Paying for the guardian

[Cudzoziemiec]

I've been making a habit of reading online versions of Polish newspapers recently. They're no better than any of the British versions – if anything the standard of journalism is slightly lower – but they have the advantage of covering different stories (not just ones of Polish interest but different international ones) and the same ones from a slightly different angle. Substitute French etc to suit your own circumstances, or just the Otago Times or whatever.

I also tend to browse through the Economist when in a stupormarket but I can't bring myself to pay for it. And one of my favourite recently-discovered current affairs-ish magazines is one (again Polish) that describes itself as "a Catholic social-cultural journal"; it's quite different from how that makes it sound (mind you I've only read one issue!) but again it's a different perspective.

[nextSibling]

Used to support them for their investigative news and campaigns such as the whole phone-hacking scandal, but quit about a year back. I'm as much a hand-wavy-wishy-washy-liberal as any and sympathized with much of the opinion content but it's become so predictably, boringly on-message. The 'lifestyle' fashion/property content is cringingly lifestyles-of-the upper-middle-class-professional with six-figure income. The arts reviews still have the occasional gem. And yes, their myopic support for the Lib Dems was embarrassing. More recently, their so ploddingly obvious pro-Clinton and anti-Corbyn biases were/are equally blinkered. Read the print version for years when I lived in the UK, but doubt I would any more.

Hard to know where to go these days for hard news reporting with a progressive perspective.

[Asterix, the former Gaul.]

Really the Guardian's never been the same since it left Manchester.

[Morrisette]

I read the online version and buy a paper paper on Saturday. I do think the Graun is a bit too right-on at times but they are a lot closer to my way of thinking than any of the other papers. I was thinking the other day that I should start paying for online (I do ALWAYS buy the Saturday one so they do get some cash from me but not much I guess).

[Robh]

I buy the paper version every day, and the Observer at the weekend. That's my way of supporting them. However, I suspect that this is counter-productive, because it would probably be more financially efficient for them as an organisation if all of their readers just paid for the online version. I guess that makes me an 'Other', because I do check the online version during the day.

[tom_e]

I pay £30 per year for the ad-free app access.  Seems a bit confusing to choose between paying £30, £50 or £150 depending on your preference last time I checked.  The supporter £50 option wasn't clear if that gave me the ad-free app access or not.  Or I could pay £150 for the full subscription, which gets me other things I have no interest in, I think.

I alternate days with the telegraph.  Don't like to trust any one source for every day.  BBC used to be closer to balanced than most others, but I went off them after they get threatened by the government and seemed to kowtow a bit much in their choice of stories for my liking.  Can't bring myself to pay anything for the telegraph though, but it does me good to leave the bubble a bit. 

[rafletcher]

I'm another (along with my wife) who read the Indie from day 1 (we weren't married to each other when it started), and was very disappointed when it folded, even if it was by then a shadow of it's former self. My wife likes a print paper (she doesn't look at news online at all) and the Guardian is the only real alternative, plus she likes the Arts coverage. Personally if it were my decision I don't think I'd bother, I don't read all the opinion pieces anyway.  If it folds as a print issue (or rather when) I'm not sure what we'd do (assuming I'm still around that is!).  I can't think of any other broadsheet I'd want to pay for. I'd probably stick with the BBC and other online news sources, I doubt I'd pay for a specific publication online.

[PeteB99]

Up till about 15 years ago my lunchtime stroll took me past a papershop and I usually bought a Guardian. Now I just buy the Saturday edition. Most of my news consumption is from BBC (Website and radio) and there's no other paper I'd consider on a regular basis.

[Mr Larrington]

I used to buy the Graun daily when I was in the Gulag as it helped ward off the compressed Stupid emitted by some of my fellow zeks, and I even got round to being not too bad at its crossword.  Though in a previous life I used to buy the Torygraph purely for the crossword.

[PeteB99]

A work colleague buys the Torygraph everyday and runs off half a dozen photocopies of the crossword for the rest of us

[ian]

I occasionally glance at their site, amongst many others, none of which I pay for. I appreciate their predicament and attempts to diversify because the great thing about the internet is that everyone wants and believes everything should be free apart from their own stuff.

In principle I'd pay if I did more than glance, but with such a variety of news sources, I like to mix and match. I like their generic news coverage, but the site is understandably clickbaity (ironically one of their key revenue streams is effectively those weird women-hating racists that float like submerged turds in the comments section of any news site). The Guardian did teach me (in exchange for a substantial chunk of mothership cash) how to create impactful infographics amongst other things. Tough thing is that good journalism costs money and people are less and less inclined to spend money on newspapers.

[Speshact]

In a fit of inspiration (I'm normally hopeless at making Xmas lists) I've asked my MIL for a membership - half for Christmas and half for birthday. She thinks that's a great idea.

