popular news site.
Globally it was the most visited newspaper website, according to ComScore, whose methodology gave the site 50.1 million unique visitors for October 2012, ahead of the previous leader, The New York Times website, which received 48.7 million visitors in the same month.[5]
Quite a lot, if my experience is anything to go by. I spend a fair amount of time reading American news and comment websites and for most of them it's more common to see a discussion on a serious news topic illustrated with a link to a Mail article than with a link to almost any American newspaper outlet. The likes of Instapundit couldn't care less about which dress a Kardashian sister has fallen out of today.
You really shouldn't underestimate the reach the Mail has, even (especially) on serious stories.0 -
I haven't watched Question Time for a while now. It's generally too trite and formulaic: as soon as you read the panel's names, you can get a good idea of what they'll say about the week's events. All heat, no light.Plato said:Messrs Herdson and Smithson - thanks for letting me know it wasn't worth something worth watching! I tune in maybe half a dozen times a year - AQ is a bit better - just....
I listen to AQ quite a bit, but mostly because I can work on my computer (or comment on PB) as I listen. Also, I'm often out and about in my car during the Saturday repeat.
But best of all is Any Answers or, as Mrs J calls it, Any Bigots. The views they air are often absolutely hilarious. The best are when they're unintentionally hilarious...0 -
It's not necessarily the case that the influence of newspapers is proportional to circulation, but if we assume Mike is right on their declining influence as regards voting, that raises a number of interesting questions:
1) If opinions are not going to be formed by newspaper coverage as much as they used to be, how will opinions be formed?
2) Will this benefit one party rather than another? I suspect, for example, that the Telegraph and the Mail will have a very substantial impact on one important group, UKIP/Tory waverers, so I could see that particular segment of the media playing an important role one way or the other on whether we get Ed Miliband as PM, whereas perhaps Labour-leaning voters will be less influenced by newspaper coverage.
3) Following on from this, will the fall in the impact of newspapers tend to depress turnout, especially amongst those demographics which are already less likely to vote?0 -
@Plato Access to the Times is not worth £2 a week to me. The news is the news, and any interesting opinions get so rapidly disseminated, why bother?
I'd rather have another coffee in Costa.0 -
Andrew Marr did a very good book on the media but mainly centred on the press and its history . It was also part biographical int he sense that he used his experiences to tell of its more modern workings and history. Its was written a few years ago but ,as with anything he does, is value for money interms of content. -'My Trade' .0
-
Well I must disagree - if you want to read the opinions or journalism of say Mr Parrish or Andrew Norfolk - then you have to pay for it or rely on my goodwill to share what I pay for to keep these journalists employed.antifrank said:@Plato Access to the Times is not worth £2 a week to me. The news is the news, and any interesting opinions get so rapidly disseminated, why bother?
I'd rather have another coffee in Costa.
And that seems rather parasitical for someone who earns more interest on their earnings than the £2pw to pay for it themselves.0 -
@antifrank – “Why would anyone pay to read a newspaper?”
It would be interesting to see a breakdown of paper buying readership by age group. Going by the procession of middle aged and elderly gents I regularly see each weekend heading back from the local Newsagents, I suspect it is a cultural thing. Creatures of habit and all that.
0 -
Judging by the case of scientists who have lost their tenure in both the US and Australia for having dared to question AGW, clearly that is not the case.OblitusSumMe said:
It's not possible for scientists to close ranks in that way. There are too many rewards for proving the status quo wrong.MikeK said:The 'Man Made' global warming fraternity has closed ranks, fiddled the records and filed their excuses and are happily on more govermental payrolls than ever.
Of course the beeb and like minded are lapping it up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-242926150 -
@Plato I simply don't value it. Why should I pay for something I don't value? Nor do I feel any obligation to keep journalists in employment. They have to make a business model for themselves, something that most of them seem to be lamentably poor about (often while lecturing the rest of us as to how the economy should be run).
