The Guardian job cuts

[MummBraTheEverLeaking]

twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283351434717782016?s=19

A lot comments standing up for women. What was that phrase again, go woke.....?

@NotBadConsidering

Mumsnet have ordered a swarm 😆😆

Justine in MNHQ:

🤣🤣😬 love that!

I don't tweet.

I don’t have a Twitter account either.

A swarm of mumnetters!!!!

Love the delusion. It runs deep. Obviously a lot of hatred fueling that claim.

I'm blocked too, so the tweet says MN ordered a 'swarm?'

I thought we were a nest of vipers or a cabal of witches?

And not everyone who posts on here has a Twitter account. I don't. I just read the replies to Ben, giggling.

I don't use Twitter mostly because I know what would happen if I was to drunk tweet, which I would.

Another non-twitterer here, again, because I'd lose my whole life to it.

Ha ha same here. My partner is still convinced one day he’ll have to spring me from a prison cell where I’ll be chanting something about vulvas and vaginas 🤣🤣

He’s not wrong. It’s safer if I stay off Twitter.

I don’t have twitter either.

I find odd is that there’s been several comments saying that they won’t subscribe to the guardian because of its transphobia.
I’ve captured a few below. Is it that nothing g but total capitulation will do?

And two more

A swarm of MNetters. Devised by the same 15th century male think that gave us such collective nouns as 'an incredulity of cuckolds'.
Women, control yourselves, the men are outraged!

I find odd is that there’s been several comments saying that they won’t subscribe to the guardian because of its transphobia.

These are people, I can promise you, who would never subscribe to a newspaper anyway. They live their lives on social media.

And yes, they demand total capitulation - even though, of course, they still wouldn't buy the paper even if the Guardian was edited by Munroe Bergdorf.

What's hilarious is the idea that they might take their business elsewhere. What paper is more full on TRA than the Graun?

Pink News?

It's pretty bloody funny to see people trying "NO U" as a tactic in a grown up conversation about whether or not to fund a national broadsheet. Kind of like watching a toddler seize the podium during a HOC debate.

Oh, for goodness sake, this is just idiotic.

The hyperbole is never ending. Do any of these people live in the real world? No, of course, they don't.

It has become pretty clear that the country has split into two realms: those that have become subjugated by hyper-reality and those that exist in material reality and can see the boundary between the two very clearly.

We are arguing with people whom can no longer distinguish between fact and fiction, and whom cannot tell the difference between reality and various digital simulations or representations of it. To them, what occurs online is more real than actual reality.

That's the problem with The Guardian, the NYT et al ... they can't even see that they are now operating as though they exist in a game-scape. This isn't just an "ivory towers" charge; this is one step further -- a virtual dimension that bears little relation to physical reality.

I think it is over for The Guardian. What will be interesting is what evolves from here because it's dreadfully convenient to have huge segments of a population living their lives in a virtual dimension, never noticing what is happening outside their own front door.

I think it is over for The Guardian.

Am not sure on this one. I think there's a lot of backing from the US to all that's going on. I might be wrong and I hope I've just caught a touch of conspiracyitus

What on earth are they talking about? Rape threats? That would be TRAs, not us.

And not everyone who posts on here has a Twitter account. I don't. I just read the replies to Ben, giggling

No Twitter account here, either. Lots of giggling, though

Also don't have a twitter account. I loathe it as a platform.

Please boycott Vanity Fair too. I think they have reached new levels of misogyny with an article that describes white conservative women as "Karens."
"A nickname drawn from African American vernacular - a Karen is a type - lately the type of woman who protests pandemic lockdown because she needs to get her nails done, but more broadly, the type of woman who calls the police to report her privilege, even when she's the one breaking the rules. It's not the most precise language - "white nationalist racist gender traitor" seems a bit stronger - but it gets us to some kind of understanding. It's a start."
W the actual F?

I didn't leave the Guardian, the Guardian left me

Same here, and I am saddened and scared that it'll crash and burn and we won't have a mainstream left-of-centre 'grown-up' newspaper any more. But they can't ask me to subscribe while spitting in my face, which is what the constant anti-women, gender and ID stance feels like.

Back in the 70s my best friend's parents ran a newsagents and I did a paper round for them. They let me take a leftover newspaper from the day before and I read all of them, from the Sun and the Morning Star through to the Times and the Telegraph until I decided the Guardian was my paper. That was 46 years ago and I stayed faithful until it abandoned me for a younger, woker, sexier kind of reader.

@MsSafina

Please boycott Vanity Fair too. I think they have reached new levels of misogyny with an article that describes white conservative women as "Karens." "A nickname drawn from African American vernacular - a Karen is a type - lately the type of woman who protests pandemic lockdown because she needs to get her nails done, but more broadly, the type of woman who calls the police to report her privilege, even when she's the one breaking the rules. It's not the most precise language - "white nationalist racist gender traitor" seems a bit stronger - but it gets us to some kind of understanding. It's a start." W the actual F?

Wow. I wonder who the hell they think buys VF?

I think it is over for The Guardian.

It might be. The real problem, however, is not its insane anti-feminist editorial position, though that has clearly helped it to lose readers. The problem is that its business model has failed entirely. They've put all their print content online, as well as a whole lot of other content, which must be extremely expensive to produce. They don't charge for that content, and they don't attract advertising. Obviously if content is free online, people are going to stop buying the print edition, and when that happens, businesses will stop advertising in the print edition.

So when you have no money from readers, and no money from advertisers, of course you're going to struggle financially. They've managed to break even in the past couple of years by asking people to subscribe voluntarily but it looks as if coronavirus has put the kibosh on that.

The publications that are doing well - notably the Spectator and Private Eye - do so because they have a strong print offering and either don't have much of an online presence, or charge for their online presence. Admittedly these are magazines so it's a slightly different ball game. Nonetheless, as a business model it makes some sense. If I were in Kath Viner's position I'd be scaling back the website and strengthening the print edition, but she seems to be taking the opposite approach.

I actually had a subscription to VF as it was quite entertaining especially when Chris Hitchens wrote for them. Now it's fully succumbed to the Cult of Woke.