On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The lack of sympathy being displayed towards British Jews right now worries me a lot.
Agreed. It's not just the lack of sympathy. It's the callous cruelty - tearing down posters, defacing them, threatening schools etc.,.
I think some people enjoy being able to justify cruelty to a group they classify as "wrong" by claiming that they are just concerned with being kind to their favoured "in" group. In some cases, people only side with the "in" group precisely because it allows them to be horrible to Jews - while wrapped up in self-proclaimed virtue.
It bodes very ill for our society. We can do nothing about what happens in the Middle East. But we can do something about how we treat a small, vulnerable and now fearful minority here - instead of grandstanding about abroad. That's what Starmer, what all our politicians should be judged on.
You deserved more than 8 likes for this one.
I've often thought there were relatively few liberals on pb - stodge, kle4, ydeouthr, rcs - but I'm more convinced of that now than ever.
Lots of people who seem to talk a good game and claim to be fairly liberal but it seems as though they are mainly just Tory haters for whom issues like migration are just a weapon to beat the Tories with.
Thank you for the ultimate accolade.
There's no monopoly of illiberal thought on the right, left or even among liberals if I'm being honest. In a way, how we treat each other speaks volumes. From recent personal experience, kindness is everywhere when it's needed.
It's not a mindset I find easy to get into but I suspect the constant low-level harrassment, insults, pointed words are cumulatively as bad as outright violence. Yet we know muslims too have been subject to the same at times in the recent past. It's all too easy to scapegoat a group, a creed, a nationality and blame everything on them and even in the most democratic and liberal (that word again) societies it happens, has happened and no doubt will continue to happen.
Breaking the cycle of intolerance isn't easy because you start with the notion people have the freedom to be intolerant - you can't be intolerant on intolerance because that undermines the notion of freedom of thought. It's about education and information - telling people the truth though there are other "truths" out there. You also bump up the truth people like people like themselves.
Illiberal thought is easy.
Mon dieu et mon droit
No need to argue, debate or hesitate. The propaganda of the deed beckons…
“The one idea’d soul, all flesh refined to purposeful flame”
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
More news on Mike Johnson: 'One month ago, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., voted with 93 Republicans to cut off Ukraine aid. Now, as speaker, Johnson said he's asked White House staff to “bifurcate” aid to Israel and Ukraine. But he emphasized that the U.S. must stop Russia’s advances.
“We can’t allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I don’t believe it would stop there,” Johnson said in an interview on Fox News the day after he was sworn in. “And it would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan. We have these concerns. We’re not going to abandon them.”'
Several possible compromises are mentioned in the article.
The Loser's friend, "Czar" Putin, won't be happy about this announcement.
Doesn't sound massively optimistic - they were talking about holding a separate vote for Ukraine aid back when McCarthy was there, to pass with some level of bipartisan support, but the rebels seemed outraged all the same. I can see Gaetz has not condemned the idea, but I cannot see what is different in the idea which was proposed before.
More news on Mike Johnson: 'One month ago, Rep. Mike Johnson, R-La., voted with 93 Republicans to cut off Ukraine aid. Now, as speaker, Johnson said he's asked White House staff to “bifurcate” aid to Israel and Ukraine. But he emphasized that the U.S. must stop Russia’s advances.
“We can’t allow Vladimir Putin to prevail in Ukraine because I don’t believe it would stop there,” Johnson said in an interview on Fox News the day after he was sworn in. “And it would probably encourage and empower China to perhaps make a move on Taiwan. We have these concerns. We’re not going to abandon them.”'
Several possible compromises are mentioned in the article.
The Loser's friend, "Czar" Putin, won't be happy about this announcement.
Doesn't sound massively optimistic - they were talking about holding a separate vote for Ukraine aid back when McCarthy was there, to pass with some level of bipartisan support, but the rebels seemed outraged all the same. I can see Gaetz has not condemned the idea, but I cannot see what is different in the idea which was proposed before.
“Back when McCarthy was there” makes it sound like longer ago than 3 weeks…
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
I honestly don't get the strategy. If they had hired say a roster of Nick Ferrari, Andrew Neil, maybe, but instead its a weird mix of Sky News / ITN "pros" and absolute f##ker loony tuners.
Where as Paul Marshall also funds Unherd, which seems much more sensible business opportunity. Hire a couple of people with a good background, like Freddie Sayers, talk to a range of people at length, play devils advocate in a polite educated way, have a mix of well known people with some more controversial types, stick it all on YouTube / website. No massive outlay, build on the demand for long form content.
This image has been doing the rounds on TwiX today by all the usual people. Zoom in and have a count of the number of fingers and toes. Plus look at the arms round the neck - how is that possible?
British churches and cathedrals - if old enough - are generally the most numinous, mystical and spiritual inside
I have no idea why this is. But if you go in a great British cathedral (generally gothic - but there are exceptions like Durham) you get an oooooh spine tingling quality that is all too often absent elsewhere
Eg I’ve just been in Siracusa’s cathedral - which is half built out of a Doric Greek temple ffs - yet it didn’t particularly move me. I find the same in Spanish French German cathedrals. Most but not all Italian cathedrals
And this is despite the fact Britain is a much less religious culture
Maybe it is the northern light? The accretion of time without revolutions? The patina?
You DO get the same buzz in some Eastern European and Russian cathedrals - they can be intense
Relative lack of Catholic Tat? Seville always gave me a degree of spiritual indigestion.
Yes, that’s definitely part of it. Controversial take: Catholicism ruins a lot of great Catholic cathedrals
In France it is often the revolution that is to blame. It swept away so much - it scraped away the patina of smoke and time and worship which makes a great moving cathedral
Weirdly, Hagia Sophia DOES have that buzz despite being a museum for a century and now a mosque
Ditto the orthodox churches of Greece. Some of them are seriously intense. Esp the monasteries of Mount athos. Omg
Ironic that most of the cathedrals you mention were built as Catholic cathedrals.
I feel the opposite to you. Having been brought up in Naples amidst fantastic baroque architecture and going to such churches every week for years, I find the spareness of Protestant churches weird - as if they are unfinished. Minimalism seems to me to be inhuman.There was something inhuman about the destruction of religious art during the Reformation; it damaged Britain's visual sense in a very profound way - from which it has never truly recovered.
No, there is an austere beauty in Puritanism, which is why there was a massive popular demand for it. The focus though is not on architecture and idolatry, but rather the message and the collective of believers.
Anglicanism is a British compromise to suppress the revolutionary doctrines and reimpose an aristocratic control of believers not very different to Catholicism.