My view seems to be increasingly common.0 -
It's a great book - I've read it a couple of times.state_go_away said:Andrew Marr did a very good book on the media but mainly centred on the press and its history . It was also part biographical int he sense that he used his experiences to tell of its more modern workings and history. Its was written a few years ago but ,as with anything he does, is value for money interms of content. -'My Trade' .
0 -
FPT:
1. Yes, in a stocks-and-shares ISA, for example:Blue_rog said:O/T
A quick question to our financially aware members.
Is it possible to put any Royal Mail shares into an isa and if so how soon could I sell them?
http://www.hl.co.uk/royal-mail/share-offer
https://www.barclaysstockbrokers.co.uk/Pages/royal-mail-ipo-2.aspx
2. Almost certainly as soon as you like0 -
I guess one of the questions is why are newspaper print sales in decline?RichardNabavi said:It's not necessarily the case that the influence of newspapers is proportional to circulation, but if we assume Mike is right on their declining influence as regards voting, that raises a number of interesting questions
It could be that people simply aren't interested, which would be consistent with the general decline in election turnout. Or it could be that people are reading their news mostly for free on the internet - which means that some newspapers could still have a large impact, but the echo chambers of sites like, for example, mumsnet, could be having a growing influence.0 -
If they had proved the theory wrong they would not have lost their tenure.Richard_Tyndall said:
Judging by the case of scientists who have lost their tenure in both the US and Australia for having dared to question AGW, clearly that is not the case.OblitusSumMe said:
It's not possible for scientists to close ranks in that way. There are too many rewards for proving the status quo wrong.MikeK said:The 'Man Made' global warming fraternity has closed ranks, fiddled the records and filed their excuses and are happily on more govermental payrolls than ever.
Of course the beeb and like minded are lapping it up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-242926150 -
Populus is showing Labour's lead and share falling - in contrast to YouGov. Odd.0
-
Newspapers will just be driven to be 'online' only (as seen by the Guardians 'digital first' plan). Whether they can make that worthwhile or not remains to be seen. advertising will only get you so far.antifrank said:@Plato I simply don't value it. Why should I pay for something I don't value? Nor do I feel any obligation to keep journalists in employment. They have to make a business model for themselves, something that most of them seem to be lamentably poor about (often while lecturing the rest of us as to how the economy should be run).
My view seems to be increasingly common.
One noticeable change in guardian is the willingless to put (in the CiF section) opinion pieces which are designed to provoke people. Much like what SeanT is clearly paid to do in the telegraph, being serious and dull isn't good clickbait.0 -
Someone yesterday was portraying Ed as similar to Luke Skywalker in his battles against an evil empire... can't remember who, maybe I dreamt it? Now we learn he's taking acting lessons too.
Red = Mark Hamill
Both actors who were best suited in the 70's and early 80's but don't go on to much.0 -
That's an interesting view - do you have any polling data to back it up? My impression FWIW is that swing voters come in two flavours:foxinsoxuk said:
Swing voters are more likely to be newspaper readers, and with these the Sun may be most important. You see a lot of copies on building sites and white vans. Professionals like me have internet at work. I rarely buy a paper.
(a) People not very interested in politics. Hard to engage between elections. Don't read papers, or if they do probably skip the politics pages.
(b) Pointy-headed intellectuals. Read the Times, Telegraph and/or Guardian. Quiz you extensively on your views on Syria while your canvass team impatiently paws the ground..
I think the Mail has a significant impact through general flavour of coverage (reinforcing the "They all suck" message which feeds UKIP, but also undermining Labour in particular). The Sun seems to have a negligible impact on swing voters these days, but Broxtowe may not be typical - our newsagents stock the Mail and the broadsheets most and I've rarely seen anyone reading the Sun (or Mirror or Star).
