nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The Guardian is in trouble

ancapailldorcha

Not sure how many readers there are here but I thought I would share this. The Guardian which has a tendency to be viewed negatively in this forum has apparently been making record losses (Source).

The Economist wrote:

This hit home as the Guardian Media Group (GMG), its parent company, announced pre-tax losses of £173m ($264m) on July 27th, its biggest ever dip into the red. Some £104m of this comes from GMG writing down the value of its stake in Ascential, a publicly listed information and events company, as well as additional restructuring costs. But that still leaves GMG with a loss of £69m. And given the Guardian’s substantial presence online, the decline in GMG’s digital revenue, from £84m in 2015 to £82m, may be of most concern, even though for now the fall is slight.

The Scott Trust, GMG’s sole shareholder, is tasked with protecting the newspaper in perpetuity. But GMG’s cash and investment funds declined from £838m in 2015 to £765m this year. It is not lost on anyone, including the paper’s journalists, that the money could continue ebbing away, even raising the possibility of the Guardian closing.

Frankly, I am not surprised. The paper seems happy to push ahead with various forms of angry leftists which often villainise men while pushing ahead with the obligatory victimhood narratives for everyone else. I do read it as it is better than a lot of the alternatives but I won't be shedding any tears at its demise.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

fits

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I stopped reading it after their handling of the Kate Fitzgerald scandal. Pulling an article that they had published, re-editing it online and pretending nothing happened is not the action of a so called "paper of record." This caused a huge amount of hurt to her family.

I lost all trust in them after that and haven't bought a copy since.

So did I for a while but relented. what's the alternative? I would hate to see it go under as well.

anothernight

LostinBlanch wrote: »

I stopped reading it after their handling of the Kate Fitzgerald scandal. Pulling an article that they had published, re-editing it online and pretending nothing happened is not the action of a so called "paper of record." This caused a huge amount of hurt to her family.

I lost all trust in them after that and haven't bought a copy since.

The Irish Times really went downhill after Geraldine Kennedy left.
These days I wonder what their editor does, if anything at all. The physical and online editions often contain blatant factual errors, as well as the usual ideological slant, and their choice of columnists is shakier than ever. But the online edition is amateurish to ridiculous levels. Constant spelling mistakes, nonsensical often incomplete sentences and the occasional double- or triple-repeated paragraph (someone needs to teach them how to copy&paste correctly). I subscribed when they brought in the new subscription model, but cancelled it soon afterwards because the quality was deteriorating so fast.

I'd be sad to see the Guardian go, even if its 'integrity' can sometimes go to suspicious places, and its reviews and opinion pieces sometimes read like those of a university newspaper. When it comes to current affairs it is miles ahead of other papers and it provides much needed balance to the overall journalistic landscape of the UK.

Joe_ Public

Whether you agree with the politics or the points of view or whatever, for quality writing it's the Guardian everytime. Simon Jenkins, Zoe Williams, George Monbiot, Jonathon Freedland, Suzanne Moore (occasionally) to name just a small handful. Barney Ronay, Richard Williams (only semi-retired thankfully), David Conn and others in sport. Not to mention the Observer on Sunday and Simon O'Hagan, Ed Vulliamy etc. And a special mention to the late Simon Hoggart who made it a delight to read the House of Commons sketches without even an interest in the goings-on of that august body.

It's no wonder they're struggling when you consider the outlay they are making on staff writers and contributors. Maintain high standards of journalism just costs too much these days unfortunately. The Irish Times, by comparison, reads like a transition year school project, full of mediocrity and mediocre writers even though I imagine their staff costs are through the roof as well.

LostinBlanch

nc6000 wrote: »

My Irish Times subscription was cancelled last year after they published the Denis O'Brien "opinion" piece.

I stopped reading it after their handling of the Kate Fitzgerald scandal. Pulling an article that they had published, re-editing it online and pretending nothing happened is not the action of a so called "paper of record." This caused a huge amount of hurt to her family.

I lost all trust in them after that and haven't bought a copy since.

jackofalltrades

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've actually found the comments sections of the site to be a source of hope.

I agree the comments section is great when readers are allowed a voice.
Although I've seen several times when these voices have been restricted.
When the highest voted comment has been removed by a moderator you have to wonder what's going on.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Saipanne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I didn't say it was unique, to be fair.

In my adult life, it appears to be at a local peak right now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

El Hombre

It's a left wing rag and good riddance to it.

Saipanne

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've actually found the comments sections of the site to be a source of hope.

I've found them to be a great source of pomposity.

ancapailldorcha

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Can't say I'm surprised or really bothered by this news.
Their articles were a significant contributor to the "Sexism you have experienced thread".
They have an obvious bias on many issues, which even carries through to their comments section.
Which for me shows a real lack of confidence in what they publish.
You really have to wonder who they are marketing their paper towards.

I've actually found the comments sections of the site to be a source of hope.

Saipanne

marienbad wrote: »

I always find this a bit strange ?? What good is a publication if it doesn't offend you from time to time

Running away from opposing views is a cornerstone of modern society.

marienbad

nc6000 wrote: »

My Irish Times subscription was cancelled last year after they published the Denis O'Brien "opinion" piece.

I always find this a bit strange ?? What good is a publication if it doesn't offend you from time to time

nc6000

fits wrote:

I subscribe to the Irish times. Would consider guardian also if I had to.