So yes of course there is less ornament, statuary, smells and spells in Protestant Churches. All that is seen as idolatry that is a misrepresentation of God.
An absence of austere beauty characterised Puritanism. Selfish delusionism replaced such good things. At its heart was the abomination of Calvin's doctrine of double predestination. This is that the one God created two sorts of human, the ones who would necessarily be saved and those who would necessarily be damned. And there was nothing you could do to change it.
'I am God's child and you are not' - which arises from Puritan doctrine, lies behind a lot of wickedness in this world.
I'm not equipped for intense theological disputes, I don't think anyone really is (least of all theologians), but I had to read a lot about various sects and factions when studying about the Civil Wars period, and my vague understanding of predestination always struck me as incredibly offputting. The idea of everyone being able to achieve salvation if they do X or believe Y at least seems like an appealing, if convenient, message.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
GB News started off as a regular TV channel on Sky, etc., but as I understand it have pivoted to on-line first.
They do OK on BARB viewing figures from a relative perspective, but pretty poorly from an absolute one. (Bear in mind that total live news viewing in the UK has fallen about 80% in the last six years, and is continuing to fall.)
So, they've gained share this year, but at the same time monthly reach has dropped from 3.4m in May to 2.8m in September.
That's a great website. I do note that BBC News also recorded a fall (10m+ to 8m+) from May to September, so maybe people are just on holiday more or inclined to watch less news that month?
I think what GBNews should do is infomercials using their own presenting team segued into their normal programming. The audience of GBNews has a lot of seniors, they may have bought from TV channels before. In terms of product, there's a healthy distrust of the state - they're a good audience for dietary supplements (as an example), and healthcare devices. Also potentially leisure products. Potentially homeware or even fashion.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
GB News loses money. 350,000 is the total in a week. Individual programmes don’t get anywhere near that.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
GB News loses money. 350,000 is the total in a week. Individual programmes don’t get anywhere near that.
The question is whether they are closing the funding gap or is it opening?
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
GB News advertising is no-name companies who i imagine are paying peanuts. Fox gets the multi-nationals. Although since Fox News isn't connected to all the other Fox channels now their leverage won't be as great.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
GB News started off as a regular TV channel on Sky, etc., but as I understand it have pivoted to on-line first.
They do OK on BARB viewing figures from a relative perspective, but pretty poorly from an absolute one. (Bear in mind that total live news viewing in the UK has fallen about 80% in the last six years, and is continuing to fall.)
So, they've gained share this year, but at the same time monthly reach has dropped from 3.4m in May to 2.8m in September.
That's a great website. I do note that BBC News also recorded a fall (10m+ to 8m+) from May to September, so maybe people are just on holiday more or inclined to watch less news that month?
I think what GBNews should do is infomercials using their own presenting team segued into their normal programming. The audience of GBNews has a lot of seniors, they may have bought from TV channels before. In terms of product, there's a healthy distrust of the state - they're a good audience for dietary supplements (as an example), and healthcare devices. Also potentially leisure products. Potentially homeware or even fashion.
Oh, GB News is gaining share; it's just doing it in the context of a very difficult industry. And it's also trying to manage a transition to on-line at the same time.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
I honestly don't get the strategy. If they had hired say a roster of Nick Ferrari, Andrew Neil, maybe, but instead its a weird mix of Sky News / ITN "pros" and absolute f##ker loony tuners.
Where as Paul Marshall also funds Unherd, which seems much more sensible business opportunity. Hire a couple of people with a good background, like Freddie Sayers, talk to a range of people at length, play devils advocate in a polite educated way, have a mix of well known people with some more controversial types, stick it all on YouTube / website. No massive outlay, build on the demand for long form content.
You're making the mistake of assuming your prejudices are shared universally. The viewership of GBNews evidently don't believe that their presenting team are mentally ill as per your unappealing scoffing. It's aimed at a different audience to Unherd, and that's fine.
British churches and cathedrals - if old enough - are generally the most numinous, mystical and spiritual inside
I have no idea why this is. But if you go in a great British cathedral (generally gothic - but there are exceptions like Durham) you get an oooooh spine tingling quality that is all too often absent elsewhere
Eg I’ve just been in Siracusa’s cathedral - which is half built out of a Doric Greek temple ffs - yet it didn’t particularly move me. I find the same in Spanish French German cathedrals. Most but not all Italian cathedrals
And this is despite the fact Britain is a much less religious culture
Maybe it is the northern light? The accretion of time without revolutions? The patina?
You DO get the same buzz in some Eastern European and Russian cathedrals - they can be intense
Relative lack of Catholic Tat? Seville always gave me a degree of spiritual indigestion.
Yes, that’s definitely part of it. Controversial take: Catholicism ruins a lot of great Catholic cathedrals
In France it is often the revolution that is to blame. It swept away so much - it scraped away the patina of smoke and time and worship which makes a great moving cathedral
Weirdly, Hagia Sophia DOES have that buzz despite being a museum for a century and now a mosque
Ditto the orthodox churches of Greece. Some of them are seriously intense. Esp the monasteries of Mount athos. Omg
Ironic that most of the cathedrals you mention were built as Catholic cathedrals.
I feel the opposite to you. Having been brought up in Naples amidst fantastic baroque architecture and going to such churches every week for years, I find the spareness of Protestant churches weird - as if they are unfinished. Minimalism seems to me to be inhuman.There was something inhuman about the destruction of religious art during the Reformation; it damaged Britain's visual sense in a very profound way - from which it has never truly recovered.
No, there is an austere beauty in Puritanism, which is why there was a massive popular demand for it. The focus though is not on architecture and idolatry, but rather the message and the collective of believers.
Anglicanism is a British compromise to suppress the revolutionary doctrines and reimpose an aristocratic control of believers not very different to Catholicism.
So yes of course there is less ornament, statuary, smells and spells in Protestant Churches. All that is seen as idolatry that is a misrepresentation of God.
An absence of austere beauty characterised Puritanism. Selfish delusionism replaced such good things. At its heart was the abomination of Calvin's doctrine of double predestination. This is that the one God created two sorts of human, the ones who would necessarily be saved and those who would necessarily be damned. And there was nothing you could do to change it.
'I am God's child and you are not' - which arises from Puritan doctrine, lies behind a lot of wickedness in this world.
I'm not equipped for intense theological disputes, I don't think anyone really is (least of all theologians), but I had to read a lot about various sects and factions when studying about the Civil Wars period, and my vague understanding of predestination always struck me as incredibly offputting. The idea of everyone being able to achieve salvation if they do X or believe Y at least seems like an appealing, if convenient, message.
