Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“GB News has announced a round of redundancies with 40 jobs set to be lost at the broadcaster amid mounting losses, it’s reported. The job cuts come after the channel posted a pre-tax operating loss of £42.4m for the year to the end of May, 2023, up from £30.7m 12 months.” What a shame! Does this indicate the slow erosion of comedy on British Television." Conspiracy theorists seem to prefer more chaotic drama, as per Alex Jones. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most rational people want to admire success , not poke fun at it. To date GB news is very successfull and also has a very successfull on line channel to which you can subscribe. The redundancies are simply to preserve cash flow while it works on methods to raise revenue . " "'Tis but a scratch." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"…while it works on methods to raise revenue . " They should give Trump a call. He’d monetise his daughter if he could so will be full of ideas! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most rational people want to admire success , not poke fun at it. To date GB news is very successfull and also has a very successfull on line channel to which you can subscribe. The redundancies are simply to preserve cash flow while it works on methods to raise revenue . " Is it successful though? What's their viewer ratings compared to rest of the TV channels? Can they raise revenue to break even with that level of viewership? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"“GB News has announced a round of redundancies with 40 jobs set to be lost at the broadcaster amid mounting losses, it’s reported. The job cuts come after the channel posted a pre-tax operating loss of £42.4m for the year to the end of May, 2023, up from £30.7m 12 months.” What a shame! Does this indicate the slow erosion of comedy on British Television." Be a shame if it goes as will miss the debates but business us business I guess | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. " The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story "Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story
Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making."That's why I said 'almost'. Less than 10% difference | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story
Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making.
That's why I said 'almost'. Less than 10% difference "So not remotely identical then! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story
Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making.
That's why I said 'almost'. Less than 10% difference
So not remotely identical then! "Being unprofitable is not a new experience for the Guardian. For example in 2016 :Guardian’s losses hit £69m. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story
Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making.
That's why I said 'almost'. Less than 10% difference
So not remotely identical then!
Being unprofitable is not a new experience for the Guardian. For example in 2016 :Guardian’s losses hit £69m.". The Guardian is still making a loss . It is projected to lose at least £40 million this year. The original poster probably needs to widen his reading database in order to obtain less biased or mord balanced information. An examination of the cash flow projections would have been useful. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most rational people want to admire success. The redundancies are simply to preserve cash flow while it works on methods to raise revenue . " Success is great when it happens but when a business owner talks redundancy to preserve cash flow they're usually facing the fact that the business is insolvent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story
Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making.
That's why I said 'almost'. Less than 10% difference
So not remotely identical then!
Being unprofitable is not a new experience for the Guardian. For example in 2016 :Guardian’s losses hit £69m.. The Guardian is still making a loss . It is projected to lose at least £40 million this year. The original poster probably needs to widen his reading database in order to obtain less biased or mord balanced information. An examination of the cash flow projections would have been useful. "Oh Pat I don’t. This thread proved something. People can’t help but use whataboutery. I start a thread about GB”News” losing money and making redundancies. It is a fact. I shared it. THAT is the story. THAT’S IT. But folks feel the need to point out The Guardian is losing money (still). Yep I know. We all know. And so what? We know that but why does that have any particular bearing on GBNews? For a start that is a TV station vs Newspaper. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story
Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making.
That's why I said 'almost'. Less than 10% difference
So not remotely identical then!
Being unprofitable is not a new experience for the Guardian. For example in 2016 :Guardian’s losses hit £69m.. The Guardian is still making a loss . It is projected to lose at least £40 million this year. The original poster probably needs to widen his reading database in order to obtain less biased or mord balanced information. An examination of the cash flow projections would have been useful.
Oh Pat I don’t. This thread proved something. People can’t help but use whataboutery. I start a thread about GB”News” losing money and making redundancies. It is a fact. I shared it. THAT is the story. THAT’S IT. But folks feel the need to point out The Guardian is losing money (still). Yep I know. We all know. And so what? We know that but why does that have any particular bearing on GBNews? For a start that is a TV station vs Newspaper."However you did not just share a story. At the end of your post you made a few personal opinions about GB news which many would consider to be derogatory. On a simplistic basis they are a start up channel and it is inevitable that they will make losses in the first few years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story
Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making.
That's why I said 'almost'. Less than 10% difference
So not remotely identical then!
Being unprofitable is not a new experience for the Guardian. For example in 2016 :Guardian’s losses hit £69m.. The Guardian is still making a loss . It is projected to lose at least £40 million this year. The original poster probably needs to widen his reading database in order to obtain less biased or mord balanced information. An examination of the cash flow projections would have been useful.