0 -
Indeed. Populus gives Lab 37 (-2), Cons 34 (+1), LD 12 (-2), UKIP 9 (n/c),0
-
To add, you don't value it because you can get it free, either news from the BBC, or opinion from twitter or any number of blogs (including this one).antifrank said:@Plato I simply don't value it. Why should I pay for something I don't value? Nor do I feel any obligation to keep journalists in employment. They have to make a business model for themselves, something that most of them seem to be lamentably poor about (often while lecturing the rest of us as to how the economy should be run).
My view seems to be increasingly common.
In addition, as the old saying goes, 'opinion's are like arseholes, everyone's got one'. Commentators opinions have no 'great' value over yours or mine, or whichever, apart from rare cases, opinions don't provide true or news of anything, especially when you typically know that persons opinions anyway.
SeanT has a wise method of turning what might be traditional views on their head, and then going in almost the opposite direction as predicted.. that is at least entertaining.0 -
@NickPalmer That's very informative. Presumably (a) outnumber (b) by about eight to one.
One thing that Boris Johnson has achieved is to engage those in (a), by making his politics fun. People have an opinion on him, the same way that they have an opinion about Ant & Dec. While I would not want all of our politicians to be like that, we could certainly do with more characters to keep the public engaged.0 -
Feel the power of Ed's awesome speech.JohnO said:Indeed. Populus gives Lab 37 (-2), Cons 34 (+1), LD 12 (-2), UKIP 9 (n/c),
Or maybe the public just doesn't think much of any politicans at all labour and tory included..thats if they do think about it in the first place0 -
Completely agree with other posters about paywalls. If the Times was uniquely good journalism (like the FT) it might be worth paying for. But it's not.
In fact, the Times has been going downhill for some time, and is now the worst of the bunch, the only one I never really buy.
The Sunday Times is hilarious too. The size of a breeze block but absolutely nothing interesting to read.
0 -
That's an interesting point, as is Mike's reference to QT as being boring because Gove and Alexander were too polite. British politics is already FAR more aggressive and point-scorey than most of the Continent (many German voters would think us all disreputable populists) and arguably that goes hand in hand with the long-term decline in obvious differences between the parties. People increasingly treat politics like football - they pick a team and cheer it on. Increasingly, the media do little else.Slackbladder said:
Newspapers will just be driven to be 'online' only (as seen by the Guardians 'digital first' plan). Whether they can make that worthwhile or not remains to be seen. advertising will only get you so far.
One noticeable change in guardian is the willingless to put (in the CiF section) opinion pieces which are designed to provoke people. Much like what SeanT is clearly paid to do in the telegraph, being serious and dull isn't good clickbait.
0 -
As for the thread, there have been other events apart from raw circulation that have caused the influence on the public of certain sections of the press to decline.0
-
Have not viewer numbers for the main six and ten o'clock news etc also fallen? It could just be that people now use their time differently - for example they might record say two or three non news programmes on Sky plus or whatever, watch those and only bother with extended news bulletins if something unusually dramatic/appalling occurs eg the Nairobi mall attack.OblitusSumMe said:
I guess one of the questions is why are newspaper print sales in decline?RichardNabavi said:It's not necessarily the case that the influence of newspapers is proportional to circulation, but if we assume Mike is right on their declining influence as regards voting, that raises a number of interesting questions
It could be that people simply aren't interested, which would be consistent with the general decline in election turnout. Or it could be that people are reading their news mostly for free on the internet - which means that some newspapers could still have a large impact, but the echo chambers of sites like, for example, mumsnet, could be having a growing influence.
0 -
BBC: the two Muslim converts accused of murdering Lee Rigby in May have pleaded not guilty.
I'm very surprised - it seems a rather open-and-shut case. Then again, IANAL.0 -
Oh dear...
Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon15m
Uh-oh. Polly's on the warpath RT @meropemills On Guardian noticeboard: "I hope you enjoyed my Tesco FINEST Paella you thieving little shit!"0 -
Ratio in Broxtowe (uninvolved to pointy-heads) is more like 2.5:1 than 8:1. There are wards where you have to allow twice as much time for canvassing as everyone wants to discuss current national issues (these are often explicitly uninterested in local issues, in contrast to the "all politics is local" maxim), and others where the most political question is when someone's going to fix that street light. Makes it a fun place to represent as there's so much variety.antifrank said:@NickPalmer That's very informative. Presumably (a) outnumber (b) by about eight to one.