In practice though the debate between freewill and predestination is a meaningless notion. No one can know what they are indeed predestined for, or what is the case for others, so the actions of the individual should not be any different. There is a similar debate now about genetic determinism and environmental influences. Or as a soldier might put it, somewhere there is a bullet with your name on it.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
GB News loses money. 350,000 is the total in a week. Individual programmes don’t get anywhere near that.
But it loses money because so far it doesn't have a fleshed out monetisation strategy, not because it doesn't have enough viewers.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
I honestly don't get the strategy. If they had hired say a roster of Nick Ferrari, Andrew Neil, maybe, but instead its a weird mix of Sky News / ITN "pros" and absolute f##ker loony tuners.
Where as Paul Marshall also funds Unherd, which seems much more sensible business opportunity. Hire a couple of people with a good background, like Freddie Sayers, talk to a range of people at length, play devils advocate in a polite educated way, have a mix of well known people with some more controversial types, stick it all on YouTube / website. No massive outlay, build on the demand for long form content.
You're making the mistake of assuming your prejudices are shared universally. The viewership of GBNews evidently don't believe that their presenting team are mentally ill as per your unappealing scoffing. It's aimed at a different audience to Unherd, and that's fine.
I would be interested to know what viewership the loony ones get e.g the tin foil hatter that used to do Coast. I don't put somebody like Farage in that bucket, not my cup of tea, but he isn't a mentaler, he actually rather canny opetator in the want him to play, just like he was on LBC.
Having the mentallers also getting them in trouble with Ofcom e.g Stein bloke & scaring off advetisers
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
Fox News get 3.9 million people a day watching it during prime viewing hours alone.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
GB News loses money. 350,000 is the total in a week. Individual programmes don’t get anywhere near that.
But it loses money because so far it doesn't have a fleshed out monetisation strategy, not because it doesn't have enough viewers.
I think they will do better on monetization in the future, but they also don't get that many viewers.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
GB News started off as a regular TV channel on Sky, etc., but as I understand it have pivoted to on-line first.
They do OK on BARB viewing figures from a relative perspective, but pretty poorly from an absolute one. (Bear in mind that total live news viewing in the UK has fallen about 80% in the last six years, and is continuing to fall.)
So, they've gained share this year, but at the same time monthly reach has dropped from 3.4m in May to 2.8m in September.
That's a great website. I do note that BBC News also recorded a fall (10m+ to 8m+) from May to September, so maybe people are just on holiday more or inclined to watch less news that month?
I think what GBNews should do is infomercials using their own presenting team segued into their normal programming. The audience of GBNews has a lot of seniors, they may have bought from TV channels before. In terms of product, there's a healthy distrust of the state - they're a good audience for dietary supplements (as an example), and healthcare devices. Also potentially leisure products. Potentially homeware or even fashion.
Oh, GB News is gaining share; it's just doing it in the context of a very difficult industry. And it's also trying to manage a transition to on-line at the same time.
You're no doubt right. To further clarify my point above, what I really mean rather than infomercials (prerecorded) is product demonstrations where the presenters speak to/interview a brand representative and the channel offers a direct route to buying the product.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
GB News started off as a regular TV channel on Sky, etc., but as I understand it have pivoted to on-line first.
They do OK on BARB viewing figures from a relative perspective, but pretty poorly from an absolute one. (Bear in mind that total live news viewing in the UK has fallen about 80% in the last six years, and is continuing to fall.)
So, they've gained share this year, but at the same time monthly reach has dropped from 3.4m in May to 2.8m in September.
That's a great website. I do note that BBC News also recorded a fall (10m+ to 8m+) from May to September, so maybe people are just on holiday more or inclined to watch less news that month?
I think what GBNews should do is infomercials using their own presenting team segued into their normal programming. The audience of GBNews has a lot of seniors, they may have bought from TV channels before. In terms of product, there's a healthy distrust of the state - they're a good audience for dietary supplements (as an example), and healthcare devices. Also potentially leisure products. Potentially homeware or even fashion.
Oh, GB News is gaining share; it's just doing it in the context of a very difficult industry. And it's also trying to manage a transition to on-line at the same time.
It may be gaining share but is it gaining revenue and is it moving towards making a profit, or at least covering its costs ?
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
GB News started off as a regular TV channel on Sky, etc., but as I understand it have pivoted to on-line first.
They do OK on BARB viewing figures from a relative perspective, but pretty poorly from an absolute one. (Bear in mind that total live news viewing in the UK has fallen about 80% in the last six years, and is continuing to fall.)
So, they've gained share this year, but at the same time monthly reach has dropped from 3.4m in May to 2.8m in September.
That's a great website. I do note that BBC News also recorded a fall (10m+ to 8m+) from May to September, so maybe people are just on holiday more or inclined to watch less news that month?
I think what GBNews should do is infomercials using their own presenting team segued into their normal programming. The audience of GBNews has a lot of seniors, they may have bought from TV channels before. In terms of product, there's a healthy distrust of the state - they're a good audience for dietary supplements (as an example), and healthcare devices. Also potentially leisure products. Potentially homeware or even fashion.
Oh, GB News is gaining share; it's just doing it in the context of a very difficult industry. And it's also trying to manage a transition to on-line at the same time.
You're no doubt right. To further clarify my point above, what I really mean rather than infomercials (prerecorded) is product demonstrations where the presenters speak to/interview a brand representative and the channel offers a direct route to buying the product.
Can you do that on a News Channel with all the regulations about impartiality etc?
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
GB News started off as a regular TV channel on Sky, etc., but as I understand it have pivoted to on-line first.
They do OK on BARB viewing figures from a relative perspective, but pretty poorly from an absolute one. (Bear in mind that total live news viewing in the UK has fallen about 80% in the last six years, and is continuing to fall.)
So, they've gained share this year, but at the same time monthly reach has dropped from 3.4m in May to 2.8m in September.
That's a great website. I do note that BBC News also recorded a fall (10m+ to 8m+) from May to September, so maybe people are just on holiday more or inclined to watch less news that month?
I think what GBNews should do is infomercials using their own presenting team segued into their normal programming. The audience of GBNews has a lot of seniors, they may have bought from TV channels before. In terms of product, there's a healthy distrust of the state - they're a good audience for dietary supplements (as an example), and healthcare devices. Also potentially leisure products. Potentially homeware or even fashion.