My Irish Times subscription was cancelled last year after they published the Denis O'Brien "opinion" piece.

jackofalltrades

Can't say I'm surprised or really bothered by this news.
Their articles were a significant contributor to the "Sexism you have experienced thread".
They have an obvious bias on many issues, which even carries through to their comments section.
Which for me shows a real lack of confidence in what they publish.
You really have to wonder who they are marketing their paper towards.

Potatoeman

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I would not like to see the Guardian go out of business. No matter how much one disagrees with views from a mainstream media outlet they are important in providing balance against tory publications especially in the UK where the media is overwhelmingly right wing in nature.

The owners may be right wing but most journalists are probably left wing.

ancapailldorcha

Yellow pack crisps wrote: »

me! Love the feel of them! Love reading things in printed paper form! Love going to the pub having a few pints without needing to worry about wifi. Stolen devices and some ****er tracking my every movement!

I like read the paper versions as well though I end up with ink on my hands. The Guardian is somewhat unwieldly as it's a broadsheet.

fits

I love them as well. You read a far broader range of articles. Cant beat the paper and a coffee in bed on a weekend morning.

Yellow pack crisps

jimmynokia wrote: »

Who buys newspapers.

me! Love the feel of them! Love reading things in printed paper form! Love going to the pub having a few pints without needing to worry about wifi. Stolen devices and some ****er tracking my every movement!

Pepe LeFrits

hmmm wrote: »

I pay for the Economist, and I'd pay more for the Guardian sub - but not if it meant subsidising bogus "opinion pieces" about how terrible Western civilisation is.

I could be wrong but I'd imagine the opinion pieces are most financially viable part of their business. Which is kind of depressing.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There's nothing diverse in their form of "feminism". If they think that it is acceptable to print some of the things I've read there over the years then I want nothing to do with it. I use an adblocker when I visit their website as well.

I meant their opinion pieces in general.

I'm surprised they don't deny adblocker users access to be honest.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Kermit.de.frog

I would not like to see the Guardian go out of business. No matter how much one disagrees with views from a mainstream media outlet they are important in providing balance against tory publications especially in the UK where the media is overwhelmingly right wing in nature.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jayop

Potatoeman wrote: »

You do realise that being willfully ignorant undermines your opinion?

What? I'm not giving an opinion other than its news and sport coverage is great and I don't read it's opinion pieces. I'm not saying they are good, bad, sexist, not sexist, whatever.

Mary63

I agree with the price hikes,its not so long ago the Guardian was a euro and now its more expensive than the Irish Times.I stopped buying it during the week because of the price hiking but still bought it at the weekend.Its now three euros and fifty cents for the Saturday edition so I stopped buying it this week too.That is just too expensive especially when you can read most of it online for free.I like an actual paper though at the weekend and do miss it.

I was going to subscribe to the online edition of the Guardian but you can't read it on a PC as a digital edition.

Tabnabs

I started reading it on and off about two years ago as an antidote to the dull conservatism of the Telegraph and the Murdoch propaganda outlook of his stable of papers. It's also nice not to have to flick past women's fashion, cooking tips and celebrity news in a daily newspaper. Irish papers seem so parochial in comparison.

When I started reading it the cost was €1.80, some time last year it went up to €2.00 and just recently has rocketed up to €2.50. So it's an expensive read and I have to say the quality has declined over that time. I really enjoy the international news section as well as the British politics pages where scandals and dramas are played out in newsprint rather than avoided in fear of upsetting any egos.

I can't understand why any right thinking person wades through the mire of drivel most of the opinion writers submit, it's about as relevant and though provoking as the rubbish printed in the Sindo. There is one rather curious execption and that is Simon Jenkins (https://www.theguardian.com/profile/simonjenkins). A white, middle aged, male with no disabilities or societal grudges. Well worth a read for a refreshing viewpoint.

I hope it survives as an independent news outlet and looses the left wing whining bias it has become a byword for. But I can't help but feel it's days as a print newspaper are numbered.

ancapailldorcha

fits wrote: »

Didn't the Guardian lead the charge with respect to the Panama papers recently? That was important work.

Not particularly. The documents were leaked. An international consortium of journalists hired journalists from various organisations including the Guardian to sift through them.

hmmm

I agree with the previous poster that it is a super paper for "news", particularly breaking news and live stories. Its sport coverage is also brilliant.

The editorial line is a disgrace (in my opinion) much of the time. They need to decide if they are interested in reporting news, or sounding like a bunch of student radicals and fighting the (white) man.

I pay for the Economist, and I'd pay more for the Guardian sub - but not if it meant subsidising bogus "opinion pieces" about how terrible Western civilisation is.

fits

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're right though. Proper journalism does need to be supported which is why I've subscribed to The Economist which I think is a far superior publication.

Goodness, I really don't.

Didn't the Guardian lead the charge with respect to the Panama papers recently? That was important work.

ancapailldorcha

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

That seems like kind of a narrow lense to view it through to be honest. I’d say the Guardian opinion’s section is a relatively broad church that gives a platform to all sorts of pieces, and that’s only the opinion section. To me, The Guardian is an independently owned, left-of-centre source of news that invests in proper investigative journalism and does a lot for public civic discourse as a result. It happens to have a strain of bollocks running through part of one section of the online site (I don’t know about the actual paper) but that’s a minor enough wrinkle IMO.

I’ve started supporting the paper financially. Proper journalism costs money and needs to be supported, and there’s too much splinternetting going on these days.

There's nothing diverse in their form of "feminism". If they think that it is acceptable to print some of the things I've read there over the years then I want nothing to do with it. I use an adblocker when I visit their website as well.

You're right though. Proper journalism does need to be supported which is why I've subscribed to The Economist which I think is a far superior publication.