The Guardian

Heartfeltdawn

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."

And who are the Media Reform Coalition? Only one person is named on their website (Natalie Fenton). Of the two chairs I can find, both are Labour members. Schlosberg is firmly in the Corbyn camp. So on the face of it, the MRC are as open as to their funding sources and the people who work for them than the IEA or the TPA. 

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. 

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

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

I don't think it's to do with an anti-capitalist argument. It's to do with brand spread. The Guardian doesn't sell a shitload of papers when compared to pretty much everyone out there but it does get around the world via social media and it's name is known. Paywalls do damage that spread. Look what happened when the Sun went for the paywall: views tanked and someone twigged that pages behind a paywall don't get retweeted and liked and shared on social media so the newspaper's influence dropped. As such, we got this:

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/17/sun-political-site-sunnation

Which was actually a big success in terms of what it set out to do ie. to get plastered all over social media. 

As dippy as the Graun can get on the feminist and SJW front, their work on Cambridge Analytica et al has been superb. 

TimmyO

It's a tough old time as far as trying to expose yourself to a range of media interpretations - but the more I've been thinking about it I think that it probably always was - only the details change.

The uncomfortable truth is that it probably comes down to getting access to some form of quality journalism from a variety of prejudicial angles ;-) 

I don't naturally find I correlate with any one party (and certainly not now that the big 2 have fractured so much)

In my youth I seemed to lean a bit centre-right, and now, as a generalisation more Liberal. Socially I'm more left, on defence, more right, on public spending evidence based as far as possible (in whomever's traditional direction that steers - I won't balk on principle so much), and on tax I'm a blubbering simpering lefty - I do believe in redistribution - so that's one principle I struggle to shed perhaps.

Which paper writes to that? :-) 

Bridgehouse

jellyroll said:

The Grauniad

FTFY 

randella

If the traditional, “mainstream” media goes then we’re left with shite like the Canary and Brietbart. Given that a worrying number of people seem to think these sorts of things more credible, I’m more than happy to pay for my news (Guardian subscriber and the print edition of the Telegraph from time to time, if that makes any difference).

I’ve no doubt it’s possible to find a report damning any of the three quality dailies, but next time you’ve got the chance try all three - in terms of the way the actual news is reported there’s less difference than you’d think. Obviously each has their own drum to bang, but the other 80% is fairly similar once you’ve removed the political slant. Sometimes the slant is by omission which is why it’s interesting to read one that doesn’t sit squarely with your politics, if only to see what your favourite has neglected to mention

The Telegraph’s Parliamentary sketch writer Michael Deacon is poisonous and often very funny, much like his oppo John Crace at the Graun. 

Heartfeltdawn

Deacon is the best sketch writer of the lot at the minute. 

barnstorm

A while ago I was involved in some (small-scale) qual research about subscription and donation models, and it was a bit depressing to hear people say that they'd gladly do the right thing (i.e. monetarily support the publications they valued) – if they were made to.

A common and hilarious refrain was that they didn't like the idea of paying voluntarily and subsidising some imaginary group of people who could also afford to subscribe/donate but who were more selfish. Another was that as long as they weren't being forced to pay, the actual process of paying (typing in a credit card number or whatever) seemed too much of a hassle.

 

The thing I find most puzzling about objections to a donation model, though, is that generally the donations suggested (and this is the case with the Guardian, too) are smaller than the cost of a subscription. It's odd to be cross about a form of funding that (if a majority of people play ball) allows you to have the thing you like for less than its true value.

It would be interesting to hear what the OP would be prepared to pay if the Guardian did introduce a paywall. Is the current app price (£5.99) as much as is reasonable? I ask because when it comes time to chuck a bit of money Wikipedia's way, I find myself wondering what they could realistically charge me without argument if the whole thing went behind a paywall. £250 a year? £500? Maybe. And yet the current model means they request, politely, a tiny fraction of that.

In summary, give ’em a few quid!

Veganic

barnstorm said:

In summary, give ’em a few quid!

If someone offers a free service I am happy to take it for free.  Everything else is unecessary complication. I haven't got the time to get involved in advanced game theory or calculating my personal commitment to a certain flavour of the free-press and then converting this into a monetary value after deciding on a theory-of-value and then wondering if spending that money elsewhere would be better. 

So, er, no thank you.

barnstorm

That's a logical position as long as you don't really care if the free service eventually disappears.

Veganic

barnstorm said:

That's a logical position as long as you don't really care if the free service eventually disappears.

That assumes it won't disappear anyway, contribution or not.

Also assumes that the end of that service would be the end of all sevices of that type.

Edit: also would not be free if I contributed. 
Not sure if you mean end of it being free or end of the service. Apologies if I am being thick.

Gagaryn

jellyroll said:

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?