Oh, GB News is gaining share; it's just doing it in the context of a very difficult industry. And it's also trying to manage a transition to on-line at the same time.
You're no doubt right. To further clarify my point above, what I really mean rather than infomercials (prerecorded) is product demonstrations where the presenters speak to/interview a brand representative and the channel offers a direct route to buying the product.
Can you do that on a News Channel with all the regulations about impartiality etc?
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
I honestly don't get the strategy. If they had hired say a roster of Nick Ferrari, Andrew Neil, maybe, but instead its a weird mix of Sky News / ITN "pros" and absolute f##ker loony tuners.
Where as Paul Marshall also funds Unherd, which seems much more sensible business opportunity. Hire a couple of people with a good background, like Freddie Sayers, talk to a range of people at length, play devils advocate in a polite educated way, have a mix of well known people with some more controversial types, stick it all on YouTube / website. No massive outlay, build on the demand for long form content.
You're making the mistake of assuming your prejudices are shared universally. The viewership of GBNews evidently don't believe that their presenting team are mentally ill as per your unappealing scoffing. It's aimed at a different audience to Unherd, and that's fine.
I would be interested to know what viewership the loony ones get e.g the tin foil hatter that used to do Coast. I don't put somebody like Farage in that bucket, not my cup of tea, but he isn't a mentaler, he actually rather canny opetator in the want him to play, just like he was on LBC.
Having the mentallers also getting them in trouble with Ofcom e.g Stein bloke & scaring off advetisers
Before they even started broadcasting the ‘stop funding hate’ nutters were on the case of prospective advertisers.
Trump probably got more help from CBS under Les Moonves, than he did from Fox: 'Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy.
Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
I honestly don't get the strategy. If they had hired say a roster of Nick Ferrari, Andrew Neil, maybe, but instead its a weird mix of Sky News / ITN "pros" and absolute f##ker loony tuners.
Where as Paul Marshall also funds Unherd, which seems much more sensible business opportunity. Hire a couple of people with a good background, like Freddie Sayers, talk to a range of people at length, play devils advocate in a polite educated way, have a mix of well known people with some more controversial types, stick it all on YouTube / website. No massive outlay, build on the demand for long form content.
You're making the mistake of assuming your prejudices are shared universally. The viewership of GBNews evidently don't believe that their presenting team are mentally ill as per your unappealing scoffing. It's aimed at a different audience to Unherd, and that's fine.
I would be interested to know what viewership the loony ones get e.g the tin foil hatter that used to do Coast. I don't put somebody like Farage in that bucket, not my cup of tea, but he isn't a mentaler, he actually rather canny opetator in the want him to play, just like he was on LBC.
Having the mentallers also getting them in trouble with Ofcom e.g Stein bloke & scaring off advetisers
Personally I am more concerned with a highly politicised Ofcom and its attempts to censor the Internet than I am about anyone airing 'mental' views on GBNews.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The lack of sympathy being displayed towards British Jews right now worries me a lot.
Agreed. It's not just the lack of sympathy. It's the callous cruelty - tearing down posters, defacing them, threatening schools etc.,.
I think some people enjoy being able to justify cruelty to a group they classify as "wrong" by claiming that they are just concerned with being kind to their favoured "in" group. In some cases, people only side with the "in" group precisely because it allows them to be horrible to Jews - while wrapped up in self-proclaimed virtue.
It bodes very ill for our society. We can do nothing about what happens in the Middle East. But we can do something about how we treat a small, vulnerable and now fearful minority here - instead of grandstanding about abroad. That's what Starmer, what all our politicians should be judged on.
You deserved more than 8 likes for this one.
I've often thought there were relatively few liberals on pb - stodge, kle4, ydeouthr, rcs - but I'm more convinced of that now than ever.
Lots of people who seem to talk a good game and claim to be fairly liberal but it seems as though they are mainly just Tory haters for whom issues like migration are just a weapon to beat the Tories with.
It's Friday night, mate. You're assuming everyone's read it.
In societies that I admire, women (and children) are put in their proper place -- ahead of men. That is, to say the least, not a new idea, but one that requires restating from time to time.
Trump probably got more help from CBS under Les Moonves, than he did from Fox: 'Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy.
Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.
China's domination of rare earth markets is now a bit less important.
Minneapolis-made magnet named among TIME’s Best Inventions of 2023 https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-made-magnet-named-among-times-best-inventions-of-2023 ...In late 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Niron $17.5 million to ramp up production of the Clean Earth Magnet. Made from widely available iron and nitrogen, the product is the world's first powerful permanent magnet made free of rare-earth elements. Automaker Volvo has also signed on as a partner and provided funding.
"Our magnet technology is powerful. And it's potentially even more powerful than the magnets that are available today commercially," Rowntree explained...
The sort of government R&D funding the Republicans in Congress want to cut.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
I honestly don't get the strategy. If they had hired say a roster of Nick Ferrari, Andrew Neil, maybe, but instead its a weird mix of Sky News / ITN "pros" and absolute f##ker loony tuners.
Where as Paul Marshall also funds Unherd, which seems much more sensible business opportunity. Hire a couple of people with a good background, like Freddie Sayers, talk to a range of people at length, play devils advocate in a polite educated way, have a mix of well known people with some more controversial types, stick it all on YouTube / website. No massive outlay, build on the demand for long form content.
You're making the mistake of assuming your prejudices are shared universally. The viewership of GBNews evidently don't believe that their presenting team are mentally ill as per your unappealing scoffing. It's aimed at a different audience to Unherd, and that's fine.
I would be interested to know what viewership the loony ones get e.g the tin foil hatter that used to do Coast. I don't put somebody like Farage in that bucket, not my cup of tea, but he isn't a mentaler, he actually rather canny opetator in the want him to play, just like he was on LBC.
Having the mentallers also getting them in trouble with Ofcom e.g Stein bloke & scaring off advetisers
Personally I am more concerned with a highly politicised Ofcom and its attempts to censor the Internet than I am about anyone airing 'mental' views on GBNews.
I would actually agree with that in part. GB News is aiming for a niche, and it's butting up against broadcasting regulations which some like and some don't (personally I think they're mostly needed), but I think the desire for and potential of mass censorship is something we need to err very much on the side of caution. Too easy to remove the stuff I do not approve of and odds are it is too easy to remove the stuff I do approve of as well. The acceptable line will be up for debate, but I'm not sure I trust regulators to make that call.
China's domination of rare earth markets is now a bit less important.
