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.....?

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

Agree. The decision to bin the Saturday magazine is just the latest in a long line of disastrous business decisions. Of course, it will be the most expensive part of the paper to produce, so you can see the superficial appeal of cutting it. But the Saturday paper, with its different sections, was also the edition that most rewarded a customer for buying it in print. I suspect that the decision has been based on the number of clicks each section gets - but that's exactly the wrong way round - the magazine gets fewer clicks because it's less enjoyable online than in print. If you are a publication that only gets income from your print edition (other than from online subscribers), it's insane to dump the main incentive for buying the print version.

The Soectator is doing well because it allows free speech. Their BTL online content isn't heavily censored like the Guardian.

If you want to read a lot of magazines online there's an App called "Readly." They don't do the Spectator or Private Eye though.

When TRAs accuse the Guardian of “transphobia” or publishing “transphobic viewpoints” what they mean is they tentatively dipped their toes in the waters of journalistic balance and have published 2 or 3 articles - one by Suzanne Moore for example - and incited the rage of its own work workers and TRAs and backtracked. None of the plentiful articles before or since any of the articles that affirm their views seem to be enough for those people.

In other words, nothing but complete capitulation will do.

nothing but complete capitulation will do

Of course - because they know their dogma cannot withstand scrutiny. The more people learn about it, the less they support it - as demonstrated by YouGov survey this week.

No Twitter a/C either. I'd lose my mind in that cess pit.

No Twitter account here, either, so I'm not part of the alleged swarm.

*Mumsnet must have ordered a swarm'

Because the only GC women out there have to be members of Mumsnet, right? Notwithstanding the colossal numbers of women responding in scornful voices to the Guardian's appeal for their support. But they've thought out an explanation for that one too. They must be sock puppets, right?

Or could this be because they've successfully closed down almost every online platform where women could gather to discuss issues of relevance to them? (Here's looking at you, Reddit ...)

IME people only adopt these lines of argument when they're absolutely desperate to convince people that the whole world thinks like them. And that shit's the stuff of the very far right.

My daughter (late 20s) and friends are deeply woke.
But I can’t think of a single one of them that actually buys a paper, either print or subscription online. So the support they have for the Guardian et al is the equivalent of clapping for the NHS, lots of noise, no cash.

They also published a very factual non opinion story about Karen White which is what one of the TRAs might be referring to.

OJ’s Twitter feed is full of people telling him they won’t support the Guardian because of ‘ fake allegations of anti semitism’ as well as the transphobia of course.

It is really hard to get work in journalism and you do have to understand your readers. I know two ex journalists who both had to leave for other careers. One of the used to work for the Daily Mail. He is very left wing but also aware that he had to give readers what they want. As a journalist you also do need to understanding the mood of the country.

It's probably been mentioned but facty-facty and not wokey blokey is my new motto.

Since picking up a subscription to The Times I've noticed that their opinion pieces are generally labelled as such, and not treated as if they were factual reporting. How long has it been since The Guardian made that distinction?

Another one saying how upsetting it is to see a once great newspaper flush itself down the toilet. They won't get a penny from me until they start actually showing some kind of journalistic integrity.

Cologne was a tipping point for so many of us, it seems. Some victim blaming shite right there, no thanks. Plus all the drivel from "Owl" and Owen Jones - we don't want to pay to be patronised, thank you.

The overwhelming TRA slant since hasn't helped, but Cologne was really the turning point for me. The fact that they ignored the blowback about that and continue to employ the person who wrote it, while allowing what appears to be massive scale bullying of Suzanne Moore, only reinforced my feeling that there's probably no salvaging it, as sad as that is.

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

Since picking up a subscription to The Times I've noticed that their opinion pieces are generally labelled as such, and not treated as if they were factual reporting. How long has it been since The Guardian made that distinction?