I think you are misunderstanding the business model. The model is not and never has been that it is free.  Being an independent newspaper is expensive which is why their are a variety of subscription models available for both print and digital. As a print newspaper it was always an expensive option, I think it is currently £2 weekdays and more on a Saturday.

I personally can't see any reason or moral justification why anyone who values the product enough to read it almost everyday and who could afford to pay a subscription would not do so.

Heartfeltdawn

Veganic said:

barnstorm said:

In summary, give ’em a few quid!

If someone offers a free service I am happy to take it for free.  Everything else is unecessary complication. I haven't got the time to get involved in advanced game theory or calculating my personal commitment to a certain flavour of the free-press and then converting this into a monetary value after deciding on a theory-of-value and then wondering if spending that money elsewhere would be better. 

So, er, no thank you.

Edit: snark is not needed. Bad HFD. 

Veganic

 For as little as £1, you can support the Guardian – and it only takes a minute. Make a contribution. - Guardian HQ

Follow the link:

Please enter at least £2

Edit: ok ok, that's the monthly contribution...there is a one off one pound option. Nothing to see here.

Snap

I wouldn't pay for the Guardian, its not that good. A lot of the writing is poor, partisan, and a bit immature. It is so blinkered in its politics too, which I find annoying. Its not that I disagree with their left leaning, but its more about how much their reporting is tinted by their politics. Its not uncommon to find that articles are very stilted. Its like the Daily Mail for the left wing in a lot of respects.

I find it tiresome, in the same way I find the Mail/Express/Telegraph tiresome. I can form my own opinions. Just report the facts, not over politicised guff.

The Times is another frustrating paper, particularly the Sunday Times, which has become increasingly more sensationalist. Used to be I'd enjoy reading the Sunday Times for the sport, travel, culture supplements, the good articles in the magazine to. Most of that has gone down the tubes.

Guardian is pretty good for culture/arts etc, but even that is so bleeding billy right on, you kind of know what they are going to favour.

DLM

Gagaryn said:
Being an independent newspaper is expensive which is why their are a variety of subscription models available for both print and digital.

You really are a regular Guardian reader AICM€5.

barnstorm

Veganic said:

barnstorm said:

That's a logical position as long as you don't really care if the free service eventually disappears.

That assumes it won't disappear anyway, contribution or not.

Also assumes that the end of that service would be the end of all sevices of that type.

Edit: also would not be free if I contributed. 
Not sure if you mean end of it being free or end of the service. Apologies if I am being thick.

No, you’re not being thick. As it relates to the Guardian:

If a paper gives people the option of paying on the understanding that

– It can’t survive in its current form without funding from users
– But feels an obligation to make its content available to those who can’t afford to pay (The greater good and all that…)

then any reader in a position to pay who doesn’t (who treats the service as free) has to be comfortable with the idea that the paper might not be around for very long or that it might be forced to change in ways that are undesirable.

If for whatever reason the Guardian went under, there would be other places the OP could go for reporting and opinion, but he’s said he values the paper so it makes sense to me that he should pay for it.

Johnnyseven

I read the website daily so when I saw something asking me to contribute I thought fair enough, the people that work for them need to be paid. I pay a £5 a month subscription.

Veganic

Ok.

I doubt there are many reading the Guardian who can't afford to pay. But I realise this is a majority world view as I subscibe to the New Internationalist and that trumps any Guardian contribution anyone might make. Especially as I don't even read it anymore.  It's passed on before it even hits the mat meaning my contribution also makes it free to those who won't pay.

smogmonster

It is not surprising that the Guardian's sales are falling as its editorial stance has moved to the right as much of its traditional readership has moved in the opposite direction.

It now seems aimed more at wealthy Clinton supporting liberals in the US particularly since Viner became editor a couple of years ago. Today's Guardian is a mish mash of all kinds of identity politics coupled with virulent Russophobia. IMO it was never that left wing but now it has clearly moved over to the other side as in many respects its coverage of international events is now often more hawkish than the traditional right wing press.

Added to an obvious anti Corbyn bias it is an agenda designed to alienate a large part of its traditional left of centre readership in the UK who find it irrelevant or downright offensive. In fact in certain sectors of the left there is a growing campaign to actively boycott the Guardian.

munckee

Veganic said:

barnstorm said:

That's a logical position as long as you don't really care if the free service eventually disappears.

That assumes it won't disappear anyway, contribution or not.

Also assumes that the end of that service would be the end of all sevices of that type.

Edit: also would not be free if I contributed. 
Not sure if you mean end of it being free or end of the service. Apologies if I am being thick.

Thats like this board though, its 'free' but many people donate to it.

ToneControl

TheBigDipper said:

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. 

I had assumed that Waitrose pay in full for the newspaper, it appears on your receipt after all