Minneapolis-made magnet named among TIME’s Best Inventions of 2023 https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-made-magnet-named-among-times-best-inventions-of-2023 ...In late 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Niron $17.5 million to ramp up production of the Clean Earth Magnet. Made from widely available iron and nitrogen, the product is the world's first powerful permanent magnet made free of rare-earth elements. Automaker Volvo has also signed on as a partner and provided funding.
"Our magnet technology is powerful. And it's potentially even more powerful than the magnets that are available today commercially," Rowntree explained...
The sort of government R&D funding the Republicans in Congress want to cut.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
GB News loses money. 350,000 is the total in a week. Individual programmes don’t get anywhere near that.
But it loses money because so far it doesn't have a fleshed out monetisation strategy, not because it doesn't have enough viewers.
I think they will do better on monetization in the future, but they also don't get that many viewers.
The 1% of 'right-wing windowlickers with disposable income' market is hotly contested however.
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
China's domination of rare earth markets is now a bit less important.
Minneapolis-made magnet named among TIME’s Best Inventions of 2023 https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-made-magnet-named-among-times-best-inventions-of-2023 ...In late 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Niron $17.5 million to ramp up production of the Clean Earth Magnet. Made from widely available iron and nitrogen, the product is the world's first powerful permanent magnet made free of rare-earth elements. Automaker Volvo has also signed on as a partner and provided funding.
"Our magnet technology is powerful. And it's potentially even more powerful than the magnets that are available today commercially," Rowntree explained...
The sort of government R&D funding the Republicans in Congress want to cut.
I must say I think Biden is right in investing in industrial development.
The mentality that only wealth consumption should be subsidised has had profoundly dangerous economic and security consequences.
China's domination of rare earth markets is now a bit less important.
Minneapolis-made magnet named among TIME’s Best Inventions of 2023 https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-made-magnet-named-among-times-best-inventions-of-2023 ...In late 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Niron $17.5 million to ramp up production of the Clean Earth Magnet. Made from widely available iron and nitrogen, the product is the world's first powerful permanent magnet made free of rare-earth elements. Automaker Volvo has also signed on as a partner and provided funding.
"Our magnet technology is powerful. And it's potentially even more powerful than the magnets that are available today commercially," Rowntree explained...
The sort of government R&D funding the Republicans in Congress want to cut.
That is excellent news.
ARPA-E, conceived under Bush, and first funded by Obama, has been a huge success - spending relatively small amounts of money.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
That's about 4hrs of a cookery show on youtube. I know which I'd rather advertise on.
So for the last three weeks we saw an England rugby team take a comfortable lead and look good for a comfortable win only to end up desperately defending at the end.
Twice successfully, once not so.
But it does lead me to doubt some combo of their fitness, the quality of their replacements and their game plan.
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
It is Shakespearean tragedy.
Now he is on GB news along with Oliver and Lozza.
Not throwing away internal political capital on trying to protect a grifter like Paterson would have helped too.
Ultimately he was brought down because his MPs felt he was demanding too much of them in defending all his scandals for the benefeit he would bring them. Many may well regret that now, since a rebrand has not worked, but better discipline on his part and he'd probably still be there.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
Fox News get 3.9 million people a day watching it during prime viewing hours alone.
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
It is Shakespearean tragedy.
Now he is on GB news along with Oliver and Lozza.
Lozza is no longer on GB News.
True. But the association is still hanging in the air. Lozza was on for months.
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
It is Shakespearean tragedy.
Now he is on GB news along with Oliver and Lozza.
And this is the Conservatives problem.
They cannot solve their problems with a tax cut here or a policy initiative there because there problem is themselves.
People aren't sick of Conservative policies they're sick of Conservative politicians.
And ever more so with the endless revelations - Bone and Blunt this week.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
100,000 people watch Farage? Care in the community isn’t working.
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
China's domination of rare earth markets is now a bit less important.
Minneapolis-made magnet named among TIME’s Best Inventions of 2023 https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-made-magnet-named-among-times-best-inventions-of-2023 ...In late 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Niron $17.5 million to ramp up production of the Clean Earth Magnet. Made from widely available iron and nitrogen, the product is the world's first powerful permanent magnet made free of rare-earth elements. Automaker Volvo has also signed on as a partner and provided funding.
"Our magnet technology is powerful. And it's potentially even more powerful than the magnets that are available today commercially," Rowntree explained...
The sort of government R&D funding the Republicans in Congress want to cut.
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
I wouldn't.
Getting up in the dark is too depressing.
Especially when its pissing down and can't even see a proper sunrise.
China's domination of rare earth markets is now a bit less important.
Minneapolis-made magnet named among TIME’s Best Inventions of 2023 https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-made-magnet-named-among-times-best-inventions-of-2023 ...In late 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Niron $17.5 million to ramp up production of the Clean Earth Magnet. Made from widely available iron and nitrogen, the product is the world's first powerful permanent magnet made free of rare-earth elements. Automaker Volvo has also signed on as a partner and provided funding.
"Our magnet technology is powerful. And it's potentially even more powerful than the magnets that are available today commercially," Rowntree explained...
The sort of government R&D funding the Republicans in Congress want to cut.
Volvo Cars owned by Chinese Geely group
I noticed that, too but so what ? This is a technology which is likely to be universally deployed if it lives up to the description. The significance lies in what it replaces.
Perhaps Jim was after all correct in positing an independent streak in the new Speaker. (Or perhaps it’s just posturing.) We will find out soon enough.
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
I don't care which one we pick, so long as we stay on it.
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Although I think GB News does struggle for advertisers due to (misrepresentation) about what they actually are, but in reality getting 100k viewers for say Farage show is tiny audience. This is the fundamental problem compared to the controversial US outlets.
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
I think that's absolutely spot on: the US market for this stuff is 20x bigger.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
GB news gets 350,000 viewers per week average and Fox news up to 3 million viewers a week so percentage wise of population not much different.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
Fox News get 3.9 million people a day watching it during prime viewing hours alone.
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
It is Shakespearean tragedy.
Now he is on GB news along with Oliver and Lozza.
And this is the Conservatives problem.
They cannot solve their problems with a tax cut here or a policy initiative there because there problem is themselves.
People aren't sick of Conservative policies they're sick of Conservative politicians.
And ever more so with the endless revelations - Bone and Blunt this week.
Indeed the Tory recovery doesn't depend on what the government does now or not but whether the likely incoming Labour government mucks the economy up or not
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
It is Shakespearean tragedy.
Now he is on GB news along with Oliver and Lozza.
Not throwing away internal political capital on trying to protect a grifter like Paterson would have helped too.
