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:

Reuters

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.

Have you seen their flash new office alongside Kings Cross? Meanwhile the old one on Farringdon Road is currently being demolished. How much of last years loss was due to a building they can’t afford?

ironically, just received this email

With populism sweeping away elites and institutions, and fake news driving out truth, the world needs access to its greatest minds more than ever. Only informed, trustworthy, independent, and above all fact-based analysis can enable the world to understand – and confront – the mounting forces of global disorder.

And yet crippling financial and political pressures are weakening the media’s ability to provide this crucial public good.

We are not immune to these pressures.

We will never compromise our standards. But, without your help, we cannot sustain Project Syndicate’s unique brand of high-quality, high-impact coverage of the events, trends, and forces shaping our world.

We need your support. Now.

Please donate and help us to continue delivering the ideas that matter most to readers everywhere.

Well, its quite clear the Guardian doesn’t understand populism you just have to look at their subscriber numbers to see that.

In modern society, we have an oversupply of information but a mass deficit of knowledge. Far too much and far too frequent news. Far too little analysis and consideration.

I like to read the guardian to have something to disagree with. I’m scared of having nothing to do so I subscribed. I subscribe to STW for similar reasons.

Well, its quite clear the Guardian doesn’t understand populism you just have to look at their subscriber numbers to see that.

Well the Daily Mail / Sun are the most popular, hardly a great benefit to society though…

I keep considering it, I know it’s a bit of an echo chamber for my own personal biases, but I’m not sure what an alternative that I would trust is. Best of a bad lot I guess.

On the same note I like to keep buying the Private Eye, not news as such but feels like it keeps you somewhat honest (and enraged, even the small boring stories of inept/corrupt politicians and councilors are pretty scandalous at times)

Well the Daily Mail / Sun are the most popular, hardly a great benefit to society though…

Journalism is a trade, not some sort of higher calling, so they would appear to be doing it right.

I know it’s a bit of an echo chamber for my own personal biases, but I’m not sure what an alternative that I would trust is.

All media is. That’s why rather than choosing the right one, you should choose several diverse outlets.

Journalism is a trade, not some sort of higher calling,

Not quite convinced there. Journalism is an essential part of democracy; which is itself an effort to govern the world for the greatest benefit to the most people. So it’s important.

Ideally we would simply have facts, but it’s not possible to do that without bias since you have to have an editor because you cannot simply report everything that happens – there’d be too much. So the editor’s decisions give bias – it’s unavoidable.

All media is. That’s why rather than choosing the right one, you should choose several diverse outlets.[/quote]And one of the reasons I’ll happily lurk on some of the OT threads on STW.

Apparently the Daily Mail website reached 199.4 million unique monthly visitors in December 2014 😯

It’s worth for the cryptic crossword alone.

Well, its quite clear the Guardian doesn’t understand populism you just have to look at their subscriber numbers to see that.

Journalism is a trade, not some sort of higher calling,

Any your point is what exactly? All that matters is readership numbers?

Ideally we would simply have facts,

If you look at the stuff going across the newswires (i.e. Reuters, PA and Bloomberg), then it is fairly devoid of heavy opinion.

What’s interesting about the internet world vs print, is that if you buy a paper I doubt you read many of the opinion pieces and often they are buried in the middle of the paper, but online they are much more heavily promoted as they are the USP and attract clicks.

Cougar – Moderator
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.

Probably inevitable, because there isn’t a large, wealthy corporate organisation whose interests would be served by funding a newspaper like the Guardian. This fact alone is testament to the importance of news organisations like the Guardian in the modern world.

I flew to London last week for work for the first time in a while – I was initially surprised, then dismayed, to see both of Murdoch’s flagship papers available for free throughout the airport.

This is a pretty sinister state of affairs IMO. Typical free papers like the Metro, full of lightweight fluff, are one thing but both the Murdoch titles aren’t simply newspapers, they’re political instruments.

Murdoch (& Dacre ) titles aren’t simply newspapers, they’re political instruments.

And it would seem that more folk are gradually becoming aware of that fact

And it would seem that more folk are gradually becoming aware of that fact

What makes you say that? (interested)

The campaigns like i linked to above to fund independent journalism, its definately been noticed in the Canary, independent blogs such as AAV & Prides Purge & Anarchist press i frequent, also the campaigns in Liverpool which has spread futher afeild ,to remove Murdoch press from the city -although ill grant there is an emotional context involved with that campaign

Aren’t we all already financially supporting the Guardian?

Just look how little corporation tax they paid on the sale of Autotrader.

