Tortoise media in talks to buy Observer

[mediawatching]

Interesting development given the roles of both in reporting sex-relevant news others ignore - I had no idea Tortoise was as big as this suggests (my new nn is just for this!) Wonder what those who explain away Tortoise's Neil Gaiman investigations by saying it's so very right wing will make of this, if successful? Decide The Observer is too?

www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/09/17/tortoise-media-in-talks-to-buy-the-observer/

I'd say every media organisation in the world, not excluding the Guardian, Independent, Unherd, etc etc are owned by pretty right-wing people. A fact a lot of folk seem quick to forget, when they're sorting the world into White Hats and Black Hats.

Hmmm, not sure I love this idea. The Observer is very clearly of the left and has been the single left leaning media outlet to be even vaguely gender critical. Tortoise media I suspect is more to the right, which means it's content is much easier for lefties to ignore. I don't know much about them beyond the excellent Neil Gaiman stuff, but some of their content creators has me raising my eyebrows. Will take another look.

A deal to sell The Observer would reshape Britain's declining Sunday newspaper market. It will also raise questions about whether The Guardian plans to extend its six-day-a-week print operation to Sundays.

One source said that GMG had been given approval by The Scott Trust, which oversees The Guardian's stewardship, to explore a deal.
They added that there was a belief among GMG executives that the investment required to provide a robust digital future for The Observer was more likely to be provided by a third party as The Guardian focuses on its own internationally renowned reporting.

Mr Harding is a former editor of The Times and head of news at the BBC, and set up Tortoise Media in a bid to provide deeper insight into and analysis of significant global stories.

"We think the Observer is one of the greatest names in news," Mr Harding said.

"We believe passionately in its future - both in print and digital.

"We will honour the values and standards set under the Guardian's great stewardship and uphold the Observer's uncompromising commitment to editorial independence, evidence-based reporting and journalistic integrity.

"Like its many, many loyal readers, we admire the strength and heart of the Observer's reporting, we prize its original, unbiddable thinking and we love it for its passions: food, music, film and art.

"George Orwell described the Observer as 'the enemy of nonsense'; we're excited to show readers, old and new, that it still is."
The Observer is thought to employ fewer than 100 full-time and freelance staff on a standalone basis.

https://news.sky.com/story/the-observers-owner-confirms-sale-talks-with-tortoise-media-13216644

Funnily enough this coincides with the Observer editor resigning.

He's been editor for 6 years and deputy editor before that and not kowtowed to the Guardian's editor's dedication to queer politics.

Is the resignation conincidence or an indication that the future Observice will not has the same values.

https://www.inpublishing.co.uk/articles/paul-webster-to-retire-24370

People close to the Guardian’s thinking said that the Observer — a print-only UK Sunday title — was no longer a material part of a business that was increasingly focused both digitally and internationally.

“The economics of print are challenging”, one added. Even so, they said that the approach was a surprise and that there were never plans to close the title.

https://www.ft.com/content/7b6196f4-2325-4deb-87c2-020f713fdde7

Please give examples for the Guardian? I tried googling but got the Scott Trust,
https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust/2015/jul/26/the-scott-trust-board

However, who are you speaking of who is quite right wing please? This will be a useful conversation piece...

The owner's views do not necessarily reflect the views of the actual authors, which I think is more important. As long as the authors are allowed to publish, then people thinking "ooh but that's right wing media" are just being lazy, naive and tribalist. Examples are Julie Bindle and Kathleen Stock in Unherd.

Hopefully, this will be the case for the Observer. However, I am saddened/worried about this sale because so many people fall into the lazy, tribalist thinking and it'll be used as an argument to dismiss what is written in it. Will people suddenly think Sonia Sodha is right wing? Or, worse, that she's been right wing all along...

It's a bit bizarre for the FT to call the Observer "a print-only Sunday title" when many of the articles appear online and there is a clear difference between those that appear that were written for the Guardian and those written for the Observer.

Interesting, I wonder if that includes the Observer's back catalogue of articles too, and what's going to happen to those. I hope they're not going to be lost.

This story was on the The Media Show on Radio 4 this afternoon. (The programme that bills itself as revealing the stories behind the goings on in the media.) This involved a discussion about who Tortoise Media are and their activities. Guess which very recent story that has propelled Tortoise Media into a much expanded public awareness was not mentioned at all?

🙄 Have the BBC mentioned the Gaiman allegations at all?