Oh Pat I don’t. This thread proved something. People can’t help but use whataboutery. I start a thread about GB”News” losing money and making redundancies. It is a fact. I shared it. THAT is the story. THAT’S IT. But folks feel the need to point out The Guardian is losing money (still). Yep I know. We all know. And so what? We know that but why does that have any particular bearing on GBNews? For a start that is a TV station vs Newspaper. However you did not just share a story. At the end of your post you made a few personal opinions about GB news which many would consider to be derogatory.
On a simplistic basis they are a start up channel and it is inevitable that they will make losses in the first few years. "I disagree. The story is there. I added a personal observation. They are in trouble unless they are going to be continued to be bankrolled as a useful marketing/propaganda channel because I doubt they can be a viable business. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Guardian is also losing money and braced for job losses. Reduction in ad revenue is blamed. The losses are almost identical but it doesn't make as good a story
Guardian forecasting £39m losses. Hardly identical (I wouldn’t mind banking the difference). But you’re right they too are loss making.
That's why I said 'almost'. Less than 10% difference
So not remotely identical then!
Being unprofitable is not a new experience for the Guardian. For example in 2016 :Guardian’s losses hit £69m.. The Guardian is still making a loss . It is projected to lose at least £40 million this year. The original poster probably needs to widen his reading database in order to obtain less biased or mord balanced information. An examination of the cash flow projections would have been useful.
Oh Pat I don’t. This thread proved something. People can’t help but use whataboutery. I start a thread about GB”News” losing money and making redundancies. It is a fact. I shared it. THAT is the story. THAT’S IT. But folks feel the need to point out The Guardian is losing money (still). Yep I know. We all know. And so what? We know that but why does that have any particular bearing on GBNews? For a start that is a TV station vs Newspaper. However you did not just share a story. At the end of your post you made a few personal opinions about GB news which many would consider to be derogatory.
On a simplistic basis they are a start up channel and it is inevitable that they will make losses in the first few years.
I disagree. The story is there. I added a personal observation. They are in trouble unless they are going to be continued to be bankrolled as a useful marketing/propaganda channel because I doubt they can be a viable business."Maybe they need to focus more on the theatrics, more in the style of Infowars. That was a fairly popular channel. Although I think you're right, making money isn't the aim here. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder how The Guardian continues to run after all these losses. Who bankrolls them?" The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, it was set up in 1936 to guarantee The Guardian’s editorial independence. It is worth about £1.2 billion and aside from stating that the editorial policy continues "the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore" it does not interfere in editorial matters. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder how The Guardian continues to run after all these losses. Who bankrolls them? The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, it was set up in 1936 to guarantee The Guardian’s editorial independence. It is worth about £1.2 billion and aside from stating that the editorial policy continues "the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore" it does not interfere in editorial matters." Sounds like lot of extra steps for someone to still be able to exert influence. Who appoints the editor in chief? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder how The Guardian continues to run after all these losses. Who bankrolls them? The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, it was set up in 1936 to guarantee The Guardian’s editorial independence. It is worth about £1.2 billion and aside from stating that the editorial policy continues "the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore" it does not interfere in editorial matters. Sounds like lot of extra steps for someone to still be able to exert influence. Who appoints the editor in chief? " 'The Scott Trust' Ltd. It has a board of directors. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I wonder how The Guardian continues to run after all these losses. Who bankrolls them? The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, it was set up in 1936 to guarantee The Guardian’s editorial independence. It is worth about £1.2 billion and aside from stating that the editorial policy continues "the same lines and in the same spirit as heretofore" it does not interfere in editorial matters. Sounds like lot of extra steps for someone to still be able to exert influence. Who appoints the editor in chief? 'The Scott Trust' Ltd. It has a board of directors. " Yeah the whole idea that some organisation will magically become unbiased or without authority if we socialise it in some form or another is a pipe dream that's sold to many people and people keep falling for it. If you follow the donors to the trust, I am bloody sure it will be a bunch of rich "progressives", given that's the bias of the guardian. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah but at least we generally get quality journalism from The Guardian even if you disagree with their political position, surely you can (begrudgingly) acknowledge that? In comparison GB News is like the Beano." I see the guardian as the daily mail of the right. You just have to read their article about issues around identity politics to see how much of a joke they are. Granted they try to push most of this nonsense in the name of "opinion piece" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah but at least we generally get quality journalism from The Guardian even if you disagree with their political position, surely you can (begrudgingly) acknowledge that? In comparison GB News is like the Beano. I see the guardian as the daily mail of the right. You just have to read their article about issues around identity politics to see how much of a joke they are. Granted they try to push most of this nonsense in the name of "opinion piece"" I’d say they are more like The Times than The Daily Mail | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah but at least