4 ms·
There was also speculation this week that the Guardian would go digital only. That was denied by the Guardian Editor in Chief. However, @tomstandage, an edito
by cschmidt 14y ago
There was also speculation this week that the Guardian would go digital only. That was denied by the Guardian Editor in Chief. However, @tomstandage, an editor of the Economist tweeted:
Claims Guardian will ditch print edition could be half right,
despite @arusbridger's denials; they could go weekly (as I expect NYT to)
That would be quite a change. No more daily print New York Times, or Guardian.
- nicholassmith 14y agoIt'd definitely be a shame to see The Guardian go, I stopped reading around the point where they started cutting big chunks of content out to get the costs down, but I understand why they did it. Still use them as my primary news source, although the quality has dropped some what in the past 6 months.
- cschmidt 14y agoThe Guardian is owned by a trust, intended to keep it going in perpetuity. That should shield it from commercial pressure. However, the trust only has finite resources, so it can't run at a loss forever. I agree it is a shame.
- mattmanser 14y agoI'm actually a bit worried about that to be honest. At the moment we have the BBC and the Guardian, both completely shielded from having to turn a profit. The BBC is fairly easy for the government to meddle with, the Guardian is pretty extreme lefty. It's very easy to forget as they have such a great website, but the Guardian is an extremely biased paper. If you have the Daily Mail on the right the Guardian occupies the same spot on the left. I worry that these non-commercial, but well funded, enterprises are actually not very healthy for the the long-term future of UK journalism.
- nicholassmith 14y agoI wouldn't say The Guardian is really well funded, it's got a trust so profitability isn't a huge concern but if the money runs out they're done for. The Guardian is pretty far left, but they do try and present a balance at times (not always), and the traditional readership is often reasonable enough to have a discourse and not shout at each other.
- mseebach2 14y agoThe problem isn't The Guardian or The Daily Mail, it's that people read them and use them to prop up their very narrow worldviews. Either group could trivially shift their paper of choice to the other (or one of the more moderate alternatives) -- it's not an issue of availablity. While The Guardian isn't for profit, they still rely on the market to provide money for them, either through buying the paper or donating to the trust. The fact that the BBC which can (and sometimes does) shut it self away from any money raising concerns is more centric than the Guardian suggests that the ownership model doesn't inform the editorial much.
- cschmidt 14y agoI love the phrase "pretty extreme lefty" :-). I think that's been a difference in British journalism compared to the US. There are so many papers in the UK, that they have each staked out their own niche readership. The Guardian serves left leaning readers. The Daily Mail for the right, etc. As long as enough papers survive that there is a diversity of viewpoints, things will be fine. (That's certainly not a given, however.)
- makomk 14y agoFrom what I can tell they're a bit narrower than merely "extreme lefty" though - they actually seem to be biased towards a particular kind of niche feminism. Not even towards feminism as a whole (and yes, there are conflicts between that and the broader left wing), but to a very specific, narrow ideology within it.
- freshhawk 14y agoWhat is your worry about removing the most significant conflict of interest from a news organization exactly? It seems like it might cause other issues but I can't think of a reasonable reason that it would do anything but reduce the amount of bias present. And really? The Daily Fucking Mail? First of all: middle ground fallacy. Second: What sane person takes the Daily Mail's position on anything as a serious data point about where on the political spectrum a hypothetical unbiased news source would lie. I'm finding it difficult not to stereotype you as an american who feels the middle ground between the Democrats and Republicans is a true middle ground (and that reality therefore has a left wing bias).
- malsme 14y agoI guess a weekly edition would make sense, keeping up-to-date with a daily newspaper can be practically a chore.
- mseebach2 14y agoThat's the main attraction of The Economist to me.
- cschmidt 14y agoThat was an attraction for me as well. I used to read the NYT each day, but it was easier (and less paper) when I switched to the Economist. Now after reading it, I'm just an Economist fanboy because of the content.
- jahmed 14y agoI enjoy that the Economist takes a strong editorial line. Sometimes I agree and sometimes I disagree but I respect their opinion and color.