I heard it mentioned once, on The World at One on Radio 4, when the news broke last week that pre-production of Good Omenas (by the BBC) had been paused, but that was just a headline not followed up by any substance.

I went looking for any aspect of the story on the BBC website. Couldn't find a thing. (Incidentally, for some reason that website has an effectively worthless search function.)

I'm surprised to hear Tortoise described as right wing. I have listened to a lot of their podcasts and hadn't found them so. What I think they are is thorough and also willing to look at uncomfortable issues. Hannah Barnes did a Tavistock one, and I'm sure a recent one was by Julie Bindel (think.it was one of theirs). They also did the Who Trolled Amber podcast. All of these I would say are feminist (which I automatically regard as leftist except when it's just libfeming)

Yes Rachel Johnson was on the Gaiman one and they do have some Andrew Neil work also. I honestly got the impression though that their editorial policy was around taking the appropriate time and looking in appropriate depth. I hadn't thought it was particularly right or left wing. Where they are unpicking something, (for example the Hoaxed podcast about the Hampstead Hoax, which they did years ago but has just been bought by the BBC I see) they often work to be sympathetic about people's missteps and explain them from a human (rather than sensationalist evil) pov.

In.media terms they are good news as far as I am concerned, because of how they conduct the journalism. I'd be interested to hear the things people object to

The reason why Tortoise Media have been framed as "right wing" and therefore bad is this:

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/listen/thetavistock/

Even so, it was an extraodinarily gentle examination of what went wrong at the Tavistock and the conclusions drawn at the end of the podcast series are a misdirection away from the actual scandal.

Oh, okay, so there isn't more to it than this? I thought people were beginning to accept that you could have left wing objections to sex and gender conflation. I listened to it at the time, it was very well done. It wasn't right wing in its position in this podcast either, eg it did not insist that sex roles are natural, it did not insist that gender non conforming behaviour needed some kind of intervention and it did not present gender ideology as ridiculous left wing woo gone wrong.

The Tavistock podcast was the original basis for Tortoise Media being evil. Tortoise Media are now, again, in the awareness of activists because of their podcast about Neil Gaiman. Because Rachel Johnson is involved in that, and she's Boris Johnson sister and so must be right wing, what you've got is activists claiming that Tortoise Media is a far right nest of TERFs.

It's absurd to call Tortoise Media right-wing. They have done excellent work on, for example, the family courts and domestic abuse, in addition to the Neil Gaiman stuff. I suppose standing up for vulnerable women no longer counts as "left-wing".

Fgs the depth of thought is minimal, then
Rachel Johnson is really a Lib demmer, isn't she? I mean, not that that means much to some people. I used to work somewhere v left wing where being a Liberal was regarded as even closer to being a fascist than being a Tory was.

Tortoise are great. A really good match to the Observer as far as I am concerned. In depth, socially conscious, and just v good journalism. The Observer is more that than left wing per se in that they don't toe a leftist line just because this or that is considered to be the usual leftist position. I also think its really good news that they are expanding because it speaks to a clear market and desire for careful, non sensationalist journalism

If Tortoise take over The Observer I worry that they will stick it behind a paywall, or make people download their app to read it, and if they are continuing to do more balanced coverage of stories that will mean that not very many people will have the chance to read an alternate take on issues.

Yeah, Rachel Johnson is basically a Lib Dem. And while Andrew Neil has his prejudices, anyone in journalism who's worked with him will tell you that he doesn't play favourites. That's why he's feared as an interviewer.

GMG hasn't treated the Observer very well in recent years, and if "intelligent and socially conscious" is to be the brand then Tortoise would be a good fit. It would definitely be good to decouple from the Graun's digital business model, which these days means chasing after whatever's fashionable in California leftism.

which these days means chasing after whatever's fashionable in California leftism

Yep. And Australian 'leftism' too, if you can call it that.

I've noticed the Guardian has bizarrely detailed coverage of Aussie rules football. I assume this is part of the transnational digital business strategy.

Yes, that's right. The same in my sport, rugby league. There's often more about the Sydney Roosters and the Melbourne Storm than there is about the British game! This does not happen by chance.

They used to have a quirky thing, dating back to the old days of the Manchester Guardian, of having better coverage of northern England than the other London based papers.

But if I want to know what's happening in Townsville it would not occur to me to go to a British newspaper website.

The US Guardian also.