One thing that Boris Johnson has achieved is to engage those in (a), by making his politics fun. People have an opinion on him, the same way that they have an opinion about Ant & Dec. While I would not want all of our politicians to be like that, we could certainly do with more characters to keep the public engaged.
You're right about Boris - definitely cuts through to engage the detached group.
0 -
On topic, I think the lesson is that since people are increasingly getting their information through friends or sources like Twitter where they set the agenda instead of taking what the publishers push to them, there's potential for a party that figures out the right way to communicate to score an upset when it comes to turning out supporters.
I'm not necessarily convinced that Jim Messina is going to do it for the Tories this time, but at some point somebody like that is going to get the recipe right and knock everybody on their arses.0 -
I think if they plead not guilty they guarantee the longest trial and consequently the greatest amount of media coverage. This appeared to be a chief motive for the attack.JosiasJessop said:BBC: the two Muslim converts accused of murdering Lee Rigby in May have pleaded not guilty.
I'm very surprised - it seems a rather open-and-shut case. Then again, IANAL.0 -
So the immediate scores on the doors with Populus, is Labour dropping 2 points from BEFORE his speech.JohnO said:Indeed. Populus gives Lab 37 (-2), Cons 34 (+1), LD 12 (-2), UKIP 9 (n/c),
At this rate, there could even be a poll with a blue lead if there is a conference bounce for them to come - mind you, after 3 conferences so far you wouldn't say there's a lot of evidence of them actually happening at all this year!0 -
Doesn't mean Cameron's policy wasn't stupid as well. Unsurprisingly there has been very little movement on it either from the government or the energy sector.Neil said:
Clearly Cameron thinks differently too going by his announcement about what tariffs energy companies should place consumers on. Only Cameron's intervention didnt launch 100s of articles and posts on pbc about how the world was about to end.Plato said:But ministerial diktat can never make a market work properly; only proper competition can. This, anyway, is the conclusion from the past four decades of economic history. But Miliband thinks differently.
0 -
Plato - Check out the Mirror's manifesto:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lloyd-embleys-mirror-madeuthink-manifesto-2280019?icid=iban_catgifbanner0 -
Gove and Will Self had an argument which I thought Gove won easily. Gove then told him to shut up when he started trying to curry favour with the audience. I thought it was quite novel to see a politician actually tell a celebrity off, rather than try and suck up to them like they did to the awful Russell Brand.Plato said:Did any PBer watch QT last night? I don't think I saw a single comment about it - I assume it was on?
Then again I really like Gove and can't stand Will Self.
Funny how appearing school masterly works against Gove, I would have thought it was a positive for a future PM.
Douglas Alexander seemed to be in a difficult position regarding who knew what about McBride. He said that it was himself, EdM and A Darling that got rid of him.
Patrick O'Flynn of Ukip looked different to how I'd seen him before... Looked kind of middle eastern version of Colonel Parker, w a broken nose! he didn't get to talk much as is usually the case for ukip, but spoke quite well, especially when a woman asked why the media kept involving Islam when talking about the Kenyan terrorist attack!
The female journalist was a bit annoying
0 -
I thought she approved of progressive redistribution.Scrapheap_as_was said:Oh dear...
Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon15m
Uh-oh. Polly's on the warpath RT @meropemills On Guardian noticeboard: "I hope you enjoyed my Tesco FINEST Paella you thieving little shit!"0 -
RichardNabavi said:
I thought she approved of progressive redistribution.Scrapheap_as_was said:Oh dear...
Michael Deacon@MichaelPDeacon15m
Uh-oh. Polly's on the warpath RT @meropemills On Guardian noticeboard: "I hope you enjoyed my Tesco FINEST Paella you thieving little shit!"
