Please Donate to Help us Grow the Daily Sceptic
We don’t often make pleas for donations on the Daily Sceptic, but I wanted to tell you about some exciting plans we’ve got for the site and to ask readers to dip into their pockets to help us make this a reality.
Donations from readers are more or less our only source of revenue. Thanks to being black-listed by Google Ads and the unwelcome attention we get from companies like NewsGuard, which rank news publishing sites according to how ‘safe’ they are for companies to advertise on, the Daily Sceptic struggles to attract any advertising. (UnHerd has a similar problem, as reported by Freddie Sayers in today’s Times.) This is a prime example of the censorship-industrial complex at work, as described by Lee Fang in a recent article in the New York Post. In that article, Fang documented my unsuccessful attempt to get NewsGuard to upgrade its ranking of the Daily Sceptic last year in the hope of attracting some advertising:
NewsGuard’s core business is a misinformation metre, in which websites are rated on a scale of 0 to 100 on a variety of factors, including headline choice and whether a site publishes “false or egregiously misleading content”.
Such an endeavour might appear as an objective public service, but the devil is in the details.
Editors who have engaged with NewsGuard have found that the company has made bizarre demands that unfairly tarnish an entire site as untrustworthy for straying from the official narrative.
The Daily Sceptic, a libertarian-leaning British site, is one such example. In a series of emails over the last two years, editor Toby Young reached out to NewsGuard, hoping to improve the Daily Sceptic’s 74.5 rating.
NewsGuard took issue with the website’s criticism of lockdowns – it called them “unnecessary, ineffective and harmful” – and cited academic literature on the topic.
Young went so far as to add postscripts to his articles, relaying the issues raised by the fact-checkers and providing additional information.
For his good-faith interactions, Young was rewarded with a downgrade. NewsGuard updated his rating to 37.5 on its scale.
NewsGuard wanted nothing other than a retraction of the articles it objected to, despite the fact that further research has documented the harmful effects of lockdowns.
We’ve suffered from similar efforts to shadowban our content on social media. Facebook frequently restricts the content we post, claiming, falsely, that it is “false or misleading” and redirecting readers to ‘fact-checking’ sites that in reality are fountains of Covid and climate-related misinformation, often funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation or some other front for billionaire activists.
While legacy media have been haemorrhaging eyeballs due to a collapse in trust, the Daily Sceptic is now averaging 1.5 million page views per month – higher than the New Statesman, Novara Media and the Morning Star combined. Given that it’s produced on a shoestring from my garden shed, that’s pretty remarkable and shows just how much appetite there is for journalism that seeks to publish the truth about issues like climate change, rather than just regurgitate regime propaganda.

So, if you value what we do, please think about making a donation. We’re only able to continue producing such high-quality journalism because Will Jones, Richard Eldred, Chris Morrison, Ian Rons, Noah Carl, J. Sorel, Robert Kogon, Ben Pile and Steven Tucker – all of whom are paid to either work on the site or produce regular content – devote so much time to it. And we can’t continue doing that without the generous support of our readers. Remember, you only have to donate £5 a month to be able to comment (or £50 to comment for a year). A big thank you to all those people who’ve donated recently, particularly those who’ve set up recurring monthly donations – and a thank you to those people who regularly post below the line. It’s hugely appreciated.
We don’t just want to stand still, but move the site forward, increasing the range and depth of our offering, reaching new readers and audiences. Our objective is for the Daily Sceptic to establish itself as the main source of sceptical analysis of the key social and economic policies of the day, particularly those which claim to be based on ‘the science’, such as Net Zero. We want to increase the space devoted to climate contrarianism, with a view to becoming the U.K.’s number one source of sceptical climate coverage. With the near-term prospect of the U.K. electing a Labour Government with an even more authoritarian disposition than the current Conservative administration, the tide of poorly thought through, draconian legislation – as well as the capture of Britain’s leading companies and organisations by ‘woke’ ideologues – looks likely to rise. We therefore want to grow our team to help cement our position at the forefront of the anti-authoritarian alt-media.
We’ve already started to make this happen, with the addition of veteran climate journalist Ben Pile to the Daily Sceptic stable. Our next step is to launch the Weekly Round-Up – a new weekly, one-hour podcast, both audio and video, featuring Toby Young, Will Jones, Chris Morrison and other regular contributors, all anchored by a brand new host discussing the top stories of the week. In addition, we want to introduce some premium content for paying subscribers, while making sure 95% of our content is still available for free, and set up a community forum on Discord, where those paying £5 a month or more can talk to us and each other. To achieve all this, we need to expand our team a little further.
