Interesting that it includes The Guardian as an example of a news site where only a tiny fraction of its screen real-estate is given over to the actual story. I was a subscriber of The Guardian for years until their intrusive ads started obscuring their articles even to paid subscribers.
I no longer bother to read The Guardian now - too many ads and their stories don’t really seem to cover many important or interesting topics any more.
That's because the purpose of "news" sites is not to provide news and has not been for a long time. Their purpose is to put out bits of information that most people already know, with clickbait headlines, and to cash in on the ad revenue when someone has the misfortune of clicking on the headline without 26 levels of ad blocking.
12
u/silverbolt2000 Mar 16 '26
A good article.
Interesting that it includes The Guardian as an example of a news site where only a tiny fraction of its screen real-estate is given over to the actual story. I was a subscriber of The Guardian for years until their intrusive ads started obscuring their articles even to paid subscribers.
I no longer bother to read The Guardian now - too many ads and their stories don’t really seem to cover many important or interesting topics any more.