The Guardian

jellyroll

Hoping that discussion here will help me clarify my own thinking on this. 

I read The Guardian online pretty much every day. Access is free but a begging request appears with most articles asking for donations so that the paper can continue its business model of being free.

I can afford to make a donation/subscribe. And if they started charging everyone, I would pay quite happily as I value the product. 

What I have a problem with is begging for contributions in order to sustain some kind of anti-capitalist argument. I think they should charge and I want them to charge. And if they can’t sustain themselves without charging they should re-think their approach. 

Am I over-thinking this? Am I being selfish?

Do any of you contribute or object to contributing for similar reasons?

stickyfiddle

I imagine the Guardian would argue that they're asking for donations so that they can keep it free for everyone, rather than charging for access and seeing their readership drop by 75%

But I'm fairly sure you're overthinking it. 

FWIW if I wanted to pay for news I'd be looking at the Times. Or anything where the comments sections aren't populated by rabid idiots (does such a thing exist?!)

Kitsune

I did strongly consider it for a while, but I certainly won't after the recent Media Reform report that was pretty damning of them

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party

"The research examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. In relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism that was at the heart of the dispute, the research found evidence of "overwhelming source inbalance" in which critics of Labour’s code of conduct dominated coverage, with nearly 50% of Guardian reports, for example, failing to include any quotes from those defending the code or critiquing the IHRA definition. Moreover, key contextual facts about the IHRA definition – for example that it has only been formally adopted by eight countries (and only six of the IHRA member states) – were consistently excluded."

pmbomb

-

midlifecrisis

before internet, you had to buy the guardian in paper form so not really much difference.

Lodious

I think you are over thinking it. I support The Guardian and TBH, I don't agree with a lot of their perspectives. I do want to support journalism which offers some alternative views. I also started to pay for the Telegraph at the same time, but dropped it when I found it's turned into the Daily Mail. 

axisus

I think nothing of paying for a newspaper if I want one. I never pay for online news though. 

I stick with the Beeb to be honest. I don't like everything about their news coverage but I'm just used to the interface and they don't make me feel like they are stealing from them. 

ICBM

axisus said:

I stick with the Beeb to be honest. I don't like everything about their news coverage but I'm just used to the interface and they don't make me feel like they are stealing from them. 

They don't need to, because you're paying for it if you own a TV set or a computer with iPlayer...

I have occasionally given money to the Guardian, but I don't have a subscription. I feel I should do something to support one of the better sources of journalism, but I'm not uncritical of them either.

Winny_Pooh

George Monbiot is the best thing about the Gaurdian. (plus Ask Mariella; guilty pleasure )

JezWynd

I make a small annual contribution, works out at less than a pound a week. Good journalism has to be funded. The alternative is characters like Rupert Murdoch shoving their disinformation down everyone's throat.

TheBigDipper

I support The Guardian with the small annual contribution, too. Then I don't feel bad when I get a free copy 2-3 times a week at Waitrose. (How metropolitan liberal elite am I?). I like fact it's not "owned" in the same way most papers are, I can tell the difference between news stories, columns and opinion pieces, too. Their investigative work also deserves support. 

shrinkwrap

I read it but the quality has dropped - so much clickbait and over dramatic journalism now.  Beeb website is all click bait bollocks too. I'd rather buy a newspaper but the Independent got thinner and thinner and then closed and the Graun got thinner and thinner too. The free to air Sky TV news is better than Beeb now and I'm a Beeb fan not a Murdoch fan.

Depressing all round.

However thank god the Graun still does a tiny bit of anti captialism - asking them to stop that because you pay is a prize piece of right wing bullshit.

mgaw

i read it everyday but agree the tone is changing to attract more clicks, journalism is a bit fucked i think and now i am more than happy to get all my news from Granny Smeagle at number 28 and her bag of bones

Koa

Newspapers, both in print and digital format have to be viewed as curated content and worth paying for. Otherwise all our news will come from Guitar forums

EricTheWeary

Based on listening to random bits of the Media Show on R4 - most newspapers are trying to work out what works for them as a model in t'internet age. The Guardian has a system that has worked well for them financially ( they've massively reduced their losses since asking for contributions) whilst allowing them to be read by a huge audience. A paywall is probably a bigger risk and most certainly reduces their readership/ influence even if it works financially. 

Kitsune

EricTheWeary said:

Based on listening to random bits of the Media Show on R4 - most newspapers are trying to work out what works for them as a model in t'internet age. The Guardian has a system that has worked well for them financially ( they've massively reduced their losses since asking for contributions) whilst allowing them to be read by a huge audience. A paywall is probably a bigger risk and most certainly reduces their readership/ influence even if it works financially. 

The New Statesman drastically dropped my reading since the paywall went up. I'd usually have a read of a couple of articles, then go and buy it in the shop to get the rest for the week. Now, with three a month allowance, I barely go there. Would make more sense if it was a monthly publication.

Veganic

jellyroll said:

What I have a problem with is begging for contributions in order to sustain some kind of anti-capitalist argument. I think they should charge and I want them to charge. And if they can’t sustain themselves without charging they should re-think their approach. 

I am not sure what the argument / objection is.

Anti-capitalist* ideas must only allowed if they are financially self-supporting. Seems like a argument FOR capitalism?

*the Guardian isn't anti-capitalist.

Garthy

Kitsune said:

I did strongly consider it for a while, but I certainly won't after the recent Media Reform report that was pretty damning of them

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party

"The research examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. In relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism that was at the heart of the dispute, the research found evidence of "overwhelming source inbalance" in which critics of Labour’s code of conduct dominated coverage, with nearly 50% of Guardian reports, for example, failing to include any quotes from those defending the code or critiquing the IHRA definition. Moreover, key contextual facts about the IHRA definition – for example that it has only been formally adopted by eight countries (and only six of the IHRA member states) – were consistently excluded."

That’s like saying you’d never buy a Ferrari because Purely Porsche said you shouldn’t.

when it comes to inaccuracies and bias The Guardian is pretty close to the top of the pile.

BenSirAmos

Awful paper - still trading on its prior reputation

Gagaryn

Kitsune said:

I did strongly consider it for a while, but I certainly won't after the recent Media Reform report that was pretty damning of them

http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new-mrc-research-finds-inaccuracies-and-distortions-in-media-coverage-of-antisemitism-and-the-labour-party

"The research examined over 250 articles and broadcast news segments and found over 90 examples of misleading or inaccurate reporting. In relation to the IHRA definition of antisemitism that was at the heart of the dispute, the research found evidence of "overwhelming source inbalance" in which critics of Labour’s code of conduct dominated coverage, with nearly 50% of Guardian reports, for example, failing to include any quotes from those defending the code or critiquing the IHRA definition. Moreover, key contextual facts about the IHRA definition – for example that it has only been formally adopted by eight countries (and only six of the IHRA member states) – were consistently excluded."

If you read the report you'll find that in summary, they found that the Labour supporting newspaper has been overly critical of the Labour party. If they had repeatedly said that the IHRA definition of antisemitism was itself disputed they risked being accused of downplaying the allegations made against the Labour party.

I support the Guardian, I bought the paper daily for 20 years and now never do so I'm quids in paying this way. It is really the best option if you want it to survive, which I do. The other options are intrusive adverting or a paywall which would both be a much worse outcome.

thumpingrug

Wife subscribes to the Guardian and I piggyback on her subscription.  I also look at the Independents website which is dominated by advertising and difficult to actually read.  I agree that good journalism has to be paid for but in the internet dominated world we all hope and expect something for nothing.  The nationals tend to be a lot better than the locals though.  they are just clickbait