[Closed] Financially supporting The Guardian

Just read the headline on the Daily Wail and assume the opposite

I don't know the answer, but I can't help but worry slightly what will happen if the (arguably) quality newspaper sites end up behind paywalls and the gutter press remains free. Perhaps it'd be better for society as a whole if the reverse were true.

Anyone being persuaded by this, from any direction of the political compass? A healthy newspaper like the G seems essential, IMHO, from wherever you sit

I'm not, no, because it has gone down the toilet since Alan Rusbridger left. And that, in part, is why they're now reduced to the begging bowl.

I'm a Guardian supporter, been so for a year or so. £5 a month is cheap for quality journalism.

I have given them a bit of money. I expect that their quality would drop rather than ending up behind a paywall - they'd lose so much on advertising revenue by going behind a paywall that it might not even be financially beneficial.

I thought they had a trust set up for funding?

I thought they had a trust set up for funding?

Paper & website still run at a loss every year, so eventually the fund will run out....

Anyone being persuaded by this

Yes.

Because we need something that at least makes an effort. It's not perfect, but look at the ****ing alternatives.

They'll have to move to some kind of paid model eventually IMO.

Either that or introduce their own sidebar of shame to drum up much more traffic.

Markie - Member

I thought they had a trust set up for funding?

Yes.

Because we need something that at least makes an effort. It's not perfect, but look at the **** alternatives.

Out of curiosity, how many welcome packs did they send you? I took a pile of their Jute bags to a charity shop the other WE, seem to get one every few months...

I've even mailed them asking them not to send me any more!

They're being bankrolled by AutoTrader at the mo.

They'll be ****ed when Google and FB manage to grab that market too.

Guardian supporter
Still buy a printed Observer,just cause I like the whole Sunday paper thing.

I might have been inclined to support them (as I did in the past) if they had been less enthusiastic in seizing every opportunity to indulge in Corbyn-bashing. I can get that for free from jamba and binners.

I might have been inclined to support them (as I did in the past) if they had been less enthusiastic in seizing every opportunity to indulge in Corbyn-bashing.

yes, that was a test, I did consider cancelling, but then if the Guardian folded, we'd all be worse off for it.

They do seem to have calmed down a bit and realised he's not the Devil incarnate...

For years this 'newspaper' strongly denied the existence of Muslim rape gangs, they scuppered any serious debate and threw insults at anyone brave enough to tell their story. Hundreds if not thousands of vulnerable children were abused and the authorities turned a blind eye for fear of being outed as 'racists' by the guardian and their ilk. And their reader base are just as blinkered sitting on their fictitious moral high ground.

I've been paid up for a year or so now, very good value for the reading I do. I'm trying to put my money toward products and causes I believe have an overall positive effect, this is one of them.

For years this 'newspaper' strongly denied the existence of Muslim rape gangs, they scuppered any serious debate and threw insults at anyone brave enough to tell their story. Hundreds if not thousands of vulnerable children were abused and the authorities turned a blind eye for fear of being outed as 'racists' by the guardian and their ilk. And their reader base are just as blinkered sitting on their fictitious moral high ground.

Is that a "no" for support then?

I won't when they can't even get the basics right like the amount of possession a team has in football match. Their business section is also poor compared to the competition.

On a similar vein the Telegraph has recently added pay for 'Premium' articles. I think they are all in trouble eventually and we'll end up with a world of free dross and expensive quality, with little in-between. Pretty much how the high street is evolving as well.

or years this 'newspaper' strongly denied the existence of Muslim rape gangs

Nothing is perfect, and never will be. A more pragmatic test is do you think the world is a better place for it or without it?

On a similar vein the Telegraph has recently added pay for 'Premium' articles.

Their volume and quality of online articles has really dropped in the last two years, so much so, I wouldn't pay 5p to see their Premium articles...

I'm paying, they're by no means perfect but looking at how much the Telegraph has recently turned into buzzfeed I would quite like to have at least one news site that's not totally awful.

I've just chipped in to a crowd funder for independent alternative media, ill see if can find the link.
The mainstream and gutter press can go swivel as far as I'm concerned.

I considered this for a while and thought "nah". But I signed up last week because boycotting the shite press isn't going to achieve much when I never read it before. Positive steps rather than negative actions, kinda.

i signed up as a member for £50 a year.

now on the app, where all those 'please give us money' blocks that interrupt the text on my work pc sit, you get blocks saying 'thanks for giving us money' interrupting the articles instead. which is equally annoying 😆

I'm paying, they're by no means perfect but looking at how much the Telegraph has recently turned into buzzfeed I would quite like to have at least one news site that's not totally awful.

yes, any day soon all headlines will start with "this one weird trick..."

