GG and Reader Funded Journalism

[Whisp]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/04/reader-funded-journalism

For that reason, when I moved my blog from Salon to the Guardian, the Guardian and I agreed that I would continue to rely in part on reader support. Having this be part of the arrangement, rather than exclusively relying on the Guardian paying to publish the column, was vital to me. It's the model I really I believe in.

It is an indispensable factor in my independence. It enables me to work far more effectively by having the resources I need and to spend my time only on the work which I actually believe can have an impact. It keeps my readers invested in the work I do and keeps me accountable to them. And it's what enables me to know that I'll be able to continue focusing on the issues and advancing the perspectives which I think are vital regardless of who that might alienate. I've spent all of this week extensively traveling and working continuously on what will be a huge story: something made possible by being at the Guardian but also by my ability to devote all of my time and efforts to projects like this one.

Currently, this is not the conventional way journalism is funded in establishment circles, but I'm convinced it's the better way. For a deeply struggling field, and whether they want it or not, this is the way of the future: the short-term future at that, and I think that's a very positive development. I'm truly appreciative of all readers who spend their time coming here, and grateful for those who in the past have supported the work I do. Those who wish to do so this year can do that here.

Does he have to show who his donors are and how much they fund him?
I didn't see any info to that in his article.
What if Ron Paul is giving him bunches of money, in secret, would that change your mind about GG?

This is creepy creepy shit, folks.

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. And the Kochs, Heritage, etc. It's a great question. Did we ever find out who Jane Hamsher's.....

client list was? You know her PR firm that teaches Republicans how to defeat Democrats? People like GG & Hamsher can be truly effective for the Republican elite because they operate in both spheres, hence the term "firebagger". And just think, GG can sucker money from a global audience, and any "organization" that harbors anti American sentiment. It's genius if you have no scruples. Hey, somebody's gotta pay for his homes in NY & Rio.

[Whisp]

4. Jane Hamsher...

I recall seeing her on interviews and being just giddy with glee if there was bad news about democrats. This was during the run up to the 2010 midterms.

Wasn't she the one who started that: He's (meaning Obama) Not All That Into You line that we still see here once in a while?
and I recall hearing of GG around that time too, for the first time - pretty sure they tag teamed or something.

[flamingdem]

5. What happened to Hamster?

Haven't heard from her on the Snowden issue, or anything, for months.

[Whisp]

6. Here's something I found on Kos:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/03/27/1197482/-Jame-Hamsher-Files-For-Bankruptcy#

Wed Mar 27, 2013 at 05:19 PM PDT
Jane Hamsher's Advertising Arm Files For Bankruptcy

NEW YORK -- CommonSense Media, a digital advertising network co-founded by film producer and Firedoglake publisher Jane Hamsher, has filed for bankruptcy to liquidate its assets.

Founded in 2007 by Hamsher, AJ Schuler and Deveria Flowers, CommonSense Media describes itself as “a digital alliance of publishers and advertisers who are shaping the future of digital advertising in the political space.”

CommonSense Media's Chapter 7 filing earlier this month in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Washington, D.C., lists many prominent news sites and blogs among its 48 creditors. (A portion of the document, obtained in a public records search, is below.) Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings allow companies to liquidate assets while being protected from creditors.

...

Hamsher signed the bankruptcy filing, dated March 18, as "debtor" and is in a related document as "president."

[flamingdem]

8. She could use some funds

better find another Snowden asap, or invent one!

[Tarheel_Dem]

49. They are most definitely bosom buddies, along with Grover Norquist.

She teamed up with Norquist in an effort to kill healthcare reform. She thought she had a lot more influence than she actually does.

[Whisp]

2. I wonder how much money is rolling in from the Libertarians?

The large L Libertarians.
And you can't get larger than the Pauls and their hate for social justice, their racism and bigotry and general whacknuttery.

Ron Paul's Popeil Pocket Traitorman feels very much the same as they do.

And I do believe Mr. Greenwald has inclinations of this sort as well.

Hmmmm, such coincidences!

[Mojorabbit]

32. What is this fear of libertarians?

There are not enough of them out there to make any kind of difference in any election afaik. I look at them as a sort of sideshow. Noisy and ineffectual.

[Whisp]

35. They are hiding in the teabaggers.

and the Baggers are very noisy, yes, but effective. Haven't you noticed the crazy lately?

[Mojorabbit]

37. The teabagger"s time is over

Give it a few more election cycles and they will be non existent. They poll way in the negatives.

[Whisp]

39. Their polling negatives don't hold them back from the horrid things

they are doing to women's rights.

How does that figure with you? If they are so inconsequential and ineffective?
Maybe to your own personal well being?

I don't understand.

[Mojorabbit]

40. As a woman I am watching everything

and I stand by my statement. Huge over reach everywhere they are in power. Alienating people right and left. Days are numbered.

