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.

YABU and massively too.

Not because I agree with the Guardian ideas or not. But because in a democraty, it is ESSENTIAL to have as many pov represented as possible. Loosing one big newspaper with ideas that were maybe different that 'mainstream' idelogy is not a good thing at all :(
And it doesn't antter whether the represnet the Left, the whole Left or just one part of it.
What is essentail is that they were putting out ideas for people to evaluate and judge. You might agree, you might not. You might agree with them some tmes but not others.
The important bit is that these ideas were able to be expressed and seen.

Your post has reminded me to actually support the newspaper I read. I think £5 a month is worth it. There aren't many intelligent newspaper left. It also isn't owned by the Murdoch's. I know my £5 a month won't mean much, but at least it's something.

And how can you be glad about people losing their jobs?

I have boycotted the Guarduan since the whole Cologne thing. A delightful article about how the women deserved it because they own smart phones was one of the most disgusting things I've ever read in a so called liberal paper.

I don't want the Guardian to go. I believe in a free press and get my news from several sources.

But the guardian needs to stop writing for a privileged, rich, vaguely socialist (when it suits) small readership. (Hoxton and Shoreditch) The U.K. Is a big place and not everyone lives in London.

it would be a shame to see it go. The Mail and Guardian are the most accessible on-line newpapers so I read both regularly. To some extent both are similar, with their individual bias and a relentless negativity. But there are times where this can be fun. Labour party leadership elections was one such example. It took a day or two before either paper found its footing, as the Guardian squirmed to find a line suitable both for the labour party membership and for a wider readership base, whilst the Mail decided the targets were too easy and so toned their reporting down.

I suspect that the Guardian might do better by taking a clear more grounded political line which might provide an alternative (not Union) voice to steer the Labour party through the current maze, a bit like the Mail clearly championed Theresa May as soon as the (rather bleak) list of candidates became known. At the moment it allows a small group to feel justified without testing against realities such as economics or that diversity is much more than hug-a-trangender-in-Islington but includes "boring" people like call centre workers in Yorkshire or care-workers in Bournemouth who inconveniently have a vote.

My feeling is that, in any intelligent democracy, a plurality of viewpoints has to be easily accessible in whatever format people choose to access their news and current affairs - print media, online, broadcasting.

Any loss of a paper / news source that has a distinct viewpoint within this landscape - even if that viewpoint is quite a minority one - is detrimental to the whole. Amongst the broadsheets, the loss of the Independent has already left the space to the right of the Guardian vacant. If the Guardian is lost as well, then the entire sweep from centre to left is completely unrepresented in the broadsheet world. I know that it remains represented in the tabloid world, but IME people read either broadsheet or tabloid - they are not interchangeable in that sense. Those who used to read the Independent or Guardian will not switch to the tabloid of the equivalent political persuasion, they will either have to switch to a more right-wing broadsheet or rely on non-print news sources.

So while I don't necessarily agree with the Guardian's politics, I do think that the 'news and current affairs landscape', and therefore the informed nature of our democracy, would be poorer in its absence.

Morning all,

I actually read all papers online, when I can - the Guardian actually has the best website design and interactivity of all the broadsheet sites, by far; just a shame about the content!

Their business strategy seems to have been to try to become a global left-wing echo chamber. To that extent they have expanded massively in the US and Australia, and in doing so, have thrown good money after bad. Any echo chamber doesn't need expenseive journalism, it just needs affirmation. The same is true of other echo chambers; applies just as much to the Daily Mail of course. But the problem with the Guardian is the awful smug sanctimonious sense of self-righteousness combined with any lack of awareness of the real world amongst its columnists.

Of course I feel sorry for the people, especially those who work in the backroom and no doubt despise Polly and Seamus, who are affected by the incompetent arrogance of Rusbridger and Viner. But it is such fun to poke the MN beehive once in a while...

Have to go now but will be back later this evening.

". At the moment it allows a small group to feel justified without testing against realities such as economics or that diversity is much more than hug-a-trangender-in-Islington but includes "boring" people like call centre workers in Yorkshire or care-workers in Bournemouth who inconveniently have a vote."

Perfectly describes where the Guardian is going wrong. It appeals to middle class socialists who don't really like working class people.

But it is such fun to poke the MN beehive once in a while...

Doesn't sound like you're in a position to criticise anyone if this is how you get your kicks.