we generally get quality journalism from The Guardian even if you disagree with their political position, surely you can (begrudgingly) acknowledge that? In comparison GB News is like the Beano." Wow that is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Thank you so much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yeah but at least we generally get quality journalism from The Guardian even if you disagree with their political position, surely you can (begrudgingly) acknowledge that? In comparison GB News is like the Beano. Wow that is the funniest thing I've read in ages. Thank you so much." You’re welcome | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From 'The Guardian': An article headlined “Police investigating allegations Dan Wootton solicited explicit images” was published on our website on 2 October 2023 (with a print version in a late edition the next day) and removed on 3 October 2023 following complaints from lawyers acting for Dan Wootton. We apologise to Mr Wootton for the article. Last week, the Metropolitan police and Police Scotland said that they had concluded their investigations and are taking no further action. Mr Wootton has restated that the police inquiries have exonerated him of any criminal wrongdoing. The Guardian has paid a contribution to Mr Wootton’s costs." And…? I would hazard a guess that there isn’t a single newspaper (or news outlet) that has not had to retract stories or pay compensation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"From 'The Guardian': An article headlined “Police investigating allegations Dan Wootton solicited explicit images” was published on our website on 2 October 2023 (with a print version in a late edition the next day) and removed on 3 October 2023 following complaints from lawyers acting for Dan Wootton. We apologise to Mr Wootton for the article. Last week, the Metropolitan police and Police Scotland said that they had concluded their investigations and are taking no further action. Mr Wootton has restated that the police inquiries have exonerated him of any criminal wrongdoing. The Guardian has paid a contribution to Mr Wootton’s costs." This thread is excellent. I'm enjoying all the GB News fans giving it loads of "yeah, but what about The Guardian". More of this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The i is reporting… GB News insiders are speculating over whether Boris Johnson can ride to the rescue as the right-wing station battles low ratings and a morale slump after announcing cost-cutting plans to axe 40 jobs. The inside sources fear the controversial channel could even follow the example of Rupert Murdoch’s Talk TV, which will leave scheduled television and go online only this summer, after two years of poor viewing figures. The GB News redundancy plan will replace dedicated editorial staff working on individual shows with a “pooled” story team, i understands, in a move designed to stem losses which ballooned to £42.2m in 2023. Seasoned presenters, including economics editor Liam Halligan, are set to leave GB News, which is struggling to retain its modest live audience and still faces eight outstanding Ofcom investigations into alleged impartiality breaches. “Morale is pretty low. Some nights they are getting only 30,000 viewers at peak-time,” an insider told i. " Maybe they need to hire highly successful well paid broadcasters like Gary Linekar? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The i is reporting… GB News insiders are speculating over whether Boris Johnson can ride to the rescue as the right-wing station battles low ratings and a morale slump after announcing cost-cutting plans to axe 40 jobs. The inside sources fear the controversial channel could even follow the example of Rupert Murdoch’s Talk TV, which will leave scheduled television and go online only this summer, after two years of poor viewing figures. The GB News redundancy plan will replace dedicated editorial staff working on individual shows with a “pooled” story team, i understands, in a move designed to stem losses which ballooned to £42.2m in 2023. Seasoned presenters, including economics editor Liam Halligan, are set to leave GB News, which is struggling to retain its modest live audience and still faces eight outstanding Ofcom investigations into alleged impartiality breaches. “Morale is pretty low. Some nights they are getting only 30,000 viewers at peak-time,” an insider told i. " As their objective is to break even by 2027 there is plenty of time left. To date they have proved the merchants of doom an gloom wrong . Their website is very successfully and you can also pay a subscription service to the channel. To most people it is quite an achievement to start a News chanel from scratch. Considerable talent and resources are required. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The i is reporting… GB News insiders are speculating over whether Boris Johnson can ride to the rescue as the right-wing station battles low ratings and a morale slump after announcing cost-cutting plans to axe 40 jobs. The inside sources fear the controversial channel could even follow the example of Rupert Murdoch’s Talk TV, which will leave scheduled television and go online only this summer, after two years of poor viewing figures. The GB News redundancy plan will replace dedicated editorial staff working on individual shows with a “pooled” story team, i understands, in a move designed to stem losses which ballooned to £42.2m in 2023. Seasoned presenters, including economics editor Liam Halligan, are set to leave GB News, which is struggling to retain its modest live audience and still faces eight outstanding Ofcom investigations into alleged impartiality breaches. “Morale is pretty low. Some nights they are getting only 30,000 viewers at peak-time,” an insider told i. As their objective is to break even by 2027 there is plenty of time left. To date they have proved the merchants of doom an gloom wrong . " You seem to have contracted yourself here. They haven't broken even yet, so ha e can that have proved anyone wrong? " Their website is very successfully and you can also pay a subscription service to the channel. " I agree with you here. Their website is good at creating divisions, pushing culture war, spreading misinformation and hate. And some people want to actually pay into their subscription service shows a level of success. " To most people it is quite an achievement to start a News chanel from scratch. Considerable talent and resources are required. " Correct, the misinformation machine has had lots of funding. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