Ultimately he was brought down because his MPs felt he was demanding too much of them in defending all his scandals for the benefeit he would bring them. Many may well regret that now, since a rebrand has not worked, but better discipline on his part and he'd probably still be there.
Does anyone know *why* he wasted so much political capital trying to save Paterson? I don't think they were big mates (does Boris even have any real friends?). Was it just because he thought after the 2019 Election he could just do whatever he wanted and never really thought that the rules applied to him?
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
At the end of the day, Johnson must know he could have been PM for another six years if he had not got pissed in No 10 during covid and then lied constantly about it for months.
It is Shakespearean tragedy.
Now he is on GB news along with Oliver and Lozza.
Not throwing away internal political capital on trying to protect a grifter like Paterson would have helped too.
Ultimately he was brought down because his MPs felt he was demanding too much of them in defending all his scandals for the benefeit he would bring them. Many may well regret that now, since a rebrand has not worked, but better discipline on his part and he'd probably still be there.
Does anyone know *why* he wasted so much political capital trying to save Paterson? I don't think they were big mates (does Boris even have any real friends?). Was it just because he thought after the 2019 Election he could just do whatever he wanted and never really thought that the rules applied to him?
One theory was that it was going to be used as a means to gut the standards regime (whatever its flaws, they certainly ignored what it actually was and did in complainaing about its processes), as a defensive measure for anything coming down the line for Boris himself.
I'm not sure I buy that as he just lied brazenly about what the committee said and the process when it did come up (hint for outraged politicians everywhere, your story not being believed does not mean your point was ignored, and it isn't a court of law so things don't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
I suspect he was still riding relatively high, and when he was put under some pressure internally to help out Paterson he saw nothing wrong in what Paterson had done, felt bad for him about his wife, and assumed the rest of the party would weather any blowback fine.
Perhaps Jim was after all correct in positing an independent streak in the new Speaker. (Or perhaps it’s just posturing.) We will find out soon enough.
Mick Ryan, AM @WarintheFuture · 2h The loss of internet connectivity is probably the clearest indicator that the Israeli military has moved beyond raids and into a larger-scale and more intense phase of ground combat against Hamas in Gaza.
Perhaps Jim was after all correct in positing an independent streak in the new Speaker. (Or perhaps it’s just posturing.) We will find out soon enough.
Do a majority of the caucus care enough about Ukraine to get him to agree to a vote on it, knowing it will incur the wrath of the Orange one? He can allow a vote but still vote against it himself I suppose.
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
I don't care which one we pick, so long as we stay on it.
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
Am I the only PB-er childishly excited by the thought of World War 3?
Cmon. We’ve had a good run. Let’s go out with a BANG
Settle down, Lt-General de Wiart.
[de Wiart] served in the Boer War, First World War, and Second World War. He was shot in the face, head, stomach, ankle, leg, hip, and ear; was blinded in his left eye; survived two plane crashes; tunnelled out of a prisoner-of-war camp; and tore off his own fingers when a doctor declined to amputate them. Describing his experiences in the First World War, he wrote, "Frankly, I had enjoyed the war."
Perhaps Jim was after all correct in positing an independent streak in the new Speaker. (Or perhaps it’s just posturing.) We will find out soon enough.
Do a majority of the caucus care enough about Ukraine to get him to agree to a vote on it, knowing it will incur the wrath of the Orange one? He can allow a vote but still vote against it himself I suppose.
I have no idea how this plays out.
The Senate will vote for continuing aid; the House is unpredictable. There's almost certainly a majority in favour, but as you say, do those Republicans in favour care enough to break with the MAGA line ?
Johnson himself has voted both for and against in the past.
Am I the only PB-er childishly excited by the thought of World War 3?
Cmon. We’ve had a good run. Let’s go out with a BANG
I'm still very optimistic about Western countries, despite everything. If there is another huge international war, I don't thing it'll affect us very much.
🇰🇵 URGENT - Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, warned live on state television that the world is on the threshold of a Third World War and that everyone should prepare. ( @LeDirectInfo )
🇰🇵 URGENT - Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, warned live on state television that the world is on the threshold of a Third World War and that everyone should prepare. ( @LeDirectInfo )
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
Do people like Darren Grimes not notice the darkness at the start of the day alleviated by the clocks going back? Certainly it was pretty gloomy at 7.30am today and I'm verymuch looking forward to it being rather less so next week. An earlier dusk seems to me an acceptable price to pay for being able to get up with the dawn for a little longer.
Or maybe Darren Grimes is one of the special breed of idiot - they emerge every year - who think that the clocks going back means earlier evenings AND later mornings.
Owen Jones reposted Aydin Dikerdem @AydinDikerdem · 50m We are watching ethnic cleansing live on our screens and people are still trying to pretend this isn’t happening I want to scream
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
Do people like Darren Grimes not notice the darkness at the start of the day alleviated by the clocks going back? Certainly it was pretty gloomy at 7.30am today and I'm verymuch looking forward to it being rather less so next week. An earlier dusk seems to me an acceptable price to pay for being able to get up with the dawn for a little longer.
Or maybe Darren Grimes is one of the special breed of idiot - they emerge every year - who think that the clocks going back means earlier evenings AND later mornings.
Not everyone prefers that. Personally I'd rather get up in the dark and have a brighter evening.
But it's not that big a deal. (Though I do like the idea that we compromise; move the clocks 30mins, and leave them there permanently.)
There are more than a million orphaned children in Yemen.
So I've been told by an advert on my YouTube feed.
Where are the marches in London about this ?
Or does it not matter when one lot of Middle Eastern Muslims, backed by Saudi Arabia, is fighting another set of Middle Eastern Muslims, backed by Iran ?
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
Do people like Darren Grimes not notice the darkness at the start of the day alleviated by the clocks going back? Certainly it was pretty gloomy at 7.30am today and I'm verymuch looking forward to it being rather less so next week. An earlier dusk seems to me an acceptable price to pay for being able to get up with the dawn for a little longer.
Or maybe Darren Grimes is one of the special breed of idiot - they emerge every year - who think that the clocks going back means earlier evenings AND later mornings.
No it feels different down south
There we miss the evening light, we have to suffer dusk at 3.45pm so northerners can go to work in the cold vague greyness of dawn
FFS you’re northerners. You’re meant to have a horrible time and be sardonic and gritty about it, this is what you’re for
On the subject of GB News, it's clearly doing OK. Since it moved to being on-line first, it has dramatically increased its reach, and is clearly well ahead of other right of center UK channels on-line.
