I just had lunch with Tor Arne Fanghol, who’s the editor in charge of the internet section of Bergens Tidende, the local newspaper. It was really interesting hearing about their thoughts for the web newspape. Some interesting facts:

  • They publish about 100,000 copies of the paper newspaper, but each paper is read by 2-3 people, so they figure they have about 200,000 or more readers every day. That sounds kind of high since there are only about 250,000 people in Bergen, but people read it in areas around Bergen too, and Norwegians really do read a lot of newspapers.
  • The web edition has hits from about 55,000 unique computers (based on their IP numbers) daily. If you assume many of these unique computers are used by more than one person, that would lead to more readers than unique hits. (I’m going to start calculating my actual readership like that too!)
  • They considered limiting access to the website in order to make web readers buy the paper newspaper. Luckily, they first surveyed non-subscribing readers. They found that many of these readers did read bt.no, but when asked what they’d do if they didn’t have access to as much content on bt.no, the readers didn’t say “buy the paper newspaper” as the journalists had expected, but rather “I’d go read a different website.” Rather obvious, especially in retrospect, and it certainly contradicts common assumptions by the media.
  • They now make money off the web edition through ads, although up until fairly recently, the web edition lost money. They expect revenues from advertising on the web edition will increase more than costs in producing the web edition, but right now income is quite modest.
  • They’re planning to do a lot more interesting stuff on the web edition next year.

It was excellent having lunch with a journalist (well, editor, really) who wasn’t interviewing me. Interviews are great, of course, and certainly very useful (Tor Arne knew I was right up the hill from him because he read the interview with me last weekend) but exchanges of ideas are really more satisfying. Also, lunch was most excellent.


Discover more from Jill Walker Rettberg

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

9 thoughts on “lunch with a web editor

  1. Gro

    Jill, today does the pink column (?) on the right side
    cover quite a lot of the interesting things you write
    in the middle. (the white column).

  2. Anonymous

    nÂr er sensur for HUIN105?

  3. Scott

    Interesting — while the paper cirulation to readership correlation is probably close to correct (though I’d guess it’s probably more like 1.5 readers per paper), my guess is that there probably aren’t many more readers than there unique IPs. I’ve always assumed that there are slightly fewer readers than unique visitors. While there are some public terminals in places such as internt cafes and libraries, there are also a lot of people who use different computers at home and at work.

  4. Tor Arne(paying for the lunch)

    First of all: The lunch was great! I’m a blogging novise, and learnt a lot from Jill. I was interested in how bloggers look upon us, the established medias, entering the blog-world, and we had a interesting discussion concluding (in my mind) that our role isn’t really problematic.
    To Scott: Internet reading are measured by polls in Norway. Exact the same as newspaper reading. The results of these polls tell us that we have 1,6 readers behind each unique vistor. For newspapers the factor (circulation vs readers) in Norway is between 2,5 and 3!! So assuming there are less readers than UV on the internet i think is wrong. There are a lot more computers being used by several persons than persons using several computers.
    PS! Jill invited me networking monthly with people working with new media in Bergen. Exciting! Pity the next happening is in september.

  5. Jill

    That’s interesting, I hadn’t realised that the number of readers was based on polls rather than simply looking at the hits on the website. Cool!

  6. Hjorthen

    1.6 readers behind each uniqe visitor might not be
    correct for my little blog (or this one) but it is
    probably correct for a newspaper like BT. I have
    noticed that the computers at my work all have the
    same IP, and thats 8 PCs, that are used by 8-12 people
    each day. Maybe not all of them read BT online, but some
    of us do;-) Imagine then the larger workplaces like Bergen
    Kommune, they probably also have several computers hooked
    up to the same IP?

  7. Asgeir

    For most corporations, transparent or explicit proxies are used between each employee’s computer and the Internet.

    For my employer, all 12,000 employees are hidden between four (or five) proxies.

    The same occurs, in a much smaller scale of course, for everyone using some kind of broadband router or internet connection sharing.

  8. Asgeir

    Not between, ofcourse. Behind!

    Jill: How about a preview button?

  9. Jill

    Sure, if you program it for me, you can have a preview button 😉

    I mean yeah, I agree. Maybe later when I go template hacking. And definitely interesting points about number of actual readers per IP address.