I pay a few pounds a month to my hyper-local news source (@se1), bung a tenner a year to Wikimedia, and a quid a month to YACF. All good sources of entertainment and information, much of which is acceptably reliable.

[Polar Bear]

mllePB buys the guardian more days than not so I do read parts of the paper version from time to time.   i also read occasional online articles.

I would pay for it in principle as it's better than watching television imo.   

[Morrisette]

....and I've become a supporter as of today. The £49 option. I think it's quite important that proper journalism is still available.

I used to read it every day as a student (they used to do half price for NUS members iirc), and my dad got it daily when he was working so it's the paper I grew up reading. I converted Mr M to it - he used to read the Mirror, largely because his dad got that one delivered. Their local shop only ever has about 2 Guardians, so you have to get up early if you want to read it in Wales!

Their conversion to the Berliner size coincided to the day with us moving into our first house - we have grown up together, the Graun and I!

[mattc]

I'm inclined to think that the sooner the Murdoch-lead mainstream media dies out, the better.  But I suspect that the void would be filled by the likes of Google and Facebook, which isn't necessarily an improvement.

Christ, no, please don't let the internet take over [at least not in its current unregulated state]. Dipping into random threads about the US Elections has been 100% depressing.

meanwhile, I do value "proper" journalism, so I don't begrudge the couple of quid we spend on papers a week (usually just a Saturday one). I can generally get some use/enjoyment from all the broadsheets. The Guardian probably represents my ideologies/prejudices the best, but perhaps that is why I find myself more drawn to The Times! I do find the lefty ranting grates after a while - at The Times they must be more subtle, cos I don't notice the bias half as much.

[MagnusOpus]

I used to get the Guardian in paper format regularly, and pretty much every Saturday, up until about 5 years ago.

Then I discovered the phone app, and got addicted to the below the line comments shortly before the Snowden stuff came out (which in my view was the last decent bit of journalism the paper did).

Although at that point I may have considered giving them my money, the last few years have seen such a big change in the editorial angle that I doubt I ever will. I'm not sure what happened in the basement with the angle grinder, but since then the paper has been dire, and about as unbiased as recent BBC news output, I still check out the below the line comments, though increasingly any useful information is buried in under a ton of astroturf.

Now I know they don't like Putin, and I understand in many ways he isn't a nice man, but their coverage of the situation in both Ukraine and Syria has been shamefully biased and warmongering, riddled with very dubious "facts", completely ignoring the role the UK and US governments have played in sowing chaos in these countries for our own ends, and the extremely unsavoury elements we have supported in both these conflicts. 

Add to that their constant undermining of the twice elected Labour party leader, the regular rolling out of Tony Blair, the cheerleading for Clegg when he had his chance and the total lack of any criticism of the worst government I can remember in my lifetime. I could go on and on, and just don't get me started on Polly fucking Toynbee!

Maybe it's just my disillusionment with the current nearly broken political consensus, but I can't see me contributing to keep this once valuable organ going unless it sorts itself out

I feel better for that rant

Mike

[Cudzoziemiec]

The Telegraph is making more and more articles "Premium". I don't know how much that costs or whether you get anything else for your money. The Times has had its paywall for years as have most of the more specialized newspapers like Financial Times and Economist and journals. So the Guardian merely asking for money is both a mild case and an odd one, as if they can't bear to commit themselves to charging for news. I read somewhere recently that putting news online and making it free has actually resulted in falling readership of both print and online editions; the reasoning is that people won't buy the print version when they can read for free but then won't pay much attention to that cos being free devalues it in their mind. This leads to falling advertising revenue too, of course. I think that was focused on Usanian regional newspapers but probably a similar mechanism is at work worldwide. Presumably tabloids can afford to continue with free access online because their larger readership means more ad income, and the cost of online news is the same however many or few people read it. There was also a cost breakdown in the Guardian recently and by far their biggest cost was printing, followed by distribution of the print edition.

[Polar Bear]

Once you go online you have masses of free choice, especially in UK where we have Aunty Beeb.   I get the feeling that people don't want the big read in depth articles online as there is not much of that about.   

As I cannot read newsprint any more I will not mourn the passing of chip wrapping. 

[Tigerrr]

8/40 isn't a stat that bodes well for the guardian if our figures reflect anything like the marketplace. I think the guardian online for free is a road to financial ruin - but then the print version is pretty much dead anyway. I think I might have to stump up and pay.

[Kim]

I get the feeling that people don't want the big read in depth articles online as there is not much of that about.

Or perhaps simply less need for it, as there are a wealth of other sources online (encyclopedia articles, organisations' websites, scientific papers, enthusiasts' blogs, etc.) that allow you to read up on a given subject in detail for yourself.

[Ham]

On the basis that I'm turning to them more and more for an understanding of wtf is going on around the place, I've signed up for the online version, so my vote should change