The first in our ever popular series, Questions in The Guardian We Can Answer:
Given this woeful history, it’s reasonable to ask why the issue of the future of journalism keeps being investigated, and why so little action results.
Because the people who buy ink by the barrel are the people losing their jobs.
That really is it, there’s nothing more to it than that. We have extant news outlets, those newspapers. Anyone can (and we are) set up to compete with them in this brave new world of online. Therefore the previous revenues flowing to those who write those extant newspapers are flowing in other directions. Those used to a comfortable life at a desk are losing their jobs. Why wouldn’t there be jeremiads to the loss of that nice life?
The only reason this is being discussed at a higher volume than today’s dreadful loss of buggy whip makers is that the physical switch makers didn’t have control of the places in which to whine in the manner the social scourges do.
In the Good Old Days, before ring-pulls on beer cans, dental-floss bikinis and pizza as a staple food, newspapers had something called a sub-editor. Her or his job was to ensure that only the best journalism got into the paper. This was because the physical size of the newspaper was limited by the amount of advertising it could get. The cover price only covered a small fraction of the costs. Today’s Guardian, if printed, would be too heavy to carry around. Any blogger, and that’s what the modern online journalist amounts to, can write directly into the page. As long… Read more »
Yes but, if this new venture is to rely on items like this, you are using Guardian content which if that organ were to expire would not be available. This makes this here a meta-news outlet.
OTOH, I don’t have to read the bloody Guardian to find out what is in it. Fortunately the entire crossword archive is online.
Because we[1] f**king hate the Guardian and we can’t wait for it to die. In fact it is worse than that because we are enjoying the prolonged suffering of the journalists and staff at the Guardian. If we felt the slightest compassion for them we would ask for them to be put down in a humane manner. [1] For some definition of “we” of course. Not the political class who depend on the papers for the brown nosing that substitutes for achievement in their careers of course. What is odd is that some people in the Guardian can do real… Read more »
“The first in our ever popular series…”
Members of the new-readership flood will be scratching their heads.
It is like the First Annual sports “Classic.”
Yes, but the Guardian’s market is lefties. They expertly appeal to their market, giving readers the exact daily pap that will reinforce their preconceived class-warfare notions. That the Guardian does not appeal to us is irrelevant, as we will never read the rag (okay, Rhoda, maybe the crosswords) except to peruse the source of one of Tim’s commentaries. This explains why the sub-editors religiously enforce rules of grammar but don’t curtail the economic nonsense. It follows that the Guardian will not improve its take by offering more nearly “real journalism” as measured by us. It might improve its take by… Read more »
Plus one for the Guardian crossword. The fact they are kind enough to allow me to print it off on a single sheet of A4 without the necessity of reading any of their other garbage does not in any way cause me to feel any sympathy for them.
Agree with Spike’s point that it is for lefties, but this rather reinforces Rod Liddle’s observation that a hard core of about 200 thousand lefties have excessive influence on UK politics via the media and social media. The same people who click to sign all the lefty petitions that then get ‘debated’ in parliament are the most active in the online forums and comments sections of the Guardian, Indy etc (and to a lesser extent the Huff Post etc as they are more US lefty biased). The echo chamber they create then drives the ‘thinking’ of the media and political… Read more »
“The first in our ever popular series…”
Members of the new-readership flood will be scratching their heads.
It is like the First Annual sports “Classic.”
Because we[1] f**king hate the Guardian and we can’t wait for it to die. In fact it is worse than that because we are enjoying the prolonged suffering of the journalists and staff at the Guardian. If we felt the slightest compassion for them we would ask for them to be put down in a humane manner. [1] For some definition of “we” of course. Not the political class who depend on the papers for the brown nosing that substitutes for achievement in their careers of course. What is odd is that some people in the Guardian can do real… Read more »
Yes but, if this new venture is to rely on items like this, you are using Guardian content which if that organ were to expire would not be available. This makes this here a meta-news outlet.
OTOH, I don’t have to read the bloody Guardian to find out what is in it. Fortunately the entire crossword archive is online.
In the Good Old Days, before ring-pulls on beer cans, dental-floss bikinis and pizza as a staple food, newspapers had something called a sub-editor. Her or his job was to ensure that only the best journalism got into the paper. This was because the physical size of the newspaper was limited by the amount of advertising it could get. The cover price only covered a small fraction of the costs. Today’s Guardian, if printed, would be too heavy to carry around. Any blogger, and that’s what the modern online journalist amounts to, can write directly into the page. As long… Read more »
Yes, but the Guardian’s market is lefties. They expertly appeal to their market, giving readers the exact daily pap that will reinforce their preconceived class-warfare notions. That the Guardian does not appeal to us is irrelevant, as we will never read the rag (okay, Rhoda, maybe the crosswords) except to peruse the source of one of Tim’s commentaries. This explains why the sub-editors religiously enforce rules of grammar but don’t curtail the economic nonsense. It follows that the Guardian will not improve its take by offering more nearly “real journalism” as measured by us. It might improve its take by… Read more »
Agree with Spike’s point that it is for lefties, but this rather reinforces Rod Liddle’s observation that a hard core of about 200 thousand lefties have excessive influence on UK politics via the media and social media. The same people who click to sign all the lefty petitions that then get ‘debated’ in parliament are the most active in the online forums and comments sections of the Guardian, Indy etc (and to a lesser extent the Huff Post etc as they are more US lefty biased). The echo chamber they create then drives the ‘thinking’ of the media and political… Read more »
Plus one for the Guardian crossword. The fact they are kind enough to allow me to print it off on a single sheet of A4 without the necessity of reading any of their other garbage does not in any way cause me to feel any sympathy for them.