We’re hiring!
We’re currently looking for a new Associate Editor to take the lead in running and hosting the new Weekly Round-Up podcast, as well as writing for the site and moderating the new Discord community. It’s a part-time role, with one to two days on the podcast and one to two days on writing and other duties each week. Here are the details:
Job Description
- Writing two or three pieces a week
- Preparing for and hosting the Weekly Round-Up, a new Daily Sceptic podcast (audio and video), interviewing regular guests and contributors
- Curating and moderating a new Discord forum for premium subscribers
Skills and qualifications:
- Some journalistic experience
- Good conversationalist
- Particular interest in our main subject areas, e.g. climate alarmism, radical progressive ideology and liberal authoritarianism in general
- Master of the English language, e.g. can write and speak well
- Scientifically literate (nice to have, not essential)
- Familiar with WordPress and Discord (not essential for a quick learner)
Time Commitment:
- 0.5 FTE
- Could go to full time
Pay
- £35,000 – £37,000 (pro rated) plus pension contribution
Reporting to:
- The Editor-in-Chief
If you’re interested in applying or finding out more, please email us here using the subject line “Associate Editor”.
And do please forward this post to anyone you think might be interested. And if you enjoy reading the Daily Sceptic and would like to see us reach an even bigger audience, please donate here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
You’re looking very young in that photo Toby. I’ve posted this on Telegram
It is disconcerting that so called “sceptics” on The Daily Sceptic are siding with people like Tommy Robinson with their racist attitude to people with brown faces who are Muslims and believe everything they read in the Zionist run media.
There has not been one article from The Daily Sceptic that has been sceptical of the western governments and main stream medias support for Israel killing thousands of Palestinians.
There have been plenty of articles hypocritically “fact checking” the main stream media when someone dares to stand up for the Palestinians.
Linking many articles to The Daily Mail and The Telegraph is NOT journalism.
Where are the articles from the great libertarian thinkers who support the Palestinian cause?
There is none.
The Daily Sceptic is turning into a libertarian version of Spiked.
The Daily Sceptic and its readers who support Israeli aggression are on the wrong side of history and I won’t be donating any more until they have a more balanced view on Palestine.
The DS is not making any claims to be a non-biased non-partisan news outlet, so take it or leave it. Of course the editors and contributors have opinions of their own and that is reflected in the content, much like many other relatively new, small, but growing media. And that is fine, just as long as you’re not claiming to have a monopoly on truth or charging a licence fee.
If you don’t like the DS, go elsewhere.
Seconded.
The Daily Sceptic have articles by or quote geopolitical analysts who are sympathetic to the Russian liberation of Ukraine and they also have Ian Rons with his rabid hatred of Russia.
It leads to lively debate below the line.
Many of those geopolitical analysts that The Daily Sceptic use to give the Russian side of events are also sympathetic to the Palestinian cause “but” The Daily Sceptic NEVER use them for a contrarian view on Palestine which would also lead to lively debate below the line.
The Daily Sceptic should show both sides of the argument to cater for differing views.
If they want money why polarise a good proportion of your potential readership?
I feel that the Palestinian cause has had plenty of airtime from the mainstream media without the need to keep it balanced here on the DS.
Perhaps you have not considered that the marches in London, for example, make many of us, and I not speaking as a Jewish person, feel quite intimidated by it all. Their hostility towards anyone who doesn’t agree with them is hardly what I would call a desire to pursue freedom of speech.
I’m sure the people of Gaza feel “intimidated” by the bombing, shelling and shooting by the Jewish occupying forces.
Standing up for the oppressed is a moral duty, for some of us.
I’m not sure I completely agree.
I’m happy for media to have their biases. If you know what they are – which is certainly easier if they don’t try to hide them – then you take them into account and all is good.
I find attempts to be “balanced” and “impartial” don’t really work very well. My guess is because they’re not sincere.
The BBC for example, despite their claims, I know where they are coming from. It’s state propaganda, very left wing, woke, full on climatist. I’m fine with that. I basically know it’s mostly garbage, so I stay away. I turned it on for the first time in years on the weekend to find out in real time what was happening with Iran’s bombing of Israel because I knew it would serve that purpose.
You can’t expect media to cater to you perfectly. As long as you know their identity and their value you can then decide to take it or leave it.