[Galraedia]

44. Libertarian:

[Whisp]

45. +++

[Mojorabbit]

46. Still, their numbers are very small in the scheme of things. nt

[FSogol]

3. K&R. n/t

[DevonRex]

7. Meanwhile, he's acting like the internet isn't safe while promoting internet hackers to

people who read his BS on the internet and donate through the internet. But everybody be very afraid!!!!! Just don't be afraid of HIS hackers, right? Or his backers. Whoever they are. Oh, and don't dare mention he ran away from paying his taxes. Avoiding taxes is a slimy Republican/Libertarian move. Wonder who he hooked up with to get that ideology. And now he's begging for money online. Poor slimy thing.

[Luminous Animal]

9. I am aware of many Democratic small business owners who are/were behind on their taxes.

Last edited Fri Jul 12, 2013, 11:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Negotiating with the IRS to: 1 ) reduce the burden of the penalities - it is the outrageous penalties that make it difficult to pay what's owed; and 2 ) hammering out a payment plan that is not punitive, is a tedious process but well worth it. The IRS can be quite reasonable once you've established that you were using your tax payment obligations to keep your business afloat rather than trying to avoid paying taxes. (They can and should be strict if they can establish that you purposely enriched your personal finances by avoiding your tax obligations.) Given that the IRS hasn't prosecuted Greenwald, the IRS must have concluded that his situation was the former not the latter.

[DevonRex]

10. I have a rabid RW tea party family member who loves Snowden who owes

as much as Glenn does and hates the U.S. govt as much as he does, too.

[Luminous Animal]

17. You stated that being behind on taxes is a right-wing thing and that is patently untrue.

I have personally, as part of my profession, helped good Democrats, liberals, lefties, who are small business owners negotiate with the IRS to pay their back taxes.

In fact, in the 20 years that I have been doing this, I have never helped a right-winger.

[DevonRex]

24. They sure as hell hate and avoid paying taxes if they can. Patently True. nt

[Mojorabbit]

33. He did not run away from paying his taxes.

He is making payments as are a ton of other Americans.

[DevonRex]

48. No. he said he's negotiating with the IRS. Unless he came up with a different story. nt

[Mojorabbit]

50. Part of the process. nt

[DevonRex]

51. Yeah. Right. nt

[Scurrilous]

11. MYOB! His finances are his own business!

Transparency is for little people.

[Union Scribe]

12. No, privacy is for the little people

Transparency is for the government. Violating the little people's privacy should not be for the government. Violating government's privacy should be for the people however.

[Scurrilous]

22. Wrong 'little people.'

Leona Helmsley: "Only the little people pay taxes." That 'little people.'

[Whisp]

13. I wonder what the Guardian is thinking of this arrangment...

in light of recent events.

[Scurrilous]

27. As long as the hits to the website keep coming I'm sure they're happy.

Anyway, he apparently works for them for free. I'd say they're getting their money's worth.

[Whisp]

28. I thought the Guardian was a somewhat respectable source.

I have a feeling they are having meetings over this new 'story' GG 'stumbled' upon. They wouldn't allow themselves to get dragged down into the mud with him.

I wager in 3, maybe 4 weeks there will be a falling apart of some sort - all amiable of course, on the surface.

I wonder if GG shares his loot with the Guardian. Whether the donations come to his name or the Guardians. Lots of interesting questions here.

[Scurrilous]

31. The comment is free section is like the Hyde Park Speakers' Corner of opinion pages.

They have hundreds of contributors. The Guardian website itself though is a top-notch news source.

[Luminous Animal]

15. No. Transparency is for governments. Privacy...

is for individuals. There is no unalienable right to government secrecy but, as the Supreme Court has affirmed many times over, we the people, have a right to privacy.

Greenwald has written about this distinction many times over.

[bvar22]

14. THIS life long loyal Liberal Democrat and advocate for our Constitutional Protections...

...will make sure that these Governmental Over Reach watchdogs will have my few spare dollars to keep fulfilling the obligation of our Journalists to provide Governmental Oversight in our democracy no matter WHO happens to be sitting in the Oval Office!!

I am also glad to see that these Watch Dogs so necessary to a functioning democracy are declaring Independence from Corporate Ownership and Control of Content!!!!
This is a good day for DEMOCRACY!

VIVA Democracy!

[Whisp]

26. We will We will, soap you!

You got mud on yo' face
You big disgrace
Kickin' your can all over the place
Singin'

'We will we will soap you
We will we will soap you

[bvar22]

29. When you find yourself on the wrong side of Mr Fish,

...and on the same side with Dick Cheney,
it really is time to pick up the clue.

I will agree that art IS subjective,
but I have met few people that were unable to appreciate Mr Fish.
I have always found him and his work to be delightful,
pertinent, insightful, and biting social commentary.