Presumably she's a NIMBY?
0 -
I disagree re Opinin pieces - they are often very interesting and revealing takes on a broader subject - they give me clarity or something to rail against. Everyone may have one - but some are more informed than others.Slackbladder said:
To add, you don't value it because you can get it free, either news from the BBC, or opinion from twitter or any number of blogs (including this one).antifrank said:@Plato I simply don't value it. Why should I pay for something I don't value? Nor do I feel any obligation to keep journalists in employment. They have to make a business model for themselves, something that most of them seem to be lamentably poor about (often while lecturing the rest of us as to how the economy should be run).
My view seems to be increasingly common.
In addition, as the old saying goes, 'opinion's are like arseholes, everyone's got one'. Commentators opinions have no 'great' value over yours or mine, or whichever, apart from rare cases, opinions don't provide true or news of anything, especially when you typically know that persons opinions anyway.
SeanT has a wise method of turning what might be traditional views on their head, and then going in almost the opposite direction as predicted.. that is at least entertaining.
For £2pw - I learn more from The Times and the comments under their stories than I do elsehwhere - so I pay for them.0 -
Very good point Nick.NickPalmer said:
That's an interesting point, as is Mike's reference to QT as being boring because Gove and Alexander were too polite. British politics is already FAR more aggressive and point-scorey than most of the Continent (many German voters would think us all disreputable populists) and arguably that goes hand in hand with the long-term decline in obvious differences between the parties. People increasingly treat politics like football - they pick a team and cheer it on. Increasingly, the media do little else.Slackbladder said:
Newspapers will just be driven to be 'online' only (as seen by the Guardians 'digital first' plan). Whether they can make that worthwhile or not remains to be seen. advertising will only get you so far.
One noticeable change in guardian is the willingless to put (in the CiF section) opinion pieces which are designed to provoke people. Much like what SeanT is clearly paid to do in the telegraph, being serious and dull isn't good clickbait.
0 -
There's a world of difference between the two, as I think you know.Neil said:
Clearly Cameron thinks differently too going by his announcement about what tariffs energy companies should place consumers on. Only Cameron's intervention didnt launch 100s of articles and posts on pbc about how the world was about to end.Plato said:But ministerial diktat can never make a market work properly; only proper competition can. This, anyway, is the conclusion from the past four decades of economic history. But Miliband thinks differently.
AIUI, the government's idea was to reduce the complexity and make it easier for people to compare and contrast the tariffs; as a side issue, it would make it harder for the companies to take advantage of consumers.
Take the energy tariff I mentioned yesterday: the energy company gives money to a cancer charity. A noble cause, but the offer just makes it harder to compare and contrast the real costs of the tariff. If the company want to give money to charity, they should do it from their profits without the added complexity.
Just go onto uSwitch and see how many tariffs each firm has. The only way the consumer has any control is through websites such as uSwitch, and even that is far from perfect.
There will be competition even after the change; just fewer tariffs that are designed to do little but increase profits. Whereas competition may well go out of the window with Miliband's plan.0 -
I'd have expected her to go at least for something from Waitrose. I did once try a Tesco 'Finest' Lasagne, and it's not a mistake I intend to make again.Scrapheap_as_was said:Presumably she's a NIMBY?
0 -
Someone who clearly fails to understand both the scientific principle and the politics involved in this debate.OblitusSumMe said:
If they had proved the theory wrong they would not have lost their tenure.Richard_Tyndall said:
Judging by the case of scientists who have lost their tenure in both the US and Australia for having dared to question AGW, clearly that is not the case.OblitusSumMe said:
It's not possible for scientists to close ranks in that way. There are too many rewards for proving the status quo wrong.MikeK said:The 'Man Made' global warming fraternity has closed ranks, fiddled the records and filed their excuses and are happily on more govermental payrolls than ever.
Of course the beeb and like minded are lapping it up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24292615
As far as 'proving it wrong' is concerned that has already happened. The predictions made by this theory have shown to be incorrect. As such the theory is dead in its current form and needs reconfiguring.
