The Guardian’s website has more visitors than the New York Times?
The Editor’s Weblog is reporting that the Guardian’s online readership has surpassed that of the New York Times. “With 18.4 million users in October,” it said, “the Guardian was ahead of nytimes.com, which registered 17.5 million users in the same period, according to Nielsen / NetRatings.”
This would be very shocking indeed, except there were two separate metrics to measure those audiences. For the Times, the blogger referred to Nielse/NetRatings, which generally seems to underrate a website’s traffic. For the Guardian, the blogger used ABC Electronic figures.
Traffic metrics are already debatable on an individual basis, so I think it would be silly to even try comparing traffic figures from two different sources.
Either way, even if the Guardian’s online readership is even close to that of the Times, what does this say about U.S. hegemony? Or rather, what does it say about our news coverage?
via buzz machine
UPDATE: I didn’t realize this at the time of posting, but Nielsen metrics only measure the U.S. audience, so it didn’t account for any readers overseas.
***
Related posts:
1. The spam wars
2. Why newspapers might actually be in trouble
The Guardian has a section called ‘Comment is Free’, which allows comments and often gets quite heated. The Guardian Bad Science blog is also hugely popular (for very good reasons).
Guardian has always been an excellent newsaper, it doesnt suprise me at all that is has already surpassed other countrys newspapers and websites. There alot more hmmm truthfull they wont report bull shizzle that everyone else does.
For example they didnt do madalene every day instead they did one a3 spread of every single frontpage done by other newspapers. It showed the true wideness of the story and how no one knows whats going on so why r they reportin it.