Perfectly describes where the Guardian is going wrong.

I think their losses are far less about what they write, and much more about the fact that all their content is online for free.

This thread has guilted me into contributing (and not just ignoring their requests to pay) - I read their website every day, regardless of whether I agree with all the content or not.

If the Guardian goes we will down to two published broadsheets which are right wing. I can't see how this is a good thing.

Squeegle, I have referred several times to the Daily Mirror which is a left wing paper. And that in the context that it's continued comparative success rather undermines the suggestion that the left wing press is being undermined by a right wing conspiracy. Rather it suggests a failure on the Guardian's part to connect with it's readership.

Talith, yes, of course you're right. You wouldn't expect a tabloid to have the same audience as a broadsheet. But the problem with the Guardian is not that it's failing to connect with the same readership as the Mirror; it's that it's failing to connect with any readership at all.

Remember that the Guardian's readership is falling. So the readers who are abandoning them are highly likely to be people who see themselves as left wing and want to read intelligent articles. But the Guardian has lost those people who are exactly the sort of people who it should be appealing to. It seems to be regressing further and further into a niche which only appeals to a tiny minority of elitist north Londoners who don't seem to have realised that Blair, Brown and the years of New Labour 'being intensely relaxed about people getting filthy rich' are over.

Haybott, lots of other newspapers are successfully navigating a post internet world where their content is available free online. In fact a lot of online outlets do nothing but publish free online content and are still successful.

But it is such fun to poke the MN beehive once in a while...

If this is the only issue you have about that, then you are massively missing the point.

The only left-wing broadsheet. Even if you are right wing, you should want a pluralist media. I don't like the Telegraph, but if it was the only right wing broadsheet around, I'd want it to survive.

But it is such fun to poke the MN beehive once in a while...

it's always quite cringey when people think they are being smarter than they really are

Exactly, Gwen.

I agree with BillSykes. Ten years ago I would automatically have chosen the Guardian; today I wouldn't touch it - too shrill, too narrow-minded, too self-righteous, too many blind spots. If I want left commentary I'll get the New Statesman and for news I'll cross-reference the other broadsheets.

Politics is changing. The whole capitalism-with-a-side-order-of-cultural-Marxism settlement that for the last 20 years has enabled urban centrists to get steadily richer while also feeling really good about themselves is wobbling and starting to crack. The Guardian, which became the core mouthpiece for that demographic, is getting more and more wildly accusatory (and irrelevant) as that happens. Who knows, it may suddenly come to its senses in a fit of self-awareness and change tack but will certainly need to get rid of most of its columnists to do so.

It appeals to middle class socialists who don't really like working class people

Not white English ones, anyway.

And not anyone who eats white bread or marge unironically.

I find their sneering contempt for the English quite sickening.

It makes me wonder if some of their writers were deprived of foreign travel growing up since their knee-jerk default position on anything from pants to house plants to writers to flour is 'exotic = big old hard-on, ordinary (English) = shameful.'

My socialist DF clings stubbornly, but wouldn't know quinoa if it bit him.

In fact a lot of online outlets do nothing but publish free online content and are still successful.

But very few of them are publishing at the same quality level as a broadsheet and covering the same range as the Guardian. For example, the Guardian has the best science section of any of the broadsheets (imo) and invests quite a lot of journalists' time into this section of the paper.

Online outlets pay little to the journalists who write the content. (And this I say from experience.)

BTW the Guardian is read by myself, most of my family, most of my colleagues. None of us could be described as Blairite North London liberal elite.

I don't fit the guardian image, and often don't like the mindset, but at least they do old fashioned, investigative journalism.

I have been on threads where people are seriously quoting from and linking to conspiracy websites seemingly with no idea or no care about the lies they are spreading.

I expect with the decline of 'proper' journalism the amount of stupid will increase.

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.

If you hold MNers in such contempt, why don't you just fuck off then?

BTW the Guardian is read by myself, most of my family, most of my colleagues. None of us could be described as Blairite North London liberal elite.

Hmm. Well funded public sector jobs in the regions? Trendy left wing meeja jobs? Seems to be the other readerships bitterly hanging on.

I don't fit the guardian image, and often don't like the mindset... I expect with the decline of 'proper' journalism the amount of stupid will increase.

Oh I'd say you fit the Guardian mindset right down to the ground.