Heltor Chasca wrote:What I like about this thread is that someone had to read the DM (or at least the DM online) to find this story. Everyone I speak to denounces the DM, but they have all somehow read it. Including me when I've browsed through a copy in various waiting rooms or cafés
And I'm way too hairy and long haired to 'suit' the DM. Mass denial methinks.
As far as I can make out it's a big seller as far as papers go. I just wish I had the disposable time and income to read papers. But which one would I buy?...b
Good points. Just to set the record straight - I wouldn't go out and buy one, nor would I read a paper copy if I see it lying around. I utterly detest the 'little-england' mindset that it promulgates. But if - for instance, on this forum - someone posts a link to a specific news story, rather than copy-and-pasting the text of the article, I will go and click on the link. Also, if a story emerges on which I suspect the DM will take a particularly unpleasant line, I will sometimes hit on their version via google. Call it the internet equivalent of 'rubbernecking' if you like. I can't help it - curiosity wins out each time!
So, I suppose, each time I visit a DM story, a hit counter ramps up, and the DM rakes in its advertising revenue (which is presumably the bread-and-butter of any online media) according to the number of hits. So am I actually helping to 'pay' for this vile rubbish?
What I would like, is for advertisers to distinguish between visits to the DM sites via a direct link to a specific news item from another site (like this one) - and visits to the home page via the 'Favourites' bar or whatever. And to only pay the DM revenue based on the number of the latter, not the former. But I suppose that's dreamland...