However, out of courtesy,
I will mark you down as someone who is unable to "get" Mr Fish and prefers Dick Cheney.


Here is another one that Nailed It!

[Whisp]

30. I like Mr Fish.

He is not a shy one.

But muddy face bro isn't one of his best works.

[Fumesucker]

16. Personally I like giant corporations to fund my news sources

That way I can be sure that they are unbiased.

[Luminous Animal]

18. Oh but gossip is so much more fun!

What else is there to do between reality shows?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

19. How do you feel about S, EL, and EG? Are they engaging in creepy shit too?

Do we have any way of knowing who the donors are, and how much they give? I have never seen a list of names and amounts donated. What if Louie Gohmert was giving Skinner a $10,000 check every quarter? Would that change your mind about S?

I wrote the same thing you did. It looks really stupid on its face.

[Whisp]

21. is Skinner a journalist now?

Oh, when did that happen, congratulations to him then.

Where does he publish?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

23. Cute. Rejected, but cute.

[ucrdem]

20. LMAO, so they're not even paying the creep.

That explains "Comment is free"!



My respect for the Guardian just increased a micron, but yeah, so then who is paying him? I've never seen him rattle the tin cup before and he's not doing it here either -- no pledge drive goal, no membership benefits, no PayPal link -- so I imagine it's either CATO or some spooky private "foundation."

[flamingdem]

55. I read he has a trust fund

at least someone "trusts" him

[snot]

25. Personally, I think there should be Constitutionally-mandated requirements re- the Fourth Estate:

ALL purported purveyors of news should have to disclose all funding sources,
and it should be illegal for any direct or indirect interest in such new companies to be owned or controlled by any person or entity whose primary business is not news journalism.
AND there should be restrictions against news outlet consolidation/monopolies.

[Cleita]

34. Doubt if Ron Paul would be doing it as he needs money for his campaigns. That would be more

something The Heritage Foundation or other think tank type organizations would do. But I think GG is really talking about individual donors like Democracy Now! and Free Speech TV solicit. I don't see you demanding to see a list of their donors although I'm certain they would provide you with them if you asked. I don't know why GG wouldn't either? Why all the character assassination? If Ron Paul is actually giving him bunches of money, get the proof and then put it up, but doing what you are doing is creepy shit and not very kosher.

[Enrique]

36. what's creepy is the proliferation of smear campaigns on DU n/t

[Whisp]

38. yes, the smear campaigns against President Obama are intolerable.

Especially lately.
I am glad we can agree on that.

[sheshe2]

41. +1! nt

[sheshe2]

42. K&R! nt

[quinnox]

43. creepy, indeed. That is one reason the only news source I trust is White House.gov.

Everything else is untrustworthy to tell the real truth.

[DesMoinesDem]

47. I get all my news from GE, Disney, Newscorp, TimeWarner, Viacom, and CBS.

You expect me to trust reader funded journalism??!!! I don't think so. I know massive corporations have my best interests in mind.

[Whisp]

52. kick for Glenn 'ca-ching' Greenwalds version of the PTL club. n/t

[MineralMan]

53. What the Guardian agreed to was that they wouldn't

pay Greenwald. He's just another unpaid blogger, drawing readers to yet another web publication. He depends on "private" funding. He's a blogger. Nothing more, and nothing less.

[Whisp]

54. in return GG is using the Guardian's respectability.

I think he may get the pink slip soon tho.

The Guardian just might punt his boney ass out of their columns, especially with this new 'threat' of his we are hearing about today.

[MineralMan]

56. Hard to say. Greenwald gets lots of clicks.

Every click exposes the Guardian's ads. Greenwald is self-supporting, so his writings don't cost the Guardian anything. What a deal! If someone who can write will write for free and that person attracts readers, it's a no-brainer for the publication.

I doubt they'll dump him until his stuff doesn't bring in visitors. It's all about the money. I noticed that KIA is advertising heavily on his columns. Now, that may be Google feeding ads to me, since I'm a KIA owner and my search history includes a number of searches for KIA. I'm not sure. But, there are two ads on each column. One is a banner and the other a top right sidebar ad.

KIA is advertising heavily. I saw a Sprint ad, too. Greenwald is bringing in the bucks for the Guardian, and he's giving his work away to them, since they're prominent in the news business. Sweet deal all around.

[cherokeeprogressive]

57. Isn't ALL journalism "reader funded"?

[Whisp]

58. actually I agree that it is.

We know that GE funds/owns MSNBC and for that Rachel and Tweets and all those get their paychecks because they avoid certain subjects or are careful about certain subjects.

But this takes on a bit of a different twist in my mind, what GG is doing. Is it worse, better? I don't know, I just find it just another opportunity to screw people out of their money but in the end that is what the game is always all about, money.