The Guardian

Pogue Mahone said:
It really is a worry that news is going online where the incentives are very different. Quality content matters less than provocative headlines to get the all important clicks. Yet another reason to be depressed about the future.
Click to expand...
To an extent, but that's not really the case with the quality titles, like the Guardian, Tel, FT and WSJ for example. The Sun has always had screaming headlines to get people to pick up the hard copy.
I can understand your argument, but I know from our title, it's a dangerous game. If your stories continually have great headlines but then underwhelm, people will stop clicking on them pretty quickly.
 
Jippy said:
To an extent, but that's not really the case with the quality titles, like the Guardian, Tel, FT and WSJ for example. The Sun has always had screaming headlines to get people to pick up the hard copy.
I can understand your argument, but I know from our title, it's a dangerous game. If your stories continually have great headlines but then underwhelm, people will stop clicking on them pretty quickly.
Click to expand...

Ok, cool. Good to hear.
 
It seems bizarre to me that after years of thinking the Guardian was the heart of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual wankery, it now seems like the only sensible voice in an increasingly desolate wasteland.
 
Kentonio said:
It seems bizarre to me that after years of thinking the Guardian was the heart of pretentious, pseudo-intellectual wankery, it now seems like the only sensible voice in an increasingly desolate wasteland.
Click to expand...

It often can be, to be fair, but I'd rather some intellectual wankery than the harmful shite the Mail indulges, or the straight-up fake news being peddled a lot of the time now.
 
I used to think it was a thoughtful, conscientious paper with ethical journalism and high quality arts coverage. Now I just think it's a shitheaded rag written by shitheads for shitheads. And the paper has changed far more than I have. The pressures of the internet has simply reduced it to drivel.

I could forgive it either failing as a business or failing as a quality news outlet. It fails at both, which at one point was sad but now it's just funny.

Their begging bowl is an utter con blackhole, they'll never recieve enough in donations to be able to subsidise a return to the "quality journalism" it talks of. That ship has sailed. You're actually paying to make their modern buzzfeed approach viable.
 
dumbo said:
I used to think it was a thoughtful, conscientious paper with ethical journalism and high quality arts coverage. Now I just think it's a shitheaded rag written by shitheads for shitheads. And the paper has changed far more than I have. The pressures of the internet has simply reduced it to drivel.

I could forgive it either failing as a business or failing as a quality news outlet. It fails at both, which at one point was sad but now it's just funny.

Their begging bowl is an utter con blackhole, they'll never recieve enough in donations to be able to subsidise a return to the "quality journalism" it talks of. That ship has sailed. You're actually paying to make their modern buzzfeed approach viable.
Click to expand...

Agree entirely, id be one of those happy to donate to the paper in its previous form but they're political reporting for me has been poor and attack minded.

Then you have what are esentially click bait articles under the guise of feminist opinion peices.

I'm not paying if thats the direction it wishes to take.
 
dumbo said:
I used to think it was a thoughtful, conscientious paper with ethical journalism and high quality arts coverage. Now I just think it's a shitheaded rag written by shitheads for shitheads. And the paper has changed far more than I have. The pressures of the internet has simply reduced it to drivel.

I could forgive it either failing as a business or failing as a quality news outlet. It fails at both, which at one point was sad but now it's just funny.

Their begging bowl is an utter con blackhole, they'll never recieve enough in donations to be able to subsidise a return to the "quality journalism" it talks of. That ship has sailed. You're actually paying to make their modern buzzfeed approach viable.
Click to expand...
I agree with all of this, but the tattered remains of the Guardian is all we have left. If they go under, where then?
 
It's become a real mixed bag, sadly: articles about Auschwitz next to columnist Floofy Felt-Tip asking 'Which brand of gin is best for book-launch guests?'
 
Don't forget Colony: 'Drink the heart of darkness'.
 
The print issue is still largely fine. It's online where things have dropped off. For obvious reasons
 
I still love the Guardian, for all its faults, but I wish there were fewer opinion pieces/columns.
 
So you're not swayed by the Express' exciting stories, like the one about the 14-legged killer squid from Antarctica thats being weaponised by Putin? :D
 
Mockney said:
The print issue is still largely fine. It's online where things have dropped off. For obvious reasons
Click to expand...
This is true, "comment is free" is just a hive of insanity.

Are they going to hold off from a paywall forever? Not sure it'll be possible.
 
Yep.

"I worked really hard - one day, I had to get up at 11AM."
 