The Daily Sceptic has balanced articles on Ukraine with both sides catered for why can’t they have balanced articles on Palestine?
Just quoting verbatim articles from rags like The Daily Mail and The Telegraph is lazy journalism and far from “sceptical”.
Maybe a few truth bombs from well respected geopolitical analysts would open peoples eyes and minds what is really going on in Palestine.
I’m sure there are many geopolitical analysists who have their own substack pages, youtube channels and other platforms where they publicize their own independently sourced content. If you want first-hand geopoliltical analysis, perhaps the Daily Sceptic is not the place to look. It is really just an online magazine for people with like-minded views on certain topics, demonstrated by it’s origins as “Lockdown Sceptics”.
Perhaps it does have a one-sided view on Israel / Hamas, which I happen to agree with, maybe you don’t. And maybe it has a more neutral / balanced stance on Ukraine. To reiterate, perhaps a national broadcaster that charges a licence fee and CLAIMS non-partisanship on all topics needs to live up to that promise (which it assuredly doesn’t). But the DS makes no such claim and is funded purely by voluntary donations and minimal (if any) advertising.
Yes I have been here since it first started as Lockdown Sceptics and yes I follow many, many geopolitical analysts on other platforms.
Why would The Daily Sceptic want to alienate a good proportion of their readership and funding by NOT having the very occasional article giving the contrarian view on Palestine?
It seems crazy to me and a poor business plan.
I would like to see articles putting both points of view as I am on the fence a bit.
So I partly agree with you.
But if you owned DS, could you bring yourself to publish “pro-zionist” articles, given how strongly you feel on the subject. Genuine question.
Like many other publications if it is well written by someone with gravitas it is worth publishing with the usual caveat “The views expressed in this article are the authors and not necessarily that of The Daily Sceptic”.
My inbox is bombarded by pro-Palestinian articles written by some of the best geopolitical analysts.
The Daily Sceptic and main stream media are awash with pro-Israel articles with the odd neutral one here and there.
It may well be that those who are neutral or slightly pro-Israel may change their minds by a well argued article by a leading geopolitical analyst.
They don’t get the chance of seeing one on The Daily Sceptic.
DS would do well to link up with UK Column where the content is phenomenal both in its depth and quantity – they put out an hour long show 3 times a week.
Palestinian and Libertarian, bit of an oxymoron there!
I said “Libertarian thinkers who are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause”.
People like Noam Chomsky and many, many others.
This seems like an ideal opportunity to address the removal of comments from this article:
https://staging.dailysceptic.org/2024/03/29/are-we-being-gaslit-over-the-cause-of-the-princess-of-waless-cancer
Doing so might encourage me to increase my subscription back to the pre-comments removal level. Although freeing up that money did encourage me to renew my subscription to Israeli media so I could get better coverage of the situation there – the DS coverage of that could be significantly improved as it makes the site look like a propaganda outlet.
Agreed. I know we all recognise the pressure under which proper journalistic endeavour operates. Toby, a public explanation would return trust. We get it, mate. It’s the silence we can’t accept.
Liberty dies in silence.
I was going to post something similar. Glad you did.
Is it really that big of a deal to provide some sort of explanation?
If you’re willing to take an inofficial explanation based on what others wrote about the circimstances: It seems some comments were being edited or removed and the people affected by this reacted to it by reposting them, probably from ready-made sources, ie, as copy’n’paste job. This can obviously be done much quicker than reading through supposedly new comments in order to determine if they comply with whatever policy they’re supposed to comply to. And since there was no other choice, the article was switched to no comments to stave off the ongoing assault.
This might have been a bit heavy-handed. I have no opinion on that because I only encountered the situation after the final development had already happened. But If in doubt, side with members of the team instead of sacrificing them is a solid policy for someone leading a team even though it’ll obviously be wrong or suboptimal at times.
If only GB News had the spine to do that with Steyn, Wotton etc.
Thanks for the unofficial explanation. Looks like all we will be given
If true, the DS action makes perfect sense. But why not just tell us?
Its the lack of response from Toby that leaves a bad taste. As a ‘community’ we are sensitive to anything that looks like censorship. Why doesn’t Toby clear the air?
Put in another £20, despite I don’t think a Podcast is a good idea. I can read much faster than most people talk and I don’t want to sit through an hour of people talking, with all the social noise, false starts and dead ends this usually implies, to get some information I could probably read in 10 – 20 minutes. Nevertheless, I like the idea of
main source of sceptical analysis of the key social and economic policies of the day, particularly those which claim to be based on ‘the science’, such as Net Zero
Quite agree. Podcasts are not my thing. I prefer the written word that I can bookmark, reference and quote from.
