Talk

Advanced search

Reports that the Nobserver might be closing

(99 Posts)
policywonk Mon 03-Aug-09 17:39:36

here

Other papers are being less circumspect

I wouldn't miss it much (bought it yesterday after a long break and the only thing I really enjoyed in it was a tiny interview with Sally Phillips), but it would be a shame for one of the few left-of-centre stalwarts to disappear.

cherryblossoms Mon 03-Aug-09 17:49:50

The print newspapers are in trouble.

Did you read the article(s) in the Sunday Times this week trying to link the decline of print media with a tub-thumping thumbs up for Conservative plans for the BBC?

Was wondering what other people thought about it ... [soliciting opinions].

mazzystartled Mon 03-Aug-09 17:52:19

can you link cherry?

I too bought the observer on sunday

I thought - what's the point? very bland. I do like the food monthly though

margotfonteyn Mon 03-Aug-09 17:55:19

Yes, I like the food monthly too. Observer Woman supplement is dreadful though.

policywonk Mon 03-Aug-09 17:58:07

Yes cherry - they're all in trouble. Would rather see the Obs go that the Guardian (the Scott Trust must protect the interests of the Guardian 'in perpetuity' so hopefully it's fairly safe - I remember reading somewhere that the Scott Trust has a lot of liquidity, although this was a few years ago and might no longer be the case).

Are you insinuating something about about Voldemort Rupert Murdoch, cherry? grin

policywonk Mon 03-Aug-09 18:00:09

It was a Woman week yesterday <gag> - long interview with Liz fucking Jones. Couldn't find an interesting, intelligent, empowered woman with a proper job to interview? In the entire country, or indeed world?

Wonder whether Obs could survive as online-only, subscription thingy - would you be prepared to pay for Food Monthly online, mazzy and margot? Although recipies are preferable in paper form I suppose (I find anyway).

cherryblossoms Mon 03-Aug-09 18:00:11

These were the two I could find on-line.
The second, in particular, has a little of self-interest about it.

I thought the interesting thing about it was that it's overt positioning on the part of a private media interest and it brings into the open just how challenging the internet is for print media. It also made me really wonder about who the conservatives are listening to with regard to their policy on media. Of which not much other than the BBC stuff has been announced.

Would be glad to hear other views.

entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article6736143.ece

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article6736284.ece

cherryblossoms Mon 03-Aug-09 18:01:23

Tee hee Voldemort.

edam Mon 03-Aug-09 18:01:33

Maybe that's why they got rid of Roger Alton...

Odd that the Times piece says the Emap investment 'pays no dividend' - surely they do get a return on their money? There have been swingeing cuts at Emap recently, newsdesks merged and lots of redundancies.

Thing is, Guardian etc. have spent so many millions developing their online side, which is all-singing and all-dancing but does not earn much money at all. Newspapers are caught between a rock and a very hard place indeed with ads going online but being unable to charge for content.

Mate of mine went for a job with Murdoch basically titled 'person who thinks up ways to make the internet pay'. Didn't get it, mind...

ScummyMummy Mon 03-Aug-09 18:01:49

Wah! I like the Observer a lot more than the Saturday Guardian... I'd axe that if I were them. Haven't seen anything worth reading in there for ages and only buy it for the tv guide. I like the actual news bit of the Observer.

kathyis6incheshigh Mon 03-Aug-09 18:02:58

Serves them right for the ghastliness that is Observer Woman.
Surely they're alienating a lot of their natural leftie female readers by that pile of drivel?

cherryblossoms Mon 03-Aug-09 18:03:25

Yes.

I have to admit we have an evening game in our home which is titled "ways to make the internet pay". It's kind of our equivalent of the lottery. Oh, to be the person who cracks that nut ... .

policywonk Mon 03-Aug-09 18:04:30

I very much fear for the BBC under the Tories sad Murdoch has the BBC in his vicious little sights, and he's told every Prime Minister for the last 30 years what to do.

BBC not helping itself by paying executives and 'stars' ridiculous sums and making shite telly, of course.

kathyis6incheshigh Mon 03-Aug-09 18:04:39

I wouldn't pay for Food Monthly online but I'd buy it if it was a stand-alone food mag - like the fact that it's more newsy and less lifestyley than other food magazines.

edam Mon 03-Aug-09 18:04:56

Well, if you work it out, let us know, won't you? <panicking print journalist>

not at the nobs, though, thankfully.

edam Mon 03-Aug-09 18:06:57

BBC can't win a. because the biggest circulation media groups are direct rivals and slag it off all the time (Dacre and Murdoch especially) and b. because if it is succesful in audience and money terms people wail about unfair competition, if it loses money and viewers they moan that it doesn't deserve the licence fee.

policywonk Mon 03-Aug-09 18:07:37

I think we'll all have to start paying for online newspapers soon - don't see an alternative. I'd be prepared to pay for the Guardian online, and perhaps a couple of others. Presumably the e-versions would cost less than the paper versions, so you could subscribe to two or three instead of one paper version.

Would still have to buy a paper version to read in bed though - so would probably end up paying twice. But then I'm a Guardian addict. Agree with Scummy though that the Saturday edition could be seriously slimmed down - like, to just the News section.

cherryblossoms Mon 03-Aug-09 18:09:10

And Rupert Murdoch, for example ....

Thing is, there is no way anyone in the private sector would have had the desire or reason to have developed the on-line sector to the extent the BBC has done - which has had a knock-on effect elsewhere.

Voldemort's whole "cunning plan" for "how to make the internet pay" seems to revolve around getting rid of the BBC.

Sigh.

morningpaper Mon 03-Aug-09 18:10:53

Whenevewr I see adverts for Observer Woman I think it is a clever ironic joke

mais non

edam Mon 03-Aug-09 18:11:52

how would newspapers get around Google, though? (I mean the organisation, as in being extremely cavalier re. copyright, Google news etc. etc.) And RSS?

LyraSilvertongue Mon 03-Aug-09 18:12:23

I wouldn't miss it but I don't want to see another load of journalists out of a job (DP and I are both national journalists).

MarshaBrady Mon 03-Aug-09 18:12:30

My father was in the papers in Australia recently so had to buy them on line. Same price, really easy.

As someone who loves buying the Guardian on Sat and Times on Sunday it wasn't too bad using an electronic paper.

cherryblossoms Mon 03-Aug-09 18:13:09

Edam - i agree. I do think we have to formulate some kind of argument in its defence, though.

[Cherry frowns, thinking of the post-election blood-frenzy of private media types accusing BBC of Stalin-esque non-competition and market-domination.]

morningpaper Mon 03-Aug-09 18:13:12

Oh yes this week's was a case in point:

My cheating husband
breast reduction
failed relationships
shopping addiction
unrequited love
designer lifestyle
eating disorder
youth obsession
sexless marriage
self-imposed exile
and
Liz Jones

????? It's like a piss-take of all that is dreadful about "Wimmin's mags"

awful

morningpaper Mon 03-Aug-09 18:14:27

every cover is the same: rubbish about shopping and "chic"ness

ker-inge

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now