SteveJ said:
It would take a heart of stone not to laugh:
Click to expand...

Daisy Buchanan is a columnist and features writer covering arts, entertainment and women's issues. She is the author of The Wickedly Unofficial Guide To Made In Chelsea and Meeting Your Match: Navigating the Minefield of Online Dating, which is published by Carlton Books on 8 January 2015
Click to expand...

Putting that 2.2 in English Lit to use I see.
 
That's an enviable back catalogue.

Being freelance is great and does include many lie-ins, I can confirm.
 
dumbo said:
I used to think it was a thoughtful, conscientious paper with ethical journalism and high quality arts coverage. Now I just think it's a shitheaded rag written by shitheads for shitheads. And the paper has changed far more than I have. The pressures of the internet has simply reduced it to drivel.

I could forgive it either failing as a business or failing as a quality news outlet. It fails at both, which at one point was sad but now it's just funny.

Their begging bowl is an utter con blackhole, they'll never recieve enough in donations to be able to subsidise a return to the "quality journalism" it talks of. That ship has sailed. You're actually paying to make their modern buzzfeed approach viable.
Click to expand...

That's harsh. What's the gold standard for journalism you'd use as a comparator?
 
Ubik said:
This is true, "comment is free" is just a hive of insanity.

Are they going to hold off from a paywall forever? Not sure it'll be possible.
Click to expand...

Me neither. The Times has actually done rather well quality wise with its paywall (well, for a Murdock paper - though I only really get it for the Culture supplement on weekends) but I've no idea what numbers it does.
 
Mockney said:
Me neither. The Times has actually done rather well quality wise with its paywall (well, for a Murdock paper - though I only really get it for the Culture supplement on weekends) but I've no idea what numbers it does.
Click to expand...

Apparently increased its circulation in Scotland in the past year or so. Not sure if that applies UK wide, though.
 
Cheesy said:
Apparently increased its circulation in Scotland in the past year or so. Not sure if that applies UK wide, though.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I suppose the larger question then, is whether the remaining quality papers going paywall (with success) would force a media-wide bump in quality, or just leave the free market as an increasingly more influential putrid swamp of fake news and gossip...I've sadly little confidence in the former
 
Last edited:
ThierryHenry said:
A friend of mine worked at The Guardian until earlier this year. Apparently two years ago the Guardian Trust (which funds The Guardian) sold Auto Trader for around £1b, with the plan to then invest the proceeds of that sale, and allow The Guardian to live off the returns on that investment. The figure was that they could now survive for ever on a £30m annual loss, and so everyone thought the paper was saved. The next year, print advertising collapsed from its already low position and the paper lost £90m. The reaction has then been a whole new batch of lay offs and their big drive for donations. Something has to change - we only deserve the journalism we pay for.
Click to expand...

Private Eye had the mother lode on this. Money pissed up the wall on vanity projects like their coffee outlet/thought sharing space or whatever the hell it was. Alan Rusbridger has an awful lot to answer for, turning a great media group largely into a click-happy #hashtagging pile of nothing (they still have some good stuff to be fair).
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That's harsh. What's the gold standard for journalism you'd use as a comparator?
Click to expand...

Pre-Hutton BBC, Sunday Times before it went full Murdoch, Private Eye, the Graun before Rusbridger bet the farm on the dot com, Christina Lamb, Ha Joon Chang, Pilger, pre- trauma Fisk, Mccullin, people that would inform and challenge. I can conjure up an irrational, hysterical, sketchily detailed, halfwit routine well enough on my own, I don't need to see it in the newspaper too.

You can see the occassional good piece from most places these days but it's no reflection of the general standard of reportage across the media. An industry that's chasing the last few remaining pennies down the plug hole. You're better off reading a book - where everyone knows there's no money.
 
James‏@JamesFl
I bet the Christmas party at The Guardian is a riot

Cy747i1WEAARwJt.jpg
 
Pexbo said:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...ing-lying-donald-trump?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Thought this article was on point.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's spot on. I heard a podcast where Sam Harris made a lot of reference to the essay, "On Bullshit", she mentions. Sounds like it could have been written specifically about Trump.

The whole democratisation of expertise is depressing. You won't be surprised to hear that I think social media has a critical part to play in the tsunami of bullshit sweeping round the world.
 
Adisa said:
Hearing they're about to go under. Is it true?
Click to expand...

They still have decent financial reserves last I heard, so I dont think so yet. But they're burning through money at a rate of knots, so something dramatic will have to change in the next year or two.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.