UKH

Kind of surprised there hasn't been a thread on it already

Bang goes my impartial source.

Even if it remains "uninfluenced" as they say who is going to believe that?

For a worrying moment I read your post as New Statesman. 
 

panic over.

perhaps it should be renamed "Newly Acquired Scientist"?

To be honest I thought that NS got a bit 'thin' around the time Grimbledon Down stopped running.

It will be a great improvement. Just think about all the new articles saying what cures and what causes cancer this month.

the ire was all used up when NG was bought 

Oh FFS...

Will them being directly indignant about the science make it go away then? Guess that's why they bought it.

Not good.... It seems inconceivable that they won't interfere (or just have an 'effect' on the editors).  Still, looking on the bright side, I suppose it could have been bought by TMG (Telegraph). Presumably it will be Private Eye next.

Change of ownership and influence happens all the time, most of it unseen.

Scott Trust which owns the Guardian became Scott Trust Limited a decade or so ago, subtle but significant. It sold off all the regional newspapers it owned and magazines like auto trader to venture capitalists, it then offshored the profit that year and now uses the large pot of cash to under write guardian's annual loss. EVERY media outlet is influenced by someone or something,  which is fine as long as there is diversity. 

I'd imagine the DM is diversifying it's portfolio and given that science is the big winner in the last 12 months of covid, probably not a bad investment. 

 Presumably it will be Private Eye next.

Shudders

Yes, of course there is always influence and it should be naïve to think otherwise. Facts are always seen though our own lens, but some lenses seem more distorting than others. The DM has some very strongly promoted lines which may not stand up to more objective viewpoints (and some which do....).  We should always think about such influences, and as you say diversity....which doesn't seem that strong in uk media at present.

Presumably bringing a tangential comment on the Guardian into this is a dead cat type of manoeuvre on your part.

I wouldn't disagree.

COVID has given them a bit of a boost but there are still too many articles that circle round and don't say anything.

I guess it is hard to fill a weekly magazine with top notch material every week

The guardian is still influenced by its board of trustees as much as the DM may influence it's products. 

The second the credibility drops in the NS, their readership will disappear and the DM loses money. It's a different business model to national daily press. 

I think being owned by the Daily Mail has already hit their credibility

Perhaps. I wonder on the motives of the sale, if they were struggling, shift away from print to digital, wonder how many copies they sell in airports to travellers looking to read something when up until recent all electronic media was offline etc..  it might just be the death throws of the paper NS. 

NS is actually quite profitable, forecasting profits of £7m on revenue of £20m, which is quite healthy. 

I hope you are wrong.

I have a subscription but wouldn't subscribe to an online mag.

It's taken me 3 days to think of this but now I'm ready:

'I'm pleased they have bought a New Scientist because frankly the old one wasn't much cop.'

Tish boom!  

In what way?

I mean I agree that articles about diet and how sleeping well makes you feel better are a bit rubbish but I find it quite good for new discoveries before they hit the main stream and it has been useful for following the rise of COVID.

Also as popular UK science mag there really isn't any alternative

That's my efforts at humour fallen on stony ground then.

I'm not so worried about the influence issue as putting money in the coffers of the DM organisation.

Any suggestions for where I could better spend my subsctiption money?

I guess the science can still be looked into, thanks to journals and referencing and pee reviewing, which is a plus.

I'm a big fan of Quanta (https://www.quantamagazine.org/). More depth than NS (particularly strong for maths) but perhaps not quite as much breadth.

It's web-only though, and also free due to its funding from the Simons Foundation, so they don't ask for your money.

Sounds like a golden opportunity. 

Ah!

Sorry slow brain day.

I blame the vaccine. Bill Gates is drawing power

Cheers for that.

Book marked it

Well after 3 days you'd hope for better!

I don't get it either.

I have a subscription, and keep getting mails offering Telegraph subscriptions.  Think I will pass on this

You need the humour equivalent of a spotter!

Anyway I got it. But three days...

DM might worry about being associated with a magazine suggesting things like cycling is healthy... they'd see that as damaging the DM's credibility.

DM credibility - now there's a curious concept.

I'm certain they see theselves as credible, even if we don't.

I don't believe that. They mostly know they are lying.

It's just business. NS is a £7m cash cow best not to upset its readership with a Diana/Madeline obsession.

DM is an £xm cash cow, best not to upset its readership with clear, evidenced, peer reviewed thought. 

That way the money keeps rolling in. 

Yes, that was exactly my thought. Of all readerships, that of the NS must be about as rational as they come. They simply wouldn't stand for the pushing of a DM agenda. I'm more likely to cancel my subscription because of all the space filled up with weird abstract illustrations than any worry it is going to go all Daily Mail.

you and me both!

Ooh, now I get it, I misread it yesterday. #Dad-joke.

Subscription cancelled.