Does that mean Beecroft no longer profits from Autotrader?

Typical free papers like the Metro, full of lightweight fluff, are one thing but both the Murdoch titles aren’t simply newspapers, they’re political instruments.

Of course, you know who publishes the Metro, don’t you?

Any your point is what exactly? All that matters is readership numbers?

In the jargon of management, it is a Key Performance Indicator. The simple fact is that the Mail and the Sun are highly successful, this enables them to invest in their businesses. The Mail is one of the few papers to still have a comprehensive training programme, many of its graduates end up at papers such as the Guardian.

The Guardian is as bad as the Daily Mail, Just from a very slightly different angle.

I pay for it every time I open some clickbait article written by an apparently current 6th former about her time on a bus which had two different kinds D’s of sexualities on it…

I used to buy it every day, until about 5 years ago. Maybe I’ve changed but it’s a load of shit currently.

In five years time, people may well look back on the idea of print media as rather quaint. I only get one broadsheet in hard copy and that is because of my wife’s subscription, I skim read 3-4 broadsheets on ipad first thing – some of which I set up with bespoke feeds.

Ditto will MTB or any other sports magazines exist in hard copy format in 5 years time? Ditto TV. We are moving to a bespoke, digital world.

Newspapers need to evolve like anything else.

It was rubbisher what done it in! Together with failed investments in the us and into online content!

There are some good pieces led by the Guardian but the Trust that owns the grauniad has frankly gone to far down the road of allowing the editors to follow poorly thought out strategies for growth. (Or indeed survival).

The simple fact is that the Mail and the Sun are highly successful, this enables them to invest in their businesses.

I would argue they succeed at the expense of society. Making money spreading racism and hatred is hardly something to be lauded.

The fact the Daily Mail is successful is a National disgrace IMO.

Like politicians, we get the rags we deserve. People want to buy this stuff. Sad but true. They will not pay for quality hard print journalism even when it is cheaper than a cup of coffee. Hence the proponents of posttruthpolitics get away with murder.

…Anyone being persuaded by this

yes, it seems reasonable to me that journalists should be professionals, and all things considered, The Grauniad seems to do the least-worst job of all the other options.

Before I joined this forum, I don’t think I’d ever met anyone who read the Guardian….still haven’t I suppose. I never ever saw anyone reading it either, even when I commuted to the City for about five years. (okay maybe one or two oddballs)

Iz it becoz I iz from the Surrey massive??

sparksmcguff – Member

It was rubbisher what done it in! Together with failed investments in the us and into online content! The whole industry is on the rack – in response Rusbridger built one of the most popular (and objectively the best) newspaper websites in the world as a platform for growth. Doesn’t look to have delivered the finance but is was hardly a bad idea.

His editor / journalism track record is off the charts – is any editor more lauded in recent times? He added huge investigative bite to a paper that never had any standing in that department. The phone-hacking scandal is a milestone in UK journalism that he pursued for 2 years in the face of total indifference – seismic story and the dead souls of NotW hacks now trail in his wake.

Now we digest news via social media on the whole, we only want to read news that backs up our own world view. We wont be fed news that doesn’t conform to that, let alone click on it if it suggest we may be wrong.

The Daily Fail is popular because it backs up the majority of peoples views.

Most of us on STW are in the tiny minority. That minority wont pay for proper journalism even if we all subscribed.

I think we are seeing the end of journalism as we know it basically.

The last two big election results (Brexit and Trump) show how social media is so important. It also shows how out of touch the institutions we put our hope/trust and faith in are now.

we only want to read news that backs up our own world view. We wont be fed news that doesn’t conform to that, let alone click on it if it suggest we may be wrong.

I hear this kind of thing a lot, but it’s an exaggeration (and that’s being kind).

Why do you think the BBC has been so successful online?

Because despite what some left and right wingers say, it’s relatively neutral and trustworthy.

I’ve already given Guardian Media Group plenty of cash. Indirectly, by paying some of the tax which its parent Trust should have stumped up instead of squirrelling it away via a tax haven.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/04/will-the-guardian-now-investigate-its-own-tax-arrangements/

As an aside for those that care about the press please read this and write to your MP if you agree, we are currently in the midst of a Government consultation on press regulation

http://hackinginquiry.org/latest-news/10-week-government-consultation-sign-up-to-help-us-give-press-victims-a-voice/

Why do you think the BBC has been so successful online?

Because it spends more than anyone else, Dacre wrote an article in the Guardian a few years ago which says the BBC has 8,000 journalists whereas the Mail has 400.