With that said... it's not doing *that* well either.
In total it has 1.07 million YouTube subscribers. That's... a lot less than Piers Morgan (1.92 million).
And if you look at it's current live stream:
It has - errrr - 222 people watching.
It's most popular video yesterday was Jacob Rees-Mogg (71k views), followed by Nigel Farage with just 20k views.
Those aren't amazing numbers. Some of my videos got 200+k views. And that was just me and a green screen. It is, presumably, absolutely hemorrhaging money.
I'm glad you had such a Youtube success. I don't think GBNews is primarily a Youtube Channel.
Their major issue is that advertisers (through politicised advisory panels within the industry) avoid right wing channels. Guido has also been affected by this. The Spectator does really well but it has a different model - subscriptions, magazine sales etc. They have an audience, the audience has money, they just need to work out a creative way of getting some of it.
Fox News advertising revenues waves hello!
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
I missed this post. My point was that due to the interventions of groups like CAN: https://www.consciousadnetwork.com/about-us/, many advertisers are being discouraged from advertising with outlets like GBNews. If you're directing a marketing campaign and you're asked if you want to advertise on 'high risk' or similarly described outlets, you're likely to say no. Thus, GBNews loses potential advertisers. What this should mean is that advertising on GBNews ends up going cheap relative to its viewership, which would make them an attractive place to advertise if your product matches their audience, but I'm not sure that's how it works in practice.
Am I the only PB-er childishly excited by the thought of World War 3?
Cmon. We’ve had a good run. Let’s go out with a BANG
You do realise that travel to lovely hotels that serve treble gins with exotic spices may be somewhat restricted when it all kicks off on Monday?
Meh, I’ll cope. I’ve seen the world. Perfect time to end it and start a new one
If we properly go out with a bang, global mushroom clouds, complete extinction, then I’m kind of with you.
I’m less interested in still being alive in a post-apocalyptic world. I quite like central heating, sushi, sunshine, things like that. Don’t really like bone-penetrating cold.
@darrengrimes_ · 4h Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
Do people like Darren Grimes not notice the darkness at the start of the day alleviated by the clocks going back? Certainly it was pretty gloomy at 7.30am today and I'm verymuch looking forward to it being rather less so next week. An earlier dusk seems to me an acceptable price to pay for being able to get up with the dawn for a little longer.
Or maybe Darren Grimes is one of the special breed of idiot - they emerge every year - who think that the clocks going back means earlier evenings AND later mornings.
No it feels different down south
There we miss the evening light, we have to suffer dusk at 3.45pm so northerners can go to work in the cold vague greyness of dawn
FFS you’re northerners. You’re meant to have a horrible time and be sardonic and gritty about it, this is what you’re for
One thing that Northerners can agree on is the satisfaction of upsetting Londoners.
Although its difficult to imagine anyone enjoying some evening outdoors bar culture in the present weather.
Owen Jones reposted Aydin Dikerdem @AydinDikerdem · 50m We are watching ethnic cleansing live on our screens and people are still trying to pretend this isn’t happening I want to scream
I wonder if he has a track record of protesting about the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh or the Afro-Sudanese ?
My favourite cathedral - Ripon. A beautiful cathedral, some decent places to eat and a racecourse - what more could anyone need?
I know Hereford, Worcester and Salisbury can match it but I've always won money at Ripon, don't know why.
Where do you feel god - even if you don't believe in god?# For me, two places.
I had a walking holiday a few years ago in Scotland. A week walking, saw no living person. Walked the length of Loch Morar, and stopped at the Chapel of Inverbeg (I had to look up the name). Abandoned years ago after the clearances, on the shores of the loch.There was perhaps no human being within ten miles of me. https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30971
When I was a teenager, I spent a summer with a French family, and we went to Les Baux en Provence. The ruins of the castle, home to troubadours, and then Cathars, was like a french version of Tintagel. Very, very special. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Château_des_Baux
Comments
Look, I'm a business guy, and I look to maximize my revenues by having adverts play where they have the most impact.
All I care about is CAC-LTV spread.
If what you say were true, I would be able to earn much better returns advertising on right wing networks than left wing ones. I have not found that to be the case.
Mon dieu et mon droit
No need to argue, debate or hesitate. The propaganda of the deed beckons…
“The one idea’d soul, all flesh refined to purposeful flame”
Fox News and the likes say Daily Wire in the US are different kettle of fish, they get massive audiences, so advertisers are going to be much more willing to spend money, as there are millions of viewers, not 10ks viewers.
And that's the fundamental problem that GB News has. Now, it may be that Paul Marshall (who I grant you is a friend of mine) will be willing to subsidize it indefinitely.
But I am sceptical.
Where as Paul Marshall also funds Unherd, which seems much more sensible business opportunity. Hire a couple of people with a good background, like Freddie Sayers, talk to a range of people at length, play devils advocate in a polite educated way, have a mix of well known people with some more controversial types, stick it all on YouTube / website. No massive outlay, build on the demand for long form content.
I think what GBNews should do is infomercials using their own presenting team segued into their normal programming. The audience of GBNews has a lot of seniors, they may have bought from TV channels before. In terms of product, there's a healthy distrust of the state - they're a good audience for dietary supplements (as an example), and healthcare devices. Also potentially leisure products. Potentially homeware or even fashion.
Both get plenty of advertisers too
It really doesn't matter.
Having the mentallers also getting them in trouble with Ofcom e.g Stein bloke & scaring off advetisers
See: https://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/wednesday-october-25-scoreboard-fox-news-draws-more-total-primetime-viewers-than-primary-competition/540651/
I don't have total weekly reach numbers, but they are going to be in the 60 million range, not the 3 million range.
'Leslie Moonves can appreciate a Donald Trump candidacy.
Not that the CBS executive chairman and CEO might vote for the Republican presidential frontrunner, but he likes the ad money Trump and his competitors are bringing to the network.
“It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS,” he said of the presidential race.'
source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/leslie-moonves-donald-trump-may-871464/
Most other major network executives weren't as candid -- but followed similar policies.
You're assuming everyone's read it.
Hell, after the last few years in political world, why the hell not?
Minneapolis-made magnet named among TIME’s Best Inventions of 2023
https://www.fox9.com/news/minneapolis-made-magnet-named-among-times-best-inventions-of-2023
...In late 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy awarded Niron $17.5 million to ramp up production of the Clean Earth Magnet. Made from widely available iron and nitrogen, the product is the world's first powerful permanent magnet made free of rare-earth elements. Automaker Volvo has also signed on as a partner and provided funding.
