to be glad that the Guardian is making enormous losses

[longfingernails]

www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-losses-reported-to-have-escalated-by-a-further-10m-to-68-7m-for-the-last-financial-year/

Great stuff. Their chatterati condescension, Islington moral vacuum and politically correct echo chamber has been a malignant blot upon our society for decades.

Let it wither upon the Viner.

Excellent. I can't wait for them to disappear up their own fundament

YABU. Whatever you think about the political slant they take - and I'd characterise your description as nonsensical, childish name-calling - a plurality of news sources is essential to any functioning democracy. I hate, loathe and despise the Daily Mail and its perspective, but I'd regret risk of its passing for the same reason.

What, you mean one of the few intelligent news sources that is not a part of the Murdoch empire?

You know, I have not always agreed with them on every issue, and so I have resisted their invitations to subscribe so far.

But thanks to your post, I am now determined to do so tomorrow.
So cheers for that!

Off to subscribe now. Thanks OP!

We will not lose the Guardian's worldview. After all, we still have the BBC.

I dislike it when people are glad of the misfortunes of an employer. How many people will lose jobs when The Guardian folds (pun not intended)

You think the BBC is safe ? Their news website used to be brilliant but was scaled back on government instruction so not to compete with fee paying newspaper sites.
Plurality has to be safeguarded for the sake of freedom of speech, whether you agree with what is being written or said.

20% of their staff have lost their jobs. But, you know, it's something to chortle about for some people.

NicknameUsed I'm sure that when the glorious day comes, Polly and her ilk will cry all the way to her villa in Tuscany.

It's hilarious that even the bien-pensant Grauniad-central which is MN ends up contributing to its slow demise; by hoovering up ad revenue for quinoa-scented Boden that would otherwise belong very naturally there.

I'm sure there will be staff being made redundant who aren't well off enough to have villas in Tuscany.

I feel a bit sorry for you if you have to get your kicks from others' misfortunes.

Oh. You're THAT kind of person. How unpleasant for you.

To be fair to the OP, if the Daily Mail or, perhaps especially, the Sun were to close or hugely downsize I suspect there would be far fewer people worrying about people's livelihoods and far more celebrating the end of a toxic viewpoint or dubious ethical standing.

Now, I don't think the Guardian is toxic, far from it. In fact I used to love it. But it's become too biased and clichéd now I think. It's the Daily Mail of the champagne socialist - but a more interesting read!! I still really like a lot of their articles (online, I don't buy a newspaper) so, on balance, I think YABU.

One of the Guardian Media Group's finest moments, which demonstrates how true they are to their lofty proclamations
www.theguardian.com/media/2008/may/03/1

Are you ok OP? You sound relly pissed off at the world.

I would be cheering the exit of the Sun or Mail, their record for distorting the truth to justify a prejudiced viewpoint to me makes them much worse than the Guardian. Not to mention the very personal attacks they make (Stephen Gately). You just need to look at their retractions and corrections to get a sense for their approach to journalism and the damage they do.

Even if you don't like the world view, they conduct their journalism with integrity as far as i can tell.

So yes OP YABU, a bit childish and goady too.

The guardian have been irresponsible in reporting, especially around the cologne attacks. I realise every organisation has their own agenda but I often feel they omit basic facts from major articles. Also getting quite misogynistic I think.

It is a great shame that there is no longer a left of centre, non-misogynist news source. Used to be the Guardian and the BBC at a pinch. Now sadly no longer. I'm not going to chortle at its demise though. It's a pity.

As an expat, I rely heavily on The Guardian online for daily news. The Sun & DM are purely sensationalist.

As a PP has said I will now donate or subscribe as requested. One of the few intelligent sources of info left.

Do you actually work for Murdoch?

There are so many of these jibes at the BBC and the Guardian online that I am wondering if he gets his staff to post negative reviews on fora such as MN.

Accusing the Guardian of having a moral vacuum is just hilarious. As opposed to, say, the Sun? Criticise it for being overly-worthy; not having mass appeal; lacking innovation, maybe. But moral vacuum, given the state of our newspapers today, you just lost your own credibility.

The loss of any newspaper that offers a different world view to Murdoch's hegemony would be worrying. And as pps have said, crowing over people losing their jobs is not very savoury.

The problem is, that you have to actually produce something that people want read to sell copies and remain relevant.

The Guardian doesn't. It produces material which is relevant to a very small liberal elite. It also has a tendency not to ask that group hard questions why it is not being successful in gaining hearts and minds outside that group, preferring to see it as the fault of those who fail to see their inherent rightness rather than their own failure to offer anything attractive.

They are supposedly a left wing paper, but do not appeal to the people they supposedly represent - the working classes. They appear to view them with complete contempt and make no attempt to appeal to them or bring them around to their ideas.

Compare this to the left wing Daily Mirror which has seen one of the lowest drops in the general trend of dropping circulation figures. Probably done by actually remaining relevant, treating the reading public with less than contempt and addressing things which actually concern them rather than just haranguing anybody who doesn't buy into their narrow, elitist, increasingly unpopular worldview.

The 'Murdoch hegemony' is an absolutely irrelevant 90s trope too. The print market for news is collapsing, Murdoch's attempts to make his publications relevant online have failed absolutely abysmally (eg pay firewalls quietly shelved). Other news sources seperate from the print media dominate online often with a hugely left wing slant. Pretending that lumpen proles just go out and buy Murdoch papers and are brainwashed is yet another convenient yet implausible excuse for the left's lack of electoral success.

At the end of the day, if you don't say anything that people want to hear they won't pay to hear it. That's the Guardian's problem.

Don't agree with your opinion OP. The odd article is a bit ridiculous, but in general is my preferred news source.
Surely their error is providing all articles for free online?

Just like the Tories, OP, you don't want anyone to oppose your views.

You want to have a country where we are a one party, dictator type run government. No sign of "The Left" (aka the big scary bogeyman in your mind).

Why don't you want a variety of views expressed with healthy debate and challenge. God forbid you have to justify your views.

So what newspaper do you like to read OP?

People are losing their jobs and we may lose one of the precious few news channels that isn't owned by Rupert Murdoch.

How hilarious.

OP I suggest you perhaps, you know, get a hobby or something. Revelling in others' misfortune is neither nice, nor normal.

Some parts of The Guardian are more profitable than others. They still hang on to The Observer, for example. The Guardian has always operated at a loss.