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/11/14/bye-bye-murdoch-how-you-can-help-set-up-a-media-revolution-in-the-uk/

I won't when they can't even get the basics right like the amount of possession a team has in football match. Their business section is also poor compared to the competition.

TBF you probably shouldn't buy the Grauniad for sports or finance coverage anyway.

we'll end up with a world of free dross and expensive quality

Online subscription could be moderately priced, as on this site.

I keep thinking about an FT subscription, but it's about 50% above what it's worth to me, so I've never dabbled. 25% off at the moment though...

Happy to pay subs for FT at the moment. But not really the rest of the broadsheets. Too much topping and tailing standards reports, so you know how the same basic story will be spun by the Times, Guardian and Torygraph before opening the papers and the rest of the news can be accessed directly any way.

Guardian lost £60m last year

I used to buy the paper and also had a paid app subscription for a while (£5 for 6 months I think ?)

These days the reporting is mostly rubbish. The ads where so intrusive I took action ( 😉 ) so that I am no longer bothered by them. This is their problem, intrusive ads and no way the articles are worth £60 pa

FT reporting around the financial crises was so bad I stopped buying the paper. They deleted a comment of mine on an article saying whilst what I said "had a lot of merit" they could not tolerate me pointing out how wrong the journalist (obvious very junior hack) was. Not a snowballs chance I would pay 25% of what they ask for a subscription.

Paid subscriptions need to be much cheaper or ad supported. Why would I pay multiples of an STW sub to read news I can get for free on TV ?

Commie propaganda. The sooner it folder the better as far as I'm concerned.

TBF you probably shouldn't buy the Grauniad for sports or finance coverage anyway

Their Cricket and Rugby coverage is very good IMO, that's how i got into reading the rest of it from time to time

I'm paying its need more than ever IMO.

To me the rather large elephant in the room in all discussions about online news media is the BBC. The fact that it has an extremely extensive and wide reaching world renowned news site available for free immediately limits the opportunities for every other media provider. I must say that I use it a lot and am glad it exists, but wouldn't like to be a competitor in the current climate.

I've stopped looking at BBC News, the quality and depth seems to have fallen of a cliff several years ago..

I mainly read Guardian, Independent and FT online (can see quite a few FT articles for free by clearing cookies).

I used to subscribe to the Times, as I really liked some of the writers (Simon Barnes), but the rest of the paper and the general thurst got so Daily Mail that I chucked it. Now subscribe to the Guardian through app store.

Can be a bit too lentil-weaving some times, but some good writing, opinion and comment, sports pages also generally good.

We need this newspaper

BTW watched Snowden last night - had forgotten Guardian had broken that story. Guardian turned down the MP's expenses story so the Telegragph got it

Footflaps imo Newsnight is worth watching, normal bbc news I generally don't bother with. Sky or Channel 4 but a lot of independents like Vice

I read it online because its free and mostly not too bad. They wont last long being free however.

Sadly the way advertising works now only the social media giants will left. Right now probably most people get their news from FB.

When its pay to read I will have to think hard, but in the end I suppose there is little choice.

Still, traditional newspapers are on the way out even if they do charge to read. The income will be too small to pay for quality journalism.

If you aren't going to read the Sports or Buisness pages, then that doesn't leave much left. I have no need to pay for Monibot's or Tonybee's latest lecturing and hypocrisy.

Far easier to get your news from where all the papers get it:

[url= http://uk.reuters.com/ ]Reuters[/url]

Support the Guardian?

Have they become a charity!?

When I was immature and poorly world educated, I used to think Monbiot a prick...

If you aren't going to read the Sports or Buisness pages, then that doesn't leave much left. I have no need to pay for Monibot's or Tonybee's latest lecturing and hypocrisy.

Totally agree, pretty much why I don't read it myself.

Far easier to get your news from where all the papers get it:
Reuters

Absolutely, so I think it's the commentary, context and investigations that will allow newspapers to continue to have a role (and to justify charging).

The NY Times guy was good on this stuff in a recent episode of The Media Show...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00dv9hq/episodes/downloads

Rusbridger destroyed the Guardian, he made huge investments in journalism especially in the US on the basis he could make money out of digital advertising - unlike anyone else - and racked up millions of losses. "But it's got great journalism" - well hello, lots of things are great when you spend unsustainable amounts of money on them, all the other papers have to survive on spending within their means. At least this is recognized now and he didn't get the Chairmanship of the Scott Trust. The sooner he gets kicked out of LMH the better, there he has decided to make those noted intellectual leviathans, Cumberbatch and Watson visiting fellows, tosser.

BTW this is a no.