My favourite comment from my favourite scientist:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."0 -
Ta dah!!!
My 345th posting ..... has the site crashed as a result to stop me now moving to the important 346th one?
Was it worth the wait?
My Yvette bet isn't looking as good now no matter what Populus say!0 -
It's great/terrible isn't it?!Pulpstar said:Plato - Check out the Mirror's manifesto:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lloyd-embleys-mirror-madeuthink-manifesto-2280019?icid=iban_catgifbanner
I've just taken in 3 4 week old kitties I found in my garden yesterday - I wish they'd stay this size and this cute :^ )0 -
Peter Oborne's latest piece for the Telegraph is in that vein. How often does he write a piece praising someone or something?Plato said:I disagree re Opinion pieces - they are often very interesting and revealing takes on a broader subject - they give me clarity or something to rail against. Everyone may have one - but some are more informed than others.
0 -
Mike, you overestimate the change.
When you or we wanted to know whether Ed's speech was going down well, we checked the papers. Probably more than one, and certainly more than one journalist's opinion. The television then summarise the views of the papers. If you want to know what to think, you're still told by the newspapers. Only a replacement could change that: and web news still means the newspapers, Twitter news means the newspapers or (if you're a politico) the press offices partly retweeting the newspapers. There's a smattering of independent opinion, but not much - and no fall on the scale of 30%.0 -
Oh I can't stand Peter Oborne - he just takes a contrary view from one week to another = I don't think he genuinely believes anything he pens. He did a rather good series for R4 3 or 4 yrs ago about the history of Conservatism that's worth listening to if its still on iPlayer.OblitusSumMe said:
Peter Oborne's latest piece for the Telegraph is in that vein. How often does he write a piece praising someone or something?Plato said:I disagree re Opinion pieces - they are often very interesting and revealing takes on a broader subject - they give me clarity or something to rail against. Everyone may have one - but some are more informed than others.
0 -
A lot of the posties will sell their shares quickly because they need the cash, and tracker funds will buy in. In the short term I would expect them to rise after the float.
In the long term I cannot see them performing well. It is a dying business.RichardNabavi said:FPT:
1. Yes, in a stocks-and-shares ISA, for example:Blue_rog said:O/T
A quick question to our financially aware members.
Is it possible to put any Royal Mail shares into an isa and if so how soon could I sell them?
http://www.hl.co.uk/royal-mail/share-offer
https://www.barclaysstockbrokers.co.uk/Pages/royal-mail-ipo-2.aspx
2. Almost certainly as soon as you like0 -
Hehe I saw the exchange exactly opposite to you, and thought Self demolished Gove. I don't particularly like Self, either.isam said:
Gove and Will Self had an argument which I thought Gove won easily.Plato said:Did any PBer watch QT last night? I don't think I saw a single comment about it - I assume it was on?
Then again I utterly despise Gove. One of the very few people in public life who I find downright repulsive.0 -
Posties can't sell their shares for 3 years after privatisation.foxinsoxuk said:A lot of the posties will sell their shares quickly because they need the cash, and tracker funds will buy in. In the short term I would expect them to rise after the float.
In the long term I cannot see them performing well. It is a dying business.RichardNabavi said:FPT:
1. Yes, in a stocks-and-shares ISA, for example:Blue_rog said:O/T
A quick question to our financially aware members.
Is it possible to put any Royal Mail shares into an isa and if so how soon could I sell them?
http://www.hl.co.uk/royal-mail/share-offer
https://www.barclaysstockbrokers.co.uk/Pages/royal-mail-ipo-2.aspx
2. Almost certainly as soon as you like0 -
To me the comments on this thread are bizarre. With pc and tablet why would anyone sane buy even one bulky paper when you can get all of them online for free - not all of the catwalks are even that effective. The Mail is excellent and way better than its competitors.0
-
I've been very careful to say nothing about the politics. We should not confuse politics and science - the two have been too often entangled in this debate.Richard_Tyndall said:Someone who clearly fails to understand both the scientific principle and the politics involved in this debate.
