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.

I automatically discount the views of anyone who uses "politically correct" as a term of opprobrium.

But Bill, how do you feel about the lack of balance in journalist-written, published media if papers with particular positions within the political spectrum are removed?

Neither the Guardian nor the Telegraph represent my views, but I believe that in a democracy that it is vital that papers with both positions exist.

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.

Agreed!
I stopped buying the Guardian 10 years ago.

Great posts from BillSykesDog :)

OP YANBU!

The guardian isn't being removed , teacher, it's failing because its readers are abandoning it. Big difference! If it represented the views of a lot of people it wouldn't be failing, would it.

"Remember that the Guardian's readership is falling. "

Is readership falling or purchases of the print paper. It's one of the most popular online papers with readers from all over the world.

Its a dreadful paper. I am very glad to see its suffering.

You think the decline of investigative, serious journalism is a good thing for society?

O-kayy

"Well funded public sector jobs in the regions? Trendy left wing meeja jobs?"

London is a region too. If you want to say provinces, say so.
I do a lowly admin job in Wales and I read the Guardian (though I admit I read it free of charge online).

Agreed! I stopped buying the Guardian 10 years ago.

So how do know it's shite? Your ten years' old opinion? Or reading it online for free?

Not much serious investigative journalism went on over the Cologne attacks.

A serious mass assault on women and I think they said 30 women had been attacked. The real figure was about 1000.

They don't give a shit about women they are willing to bend facts and omit details that do not fit in with their agenda.

Purchases of the printed paper are declining - but if the print paper fails, that position is also removed from the journalist-written, edited online world.

'Removed' wasn't a good choice of word, I agree. I meant 'removed from the spectrum of published newspapers', thinking of it as a 'gap', which would run from centre-right all the way left. So 'fail' would be a better word. Its failure would remove a particular strand from the overall 'news ecosystem', and thus would be bad for the ecosystem as a whole, as it would remove some of the range of viewpoints on which a considered democracy relies..

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.

^^ YY.

A serious mass assault on women and I think they said 30 women had been attacked. The real figure was about 1000

Try this one:

www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/18/cologne-attacks-algerian-asylum-seeker-arrested-new-years-eve-assaults

Great posts from BillSykesDog

It's great to insult people and put them into categories just because they read a newspaper?

And seriously - people want the Guardian to crash because it's too much centre left "liberal elite", because everything will be so much better if we have only 2 right wing broadsheets?

I read the Guardian - I work in care
Friends/relations who read the Guardian are, respectively, a care home manager, a retired army warrant officer /chef, an engineer, a civil servant, a student. I just like an intelligent and grown up view of the world and lots of Ottolenghi recipes. The Times and the Telegraph only give me right wing bias and adverts for houses I could never afford. I'm not very well off but I think I'll investigate subscribing or donating.

The Guardian did some fantastic reporting on the referendum - in particular some great coverage on people who voted leave, and the reasons why.

I've come close to subscribing multiple times - even though I loathe Poly Toynbee and her ilk, but the packages are too inflexible for an occasional reader like me. I would gladly pay a nominal (say a fiver) a month for the access to the online content - I never buy the printed (or any other) paper.

If there was a full range of political viewpoints in the edited print and online media, and the Guardian was only one of a range of left-leaning publications within this, then it would be fine to be happy that its particular failings have led to its demise. However, as the sole representative of its particular viewpoint - and even the lack of a paper just to its right since the demise of the Independent - its departure is more important and sadder IYSWIM?

I could give many examples of why the Guardian stands head-and-shoulders above any other newspaper in this country, but I'll give just one: the recent investigation into malpractice at Boots:

www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/13/how-boots-went-rogue

Warning: the article is about 5,000 words, so not for those with short attention spans.

In summary, the article describes how Boots's relentless drive for profit is putting patients at risk, by removing the system by which one pharmacist's work is checked by another, as well as milking money from the NHS through "medicine-use reviews." The MURs are appointments in which patients discuss their health problems and medicinal requirements with the pharmacist. For each MUR the NHS pays Boots £28. Stores are limited to 400 MURs a month - but Boots is treating that as a target, forcing its pharmacists to conduct MURs when they're not needed.

Now if anyone thinks that this is an issue of concern only to the "liberal elite" as opposed to every single person in this country, then they're an idiot. I suspect, however, that the OP and his/her supporters are not idiots, but people who are determined to prop up a system in which rapacious capitalism exploits the people at the bottom of the pile. No-one, I hope, seriously thinks that, for example, a paper that allows the liar Kelvin MacKenzie to publish his bigoted diatribes is more worthwhile than one that regularly speaks up for the vulnerable and dispossessed.

Oh I agree with misogyny, and has anyone said hypocrisy? But theres absolutely no way we'll be better off as a society without their thoroughly researched (usually) investigative journalism that challenges the status quo from a factual foundation.

(I buy the times but read guardian online- I'm sure I'm much worse a person than the average guardian reader!)

Their work to expose sports direct and hermes as shit payers who exploit workers are more than worth the subscription fee.

Plus inspect a gadget makes me laugh each week.

I enjoy some of the G2 articles and, like any newspaper, the news articles are OK if you remember the angle at which they're coming at things from. But I remember when I was working for a patient group and the Guardian had decided we were in bed with 'big pharma'. This wasn't true at all. The Guardian totally misquoted the figures we gave them on donations from pharmas and had clearly made up their minds what was happening before they knew any of the facts, so that there was no point at all in demonstrating otherwise. I'm not sure, but it left me with the impression this is how they carry out their form of journalism and it wasn't very impressive.
I like their recipes. To be honest I don't really like any of the papers that are available currently.

Tanith, oh I agree with you that those would be ridiculous things to think or say. Can I urge you, gently, (can one gently urge?!) to consider that, while my opinion may differ a bit from yours, it might not be absolutist, absurdist, or ridiculous.

Reducto ad absurdum and ridicule of difference is not working well as a tactic politically at the moment and I am a bit troubled by it as a first response (in so many threads, not just this one and not just you!). We can disagree, but let's (make a good effort to) disagree on what we actually think and say, not caricatures and paraphrases of each other's positions.

I include myself in that too btw! Will try harder.

To be honest I don't really like any of the papers that are available currently.

^

There are too many factual mistakes in all published papers and too many opinion articles which misquote facts to fit the opinions. I find much of the Telegraph unreadable at the moment, with many of their opinion pieces claiming we are in a land of milk and honey post Brexit (ignoring all data which implies otherwise).

It's great to insult people and put them into categories just because they read a newspaper?

How is pointing out a demographic insulting? Bit rich coming from someone who doesn't appear to be reading the thread properly before making critical and entirely inaccurate comments from other posters because they apparently don't know the difference between 'mail' and 'mirror'.

And you don't seem to be objecting to the 'stupid', 'brainwashed' or 'lowest common denominator' categories being applied to readers of papers you disapprove of.

The bottom line is that the Guardian is not appealing to enough people to remain viable either through online advertising or pay to read in print or online.

Viewpoints die out and disappear all the time. Look at the decline of the influence of the church in the UK. If you fail to convince people or make yourself relevant to them you will fail. And no amount of brow beating about how it's the fault of the stupid or the morally inferior will change that. In fact it will just accelerate it.