Leave A Comment

Recommended Posts

Screenshot of a paragraph from a New York Times article published May 12, 2026. Text reads: "The price of tomatoes -tart bursts of flavor in salads and sandwiches — surged nearly 40 percent in April from a year ago on a combination of bad weather, high tariffs and climbing transportation costs."
AI STORIES

Genre glitches and unexpected promotional phrases as a sign of AI writing

A genre glitch is a characteristic of LLM-assisted writing where the text suddenly switches genre, typically inserting a short promotional phrase full of sensory details into an informational text. Genre glitches occur when a word in the generated text is heavily associated with a genre or context that is markedly […]

Top of a ransom note from Shinyhunters hacking group. Text reads: "SHINYHUNTERS rooting your systems since '19 ;) ShinyHunters has breached Instructure (again). Instead of contacting us to resolve it they ignored us and did some "security patches"."
Networked Politics University politics

UiB self-hosts the open source version of Canvas, so wasn’t affected by the breach

On May 1st Canvas announced a security breach, and then yesterday the system was hacked. The login page was replaced by a ransom note: if universities don’t pay up by 12 May, student data will be released. Here’s what the login page looked like yesterday: Way back in 2015, when […]

AI and algorithmic culture Networked Politics

AI-generated images, fascist aesthetics: Dieselbrølet and Heimatstrom

My German is pretty dodgy, so when I first saw Heimatstrom on Bluesky, shared by Roland Meyer, a professor of visual culture at Universität Zürich’s Digital Society Initiative, I misinterpreted it and thought it was a far-right campaign. But no, Heimatstrom is a group of left-wing environmentalists using fascist AI […]

Photo of a billboard ad at Oslo S train station showing a smiliing conductor and the text "Du må ikke sove. Joda, bare sov du."
AI STORIES

“Du må ikke sove”: a floating motif detached from its meaning (or: LLMs can write Norwegian but miss cultural references)

There’s a new ad for the train between Stavanger and Oslo in Norway that uses a line from Arnulf Øverland’s famous anti-fascist poem Du må ikke sove (“You must not sleep”). Du må ikke sove, you must not sleep, the ad says. And then it flips it, jovially, joda, bare […]

Academics in Norway: Sign this petition asking for research-based discussions of how to use AI in universities

I just signed a petition calling for Norwegian universities to use research expertise on AI when deciding how to implement it, rather than having decisions be made mostly administratively. ,  If you are a researcher in Norway, please read it and sign it if you agree – and share with anyone else who might be interested. The petition was written by three researchers at UiT: Maria Danielsen (a philosopher who completed her PhD in 2025 on AI and ethics, including discussions of art and working life), Knut Ørke (Norwegian as a second language), and Holger Pötzsch (a professor of media studies with many years of research on digital media, video games, disruption, and working life, among other topics).  This is not about preventing researchers from exploring AI methods in their research. It is about not uncritically accepting the hype that everyone must use AI everywhere without critical reflection. It is about not introducing Copilot as the default option in word processors, or training PhD candidates to believe they will fall behind if they do not use AI when writing articles, without proper academic discussion. Changes like these should be knowledge-based and discussed academically, not merely decided administratively, because they alter the epistemological foundations of research. Maria wrote to me a couple of months ago because she had read my opinion piece in Aftenposten in which I called for a strong brake on the use of language models in knowledge work. She was part of a committee tasked with developing UiT’s AI strategy and was concerned because there was so much hype and so few members of the committee with actual expertise in AI. I fully support the petition. There are probably some good uses for AI in research, but the uncritical, hype-driven insistence that we must simply adopt it everywhere is highly risky. There are many researchers in Norway with strong expertise in AI, language, ethics, working life, and culture. We must make use of this expertise. This is also partly about respect for research in the humanities, social sciences, psychology, and law. Introducing AI at universities and university colleges is not merely a technical issue, and perhaps not even primarily a technical one. It concerns much more: philosophy of science, methodological reflection, epistemology, writing, publishing, the working environment, and more. […]

screenshot of Grammarly - main text in the middle, names of experts on the left with reccomendations and on the right more info about the expert review feature
AI and algorithmic culture Teaching

Grammarly generated fake expert reviews “by” real scholars

Grammarly is a full on AI plagiarism machine now, generating text, citations (often irrelevant), “humanizing” the text to avoid AI checkers and so on. If you’re an author or scholar, they also have been impersonating and offering “feedback” in your name. Until yesterday, when they discontinued the Expert Review feature due to a class action lawsuit. Here are screenshots of how it worked.