As far as 'proving it wrong' is concerned that has already happened. The predictions made by this theory have shown to be incorrect. As such the theory is dead in its current form and needs reconfiguring.
My favourite comment from my favourite scientist:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
The theory has not been proved wrong. There is no basis for making that claim. You also misunderstand the nature of a "natural" experiment. This is very different from a lab experiment, because one can not control the inputs to the experiment in nature in the way that one can in the lab.
So, for example, the climate scientist can not control whether there will be a volcanic eruption, or a greater frequency of La-Nina events, and the occurrence of such events may - to a naive person - appear to invalidate the theory behind consequently erroneous projections made with a climate model. Really, they do not.
The point I was making in my original intervention is that scientists are culturally a very argumentative lot. You simply could not create and maintain a multi-decade long global conspiracy of scientists to "fiddle the records" as MikeK originally alleged.0 -
I think the papers are more influential since the emergence of online editions. I read them far more than I ever did printed editions.
its the comments at the end of articles that I find fascinating because they can give you a clue as to public sentiment turning.
For example on the Mail's site this morning the most liked comment on the 'work for benefits' story was one saying 'OK -but no to slave labour for private companies'
This suggests to me that the tory advantage on benefits is almost played out, and they have to be very careful pushing things much further.
Obviously these aren't polls, but I find them interesting nevertheless.
0 -
Incidentally the QT audience from Uxbridge towards the end of the programme suddenly burst into life with the biggest cheer of the night being on HS2. While there might be a little bit of nimbyism there I suspect Ed Balls might be onto a winner with his potential opposition to HS2. Dougie Alexander I suspect is far more keen on the project than Ed so watch this space. I think a clear Labour pledge one way or another before the election will be needed before there will be any real electoral impact. The Tories though will need to be wary that the wider public may well consider £50bn is better spent elsewhere. Don't underestimate this issue.0
-
I'm surprised that the 'timitators' are so quiet about this poll - not!Scrapheap_as_was said:
So the immediate scores on the doors with Populus, is Labour dropping 2 points from BEFORE his speech.JohnO said:Indeed. Populus gives Lab 37 (-2), Cons 34 (+1), LD 12 (-2), UKIP 9 (n/c),
At this rate, there could even be a poll with a blue lead if there is a conference bounce for them to come - mind you, after 3 conferences so far you wouldn't say there's a lot of evidence of them actually happening at all this year!
0 -
Is the Telegraph really paywalled? If you access it from an incognito window, you can read as much as you like.
Or is there content invisible to you if you view in this way, that is accessible only if you login with paid-for credentials?0 -
Perhaps it might be better spent as a tax reduction?Norm said:Incidentally the QT audience from Uxbridge towards the end of the programme suddenly burst into life with the biggest cheer of the night being on HS2. While there might be a little bit of nimbyism there I suspect Ed Balls might be onto a winner with his potential opposition to HS2. Dougie Alexander I suspect is far more keen on the project than Ed so watch this space. I think a clear Labour pledge one way or another before the election will be needed before there will be any real electoral impact. The Tories though will need to be wary that the wider public may well consider £50bn is better spent elsewhere. Don't underestimate this issue.
0 -
Hi Tim!felix said:
I'm surprised that the 'timitators' are so quiet about this poll - not!Scrapheap_as_was said:
So the immediate scores on the doors with Populus, is Labour dropping 2 points from BEFORE his speech.JohnO said:Indeed. Populus gives Lab 37 (-2), Cons 34 (+1), LD 12 (-2), UKIP 9 (n/c),
At this rate, there could even be a poll with a blue lead if there is a conference bounce for them to come - mind you, after 3 conferences so far you wouldn't say there's a lot of evidence of them actually happening at all this year!0
![[Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/d2ea526b1b06ed109333f390c7ae956b_100.png)