I can’t read articles while doing the dishes and other housework, etc, or while out walking, but I can listen to podcasts. Some people may also like to listen to them while driving. Even as a passenger on a long bus journey, reading can cause motion sickness and headaches, but no problem listening. So there is certainly a place for both articles and podcasts.
me too donating soon and same here about podcasts i much prefer to read. videos 2nd choice but reading first choice . thank you toby and all
Personally I like podcasts and listen to hours of them while doing other things. They are the future, like it or not.
Getting the premium content I paid for on the Weekly Sceptic is cumbersome though. Have to switch to the main Based site on my laptop.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/join-the-lighthouse-keepers-who-dared-challenge-covid-dictatorship/
Could DS please give this article the publicity it deserves?
DS subscribers – please have a look and if possible add your signature.
Thanks hux, signed.
Thanks M A k
I do because I have to bloody pay to make a comment.
But free to read. So already above the rest (with a few notable exceptions, e.g. UnHerd, TCW, Spectator)
The Speccie is not free to read M A k.
just tried donate it doesn’t work. sabotage maybe!
I think you have to go through the “Captcha” stuff…then it works.
thank you now it works! no idea why now !
I subscribe on a recurring basis and used to do ad hoc payments prior to setting up the recurring. Looking at the balance sheet of Skeptics Ltd U.K. company number 13246865 on companies house, £60k made it into the p&l for the last year and £105k in total since 2021. Hopefully no danger of going under..
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13246865/filing-history
Does that mean the DS made only a £60,000 profit last year, which is less than the average annual salary of two journalists in the UK?
Toby wrote above that “We’re only able to continue producing such high-quality journalism because Will Jones, Richard Eldred, Chris Morrison, Ian Rons, Noah Carl, J. Sorel, Robert Kogon, Ben Pile and Steven Tucker – all of whom are paid to either work on the site or produce regular content – devote so much time to it.”
That seems like there’s about 10 journalists on the Daily Sceptic staff including Toby, so I guess last year they each made a profit of about £6000 quid.
Just for comparison:
Millionaire’s son, 18, spending £6,000 a month on eating out gives bizarre gift to £50-a-week family of four – Birmingham Live (birminghammail.co.uk)
I think it’s really creepy that a supposed DS supporter would go to the lengths of investigating their finances in order to justify your own parsimony. That’s just my opinion, and it astonishes me the level of hostility and animosity shown by many commenters on here toward the Daily Sceptic they supposedly support.
I don’t understand it at all.
I can’t comment on what you do or do not understand.
Profit in the p&l transferred to the balance sheet is after all costs and wages. Also, it is after tax on profit and also after any dividends paid to directors ( I haven’t checked who the directors are but can if you like). Basically, what’s left for future years.
As someone who works in sales and has spent years as a self employed sales agent, it’s a natural thing to always check who you are dealing with and their ability to pay. In my experience, sanctimonious types like you have not really experienced the realities of non-payment or significant grief getting payment but it’s not for me to judge.
Thus the comment, “Hopefully no danger of going under..”
Never mind NewsGuard, because it is Speech Policing to the tune of $1.74 billion dollars: NewsGuard: Surrogate the Feds Pay to Keep Watch on the Internet and Be a Judge of the Truth | RealClearWire “More commonly the government works with through seemingly benign non-governmental organizations – such as the Stanford Internet Observatory – to quell speech it disapproves of. “Or it pays to coerce speech through government contracts with outfits such as NewsGuard, a for-profit company of especially wide influence. Founded in 2018 by Crovitz and his co-CEO Steven Brill, a lawyer, journalist and entrepreneur, NewsGuard seeks to monetize the work of reshaping the Internet. The potential market for such speech policing, NewsGuard’s pitch to Twitter noted, was $1.74 billion, an industry it hoped to capture.” “Instead of merely suggesting rebuttals to untrustworthy information, as many other existing anti-misinformation groups provide, NewsGuard has built a business model out of broad labels that classify entire news sites as safe or untrustworthy, using an individual grading system producing what it calls “nutrition labels.” “Critics note that such ratings are entirely subjective – the New York Times, for example, which repeatedly carried false and partisan information from anonymous sources during the Russiagate hoax, gets… Read more »