A question for people who can get the Standard. Since it has gone free is it a paper worth reading or is it just as bad as the Metro?
Standard is good on arts and reviews but seems to be full of articles going on about how London is the best city in the world and its all paradise here yadah yadah and it's fairly capitalist and love Boris Johnson- ie it's not a good paper IMO.
So they only want to read articles from people who agree with them? So much for the aim of quality newspapers being to make you think.
Reading newspapers whose views I don't agree with 100% is one thing. Reading newspapers that imply that anyone who disagrees even slightly with their worldview is at best mentally ill and at worst a scumbag deserving of being shunned, vilified and ostracised... yeah, I've got better things to do.
The Guardian - tick
The BBC - tick
Eastern Europeans - anyone ?
It's funny that you should mention East Europeans because you would think that with The Guardian being so pro-immigration, they would then employ a lot of cheap immigrant journalists in order to reduce their losses. After all what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
It's funny that you should mention East Europeans because you would think that with The Guardian being so pro-immigration, they would then employ a lot of cheap immigrant journalists in order to reduce their losses. After all what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Don't worry, they probably use cleaning firms who in turn use ZHCs to reduce costs further in employing the immigrants who clean their offices. While rallying against zero hour contracts of course.
Just think of the savings if they replaced Rusbridger and Toynbee for people on lower salaries. Anyone can write the sort of tripe La Toynbee comes out with.
Reading newspapers whose views I don't agree with 100% is one thing. Reading newspapers that imply that anyone who disagrees even slightly with their worldview is at best mentally ill and at worst a scumbag deserving of being shunned, vilified and ostracised... yeah, I've got better things to do.
Yes I have that concern about The Independent. too
The BBC buys thousands of copies and they're not exactly frugal with public money (they all take taxis everywhere, executives get £2000 private healthcare per year, big severance pay-offs for execs etc) so they'll pay £1.60 per copy no problem.
The BBC are doing their best to make sure The Guardian doesn't go bust because they's be lost without it.
Where would BBC News get it's editorial lines without it? Where would BBC presenters and panel-show comedians get their opinions?
But that's not a real comparison in terms of style of newspapers. The Times and the Telegraph both regularly produce high quality articles. Whether you agree with them or not isn't the question. What's the point of only reading articles you agree with? The point of reading them should be to make you think.
Why would I want to read a paper that campaigns against zero hours contracts while using them itself or articles about the benefits that immigration and multiculturalism has bought to out inner cities written by someone from the comfort of their farm house in Tuscany
Buying The Guardian for the first time in a while the other day I was amazed to discover it was £1.60-far more than its quality newspaper rivals. This has been a consistent pattern. I remember several years ago when the other quality titles were having a price war that The Guardian did not cut its price.
What it suggests is that it has an audience that is not price-sensitive, one which takes the view that whatever it costs, that's what it costs. That did set me thinking about whether that reflected a mindset amongst the liberal-left chattering class Guardian audience of being suspicious about attempts to cut costs, relatively affluent and so not resistant to cost increases and generally sniffy about competition, (the 'we don't need a Tesco in our town. We have a Waitrose already. That's sufficient' type of approach.)
If so, does that translate into their view of government? i.e. of being suspicious about any talk of being cost-effective, disliking competition between state services on the basis that their local school is OK and/or they're not services they makes much use of anyway.
In short does the fact that The Guardian apparently feel no pressure to be as cost-effective as the other quality papers tell us that their audience-who is likely to be largely Labour voting-don't much care about being cost-effective and assume that 'if it costs more it must be good'?.
In a word, no. The Guardian's audience lacks price sensitivity not because of some left-liberal idea that you should pay whatever is asked, but because they value the paper highly and don't have many other options.
Lets end this argument with one fact: The FT costs £2.50.
The BBC buys thousands of copies and they're not exactly frugal with public money (they all take taxis everywhere, executives get £2000 private healthcare per year, big severance pay-offs for execs etc) so they'll pay £1.60 per copy no problem.