"Our magnet technology is powerful. And it's potentially even more powerful than the magnets that are available today commercially," Rowntree explained...
The sort of government R&D funding the Republicans in Congress want to cut.
We can be pleased with that given expectations for us at the start of the tournament
It is Shakespearean tragedy.
Now he is on GB news along with Oliver and Lozza.
The mentality that only wealth consumption should be subsidised has had profoundly dangerous economic and security consequences.
Twice successfully, once not so.
But it does lead me to doubt some combo of their fitness, the quality of their replacements and their game plan.
Nearly half of all respondents believe Israeli should wait with its ground operation in Gaza, while just over a quarter believe the IDF should embark on the offensive immiediately
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-27/ty-article/israeli-poll-finds-49-support-holding-off-on-gaza-ground-offensive/0000018b-6faa-d1da-a1bb-6fba47b00000
Ultimately he was brought down because his MPs felt he was demanding too much of them in defending all his scandals for the benefeit he would bring them. Many may well regret that now, since a rebrand has not worked, but better discipline on his part and he'd probably still be there.
Does that really bring in enough revenue ?
This is something which confuses me.
In 1970s UK both ITV and BBC must have had millions of viewers continuously as there weren't any alternatives.
So why weren't they awash with money as modern media companies are ?
They cannot solve their problems with a tax cut here or a policy initiative there because there problem is themselves.
People aren't sick of Conservative policies they're sick of Conservative politicians.
And ever more so with the endless revelations - Bone and Blunt this week.
Dominic Cummings’ ‘misogynistic’ messages seen by Covid inquiry, George Osborne says
Former chancellor says WhatsApp messages between Boris Johnson and key advisers are ‘staggering’
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/oct/27/dominic-cummings-misogynistic-messages-seen-by-covid-inquiry-george-osborne-says
@MrHarryCole
NEW: Very unusual intervention from No10 on reshuffle speculation — to say
@Jeremy_Hunt
now safe until after March’s Budget.
But they don’t say he will be the Chancellor at the next election…
Darren Grimes
@darrengrimes_
·
4h
Clocks go back an hour this weekend, so we all get to enjoy the darkness that little bit more. It may have made sense in the past, but personally I’d quite like to stay on BST. Anyone else?
Getting up in the dark is too depressing.
Especially when its pissing down and can't even see a proper sunrise.
This is a technology which is likely to be universally deployed if it lives up to the description. The significance lies in what it replaces.
People with money to spare or people cutting back on eating out or both ?
Or perhaps people are less willing to go out in winter and so prepared to pay more on meals they eat at home ?
We will find out soon enough.
JD Vance calls Speaker Johnson’s Ukraine remarks ‘concerning’
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4279457-j-d-vance-calls-speaker-johnsons-ukraine-remarks-concerning/
And so it begins...
And so it begins...
I'm not sure I buy that as he just lied brazenly about what the committee said and the process when it did come up (hint for outraged politicians everywhere, your story not being believed does not mean your point was ignored, and it isn't a court of law so things don't have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt).
I suspect he was still riding relatively high, and when he was put under some pressure internally to help out Paterson he saw nothing wrong in what Paterson had done, felt bad for him about his wife, and assumed the rest of the party would weather any blowback fine.
@WarintheFuture
·
2h
The loss of internet connectivity is probably the clearest indicator that the Israeli military has moved beyond raids and into a larger-scale and more intense phase of ground combat against Hamas in Gaza.
https://x.com/spectatorindex/status/1718030322737250382?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
BRACE
Its easy, and cheap, to create tasty vegetable side dishes for it while it is the microwave.
Cmon. We’ve had a good run. Let’s go out with a BANG
[de Wiart] served in the Boer War, First World War, and Second World War. He was shot in the face, head, stomach, ankle, leg, hip, and ear; was blinded in his left eye; survived two plane crashes; tunnelled out of a prisoner-of-war camp; and tore off his own fingers when a doctor declined to amputate them. Describing his experiences in the First World War, he wrote, "Frankly, I had enjoyed the war."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Carton_de_Wiart
The Senate will vote for continuing aid; the House is unpredictable. There's almost certainly a majority in favour, but as you say, do those Republicans in favour care enough to break with the MAGA line ?
Johnson himself has voted both for and against in the past.
🇰🇵 URGENT - Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, warned live on state television that the world is on the threshold of a Third World War and that everyone should prepare. ( @LeDirectInfo )
#KimJongun #TroisièmeGuerreMondiale #Israel #Palestine #Gaza
https://x.com/media_express1/status/1718033950839304654?s=61&t=GGp3Vs1t1kTWDiyA-odnZg
Or maybe Darren Grimes is one of the special breed of idiot - they emerge every year - who think that the clocks going back means earlier evenings AND later mornings.
Not clear to me which side she means...
Owen Jones reposted
Aydin Dikerdem
@AydinDikerdem
·
50m
We are watching ethnic cleansing live on our screens and people are still trying to pretend this isn’t happening I want to scream
Personally I'd rather get up in the dark and have a brighter evening.
But it's not that big a deal.
(Though I do like the idea that we compromise; move the clocks 30mins, and leave them there permanently.)
So I've been told by an advert on my YouTube feed.
Where are the marches in London about this ?
Or does it not matter when one lot of Middle Eastern Muslims, backed by Saudi Arabia, is fighting another set of Middle Eastern Muslims, backed by Iran ?
There we miss the evening light, we have to suffer dusk at 3.45pm so northerners can go to work in the cold vague greyness of dawn
FFS you’re northerners. You’re meant to have a horrible time and be sardonic and gritty about it, this is what you’re for
I’m less interested in still being alive in a post-apocalyptic world. I quite like central heating, sushi, sunshine, things like that. Don’t really like bone-penetrating cold.
Although its difficult to imagine anyone enjoying some evening outdoors bar culture in the present weather.
For me, two places.
I had a walking holiday a few years ago in Scotland. A week walking, saw no living person. Walked the length of Loch Morar, and stopped at the Chapel of Inverbeg (I had to look up the name). Abandoned years ago after the clearances, on the shores of the loch.There was perhaps no human being within ten miles of me. https://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=30971
When I was a teenager, I spent a summer with a French family, and we went to Les Baux en Provence. The ruins of the castle, home to troubadours, and then Cathars, was like a french version of Tintagel. Very, very special. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Château_des_Baux
Urgent | Two US officials to CBS: There appears to be a rolling start to a ground invasion in Gaza by Israeli forces