Good point. The Times also allow comments on almost every article, except about legal issues that are sub judice. It moderates comments, but the moderation appears light-touch (hard to know, for sure, of course, when we don't know what has been deleted, but I rarely see people complaining about unfair deletions of earlier posts). This means that, when it does publish the occasional TWAW opinion piece, it is clear that the great majority of the readership disagree. The Guardian, by contrast, does not allow comments on articles about trans issues, so has no way of assessing its readers' views, other than the highly unrepresentative Twitter mob. I suspect they will have been genuinely surprised by the reaction to Ben - hence the conspiracy theories about bots. Sadly, I doubt this will prompt any reflection or shift - the beatings of GC women will continue until morale improves...

@RoyalCorgi

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.

There was a period where there was still an idea that the internet would be this wonderful free resource for users, and I think the Guardian really bought into that, maybe quite idealistically. There was a lot of railing against newspapers with paywalls for a time, and some wanted to resist increasing corporatization of the internet.

I think what we've seen though since then is that when you take the Guardian's route as a paper, you end up being almost less independent, more tied to advertisers etc.

This opinion piece about Yaniv's case is a perfect demonstration of the hubris and queer politics of Viner's Guardian:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/27/male-genitalia-week-in-patriarchy-women

"If a female beautician has only been trained to wax female genitalia and only wants to offer these services to women then that should be her prerogative. But, hang on a minute, what if the person who wants their intimate areas to be waxed is a woman with male genitalia?"

According to this piece, Yaniv is probably 'a troll' but definitely a 'woman with male genitalia', she/her etc. because the Guardian's commitment to self id and queer theory must be upheld above all else

And then this:

"While the Yaniv case has been going on for a while now, you may not have heard much about it, as it has largely been covered by the rightwing press."

Because nice Guardian readers would never venture to read those nasty unspecified rightwing papers?

Wow. I wonder who the hell they think buys VF?
Exactly, mrsnoah2020! White, middle aged, middle class American women is surely their core readership?

The Guardian have alienated 50% of the adult population with their failure to support women. Funny how we exist when they want our money? Happy to see it go out of business due to its mysogynistic content.

Perhaps they could identify as a decent newspaper??

Is anyone else pondering whether jkr could start a left-of-centre facts-based newspaper?
I realise print news is an horrific loss maker these days, so probably better uses for her money.

Lack of reporting on Cologne was also my peak Guardian moment. I subscribe to the Times now. I think there must be quite a few of us as their ongoing prominent coverage of the impact on women and the dangers of transing kids would suggest demand from their readers

Here is Jamie Shupe’s article about being the USA’s first legal non-binary person:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/16/i-am-first-official-genderless-person-united-states

Shupe has since published an article about how it was all bullshit and he has AGP.

Here is the list of Hannah Mouncey’s articles for the Guardian:

www.theguardian.com/profile/hannah-mouncey

Hannah was asked to leave the Australian women’s handball team because the women didn’t feel comfortable sharing showers and changing rooms with Hannah (Hannah’s own words). Make of that what you will.

Then there was this piece from the woke Americans:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/02/guardian-editorial-response-transgender-rights-uk

With this priceless line:

And our journalism should be grounded in the principle that trans women are women

No mention of trans men of course. But wanting journalism to be grounded in a falsehood is just startling.

These are the sort of articles they want us to pay for.

Fuck. That.

Steve Bell is now going. Predictably, Guido has the headline “Bell Ends”, which I can’t say didn’t make me chuckle.

And our journalism should be grounded in the principle that trans women are women

Why should a newspaper adhere to a principle that basically means 'men who say they are women, are women'? What has it got to do with journalism?

@RoyalCorgi

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 honestly think at some point part of their general detachment from reality involved a detachment from economic reality.

They created this mythical view of themselves as the voice of righteousness, and saw themselves as a woke newspaper version of the BBC. Somewhere along the way they thought that by doing so they would gain access to some sort of public service magic money tree (licence fee for the graun perhaps), forgetting that their funding actually had to come from somewhere.

I think there was a strong feeling of "we are righteous, we are telling our version of the truth unto power, we are educating the proles and thereby providing a public service, so someone ought to fund us, and because they ought to, it will happen."

Or perhaps they simply thought identifying as being funded would be sufficient.