The BBC are doing their best to make sure The Guardian doesn't go bust because they's be lost without it.
And well worth the money - which is perhaps why it (unlike the Guardian) is profitable. ;-)
That may be true - but it ends the argument made by the OP that people who are willing to spend £1.60 on a newspaper don't care about controlling costs.
But that's not a real comparison in terms of style of newspapers. The Times and the Telegraph both regularly produce high quality articles. Whether you agree with them or not isn't the question. What's the point of only reading articles you agree with? The point of reading them should be to make you think.
The Times Mon-Sat, balanced with The Observer on Sunday works for me.
The BBC buys thousands of copies and they're not exactly frugal with public money (they all take taxis everywhere, executives get £2000 private healthcare per year, big severance pay-offs for execs etc) so they'll pay £1.60 per copy no problem.
The BBC are doing their best to make sure The Guardian doesn't go bust because they's be lost without it.
Where would BBC News get it's editorial lines without it? Where would BBC presenters and panel-show comedians get their opinions?
It would be a disaster.
As the BBC sheds left wing anti BNP nuj jobs so the amount of Guardians it buys will go down.
Ah but the Financial Times is read by people who own the country rather than the people who think they should be running it
(to paraphrase Jim Hacker)
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.
Comments
Standard is good on arts and reviews but seems to be full of articles going on about how London is the best city in the world and its all paradise here yadah yadah and it's fairly capitalist and love Boris Johnson- ie it's not a good paper IMO.
Reading newspapers whose views I don't agree with 100% is one thing. Reading newspapers that imply that anyone who disagrees even slightly with their worldview is at best mentally ill and at worst a scumbag deserving of being shunned, vilified and ostracised... yeah, I've got better things to do.
It's funny that you should mention East Europeans because you would think that with The Guardian being so pro-immigration, they would then employ a lot of cheap immigrant journalists in order to reduce their losses. After all what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Don't worry, they probably use cleaning firms who in turn use ZHCs to reduce costs further in employing the immigrants who clean their offices. While rallying against zero hour contracts of course.
Just think of the savings if they replaced Rusbridger and Toynbee for people on lower salaries. Anyone can write the sort of tripe La Toynbee comes out with.
It's like reading a transcript from an A. Partridge/ Dan scene at the service station.
Yes I have that concern about The Independent. too
Does the website make money?
Could you post a link to that, doubt it.
Why would I want to read a paper that campaigns against zero hours contracts while using them itself or articles about the benefits that immigration and multiculturalism has bought to out inner cities written by someone from the comfort of their farm house in Tuscany
Hypocracy doesn't even begin to cover ir
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/story/28709/
The BBC buys more copies of the Guardian newspaper than any other paper in Britain – and spends over £600,000 – the equivalent of 4500 licence fee contributions on newspapers
In a word, no. The Guardian's audience lacks price sensitivity not because of some left-liberal idea that you should pay whatever is asked, but because they value the paper highly and don't have many other options.
Lets end this argument with one fact: The FT costs £2.50.
And well worth the money - which is perhaps why it (unlike the Guardian) is profitable. ;-)
That may be true - but it ends the argument made by the OP that people who are willing to spend £1.60 on a newspaper don't care about controlling costs.
I think I saw it didn't - which surprised people with the amount of page clicks it gets.
But that is relying on my memory and I am past forty now. ;-)
The Times Mon-Sat, balanced with The Observer on Sunday works for me.
As the BBC sheds left wing anti BNP nuj jobs so the amount of Guardians it buys will go down.
An excellent observation (brother). Providing someone remembers to reduce the corporate subscription.
Ah but the Financial Times is read by people who own the country rather than the people who think they should be running it
(to paraphrase Jim Hacker)
Originally Jimmy Tarbuck who added the Sun was read by people who didn't care who ran the country as long as they had big boobs
Hacker: Don't tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: the Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by people who actually do run the country; the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; the Financial Times is read by people who own the country; the The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is.
Sir Humphrey: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
Bernard: Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits.