Austerity at the Grauniad
Discussion
FT reports enormous annual loss at the gurdian, resulting in widespread redundancies.
Putting aside the 'socialists find running a business is harder than it looks' shocker, I was surprised that they can't just shake the magic money tree rather than introduce austerity measures. I am confused, because I thought the answer to an annual deficit was simply to borrow more money.
Can someone explain where I have gone wrong in my understanding?
Putting aside the 'socialists find running a business is harder than it looks' shocker, I was surprised that they can't just shake the magic money tree rather than introduce austerity measures. I am confused, because I thought the answer to an annual deficit was simply to borrow more money.
Can someone explain where I have gone wrong in my understanding?
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/guardian-losses-repo...
This offers some tantalising glimpses. Alan Rusbridger is the previous editor, and was briefly chairman of the trust which owns the Guardian. It seems he massively increased staff without massively increasing income, which never works too well.
The underlying numbers aren't as bad (but they're still bad) but the Guardian is very heavily over-staffed at the moment. The new editor seems to be reducing headcount quite quickly which explains some of the extra costs, but some £80m of the loss is a writedown in the value of a non-newspaper part of the business.
This offers some tantalising glimpses. Alan Rusbridger is the previous editor, and was briefly chairman of the trust which owns the Guardian. It seems he massively increased staff without massively increasing income, which never works too well.
The underlying numbers aren't as bad (but they're still bad) but the Guardian is very heavily over-staffed at the moment. The new editor seems to be reducing headcount quite quickly which explains some of the extra costs, but some £80m of the loss is a writedown in the value of a non-newspaper part of the business.
Newc said:
FT reports enormous annual loss at the gurdian, resulting in widespread redundancies.
Putting aside the 'socialists find running a business is harder than it looks' shocker, I was surprised that they can't just shake the magic money tree rather than introduce austerity measures. I am confused, because I thought the answer to an annual deficit was simply to borrow more money.
Can someone explain where I have gone wrong in my understanding?
They are shaking down everyone who visits the website. There's a constant footer on there asking for £50 a year to provide 'ongoing excellent journalism'.Putting aside the 'socialists find running a business is harder than it looks' shocker, I was surprised that they can't just shake the magic money tree rather than introduce austerity measures. I am confused, because I thought the answer to an annual deficit was simply to borrow more money.
Can someone explain where I have gone wrong in my understanding?
They published this hatred-of-Britain revenge piece over the weekend calling for 'maximum economic damage' to the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul...
It's ironic then that they themselves are the ones suffering economic damage and risk going burst.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul...
It's ironic then that they themselves are the ones suffering economic damage and risk going burst.
BlackLabel said:
They published this hatred-of-Britain revenge piece over the weekend calling for 'maximum economic damage' to the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul...
It's ironic then that they themselves are the ones suffering economic damage and risk going burst.
The article is very funny and difficult to take seriously.https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul...
It's ironic then that they themselves are the ones suffering economic damage and risk going burst.
The EU knows the score: too easy will increase the queue at the exit, too harsh will increase the queue at the exit, so a straight bat is in order.
Apart from anything else Merkel as de facto EU boss won't allow Grauniadesque silliness and has spoken out in that manner.
She has said there will be no UK cherry picking, which supports the EU side, and has also said that the EU should maintain close relations with the UK which it cannot do if it adopts the article's daftness. A straight bat.
The Telegraph, Express and Times are all suffering. The Sun keeps the Times alive, but for how much longer. Over the last 15 years circulations have plummeted. In essence, printed paper is all but dead.
The Eye reports on their demise fortnightly.
Even the DM only makes money by other means. It's circulation has dropped as well.
Dropping circulation and income is not limited to the Guardian.
The jewel in the DM's crown is Mail online. It is free. I think that is one of the two things that helps it most. The other one is its right-hand column.
I policed Fleet Street at a time when papers set the agenda. Great times, but history now. The fourth estate is the internet. Papers have lost their place.
The Eye reports on their demise fortnightly.
Even the DM only makes money by other means. It's circulation has dropped as well.
Dropping circulation and income is not limited to the Guardian.
The jewel in the DM's crown is Mail online. It is free. I think that is one of the two things that helps it most. The other one is its right-hand column.
I policed Fleet Street at a time when papers set the agenda. Great times, but history now. The fourth estate is the internet. Papers have lost their place.
Derek Smith said:
Even the DM only makes money by other means. It's circulation has dropped as well.
Dropping circulation and income is not limited to the Guardian.
That's correct but it hides the abysmal figures for the Guardian (current circulation 175,000) compared to the Mail (1,600,000) and the relative size of the drop in, for example, the last year which was 10% for the Guardian and 5% for the Mail.Dropping circulation and income is not limited to the Guardian.
The overall fall in the last year (to 2015, 2016 is still here) was 7.7% so the Guardian is underperforming against the UK baseline.
Its paper position has been precarious for some time.
Online, both are currently free iirc, and while the Mail has 'the right hand column' it is at least free from begging messages.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 25th July 20:24
turbobloke said:
Derek Smith said:
Even the DM only makes money by other means. It's circulation has dropped as well.
Dropping circulation and income is not limited to the Guardian.
That's correct but it hides the abysmal figures for the Guardian (current circulation 175,000) compared to the Mail (1,600,000) and the relative size of the drop in, for example, the last year which was 10% for the Guardian and 5% for the Mail.Dropping circulation and income is not limited to the Guardian.
The overall fall in the last year (to 2015, 2016 is still here) was 7.7% so the Guardian is underperforming against the UK baseline.
Its paper position has been precarious for some time.
Online, both are currently free iirc, and while the Mail has 'the right hand column' it is at least free from begging messages.
Edited by turbobloke on Monday 25th July 20:24
Daily circulation figures from 200 - 2016 (rounded up or down to the nearest 100,000)
DM: 2.5m - 1.6m
Sun: 3.6m - 1.8m
Mirror: 2.3m - 0.8m
Telegraph: 1m - 0.5m
Express: 1m - 0.4m
Times: 0.7m - 0.4m
FT: 0.4m - 0.2m
Against these figures the Guardian’s 0.4m - 0.2m is about par for the course.
If we go back even further, say 60 years, then the Times has increased circulation, as has the Guardian to a limited degree, but the once great Express has dropped by a factor of 10. All the others have dropped as well.
All major papers have, to a greater or lesser extent, suffered. The only challenge to this is the new version of the Standard.
Cut it any way you like, poor management is the norm in papers. The Guardian is no exception. Nor, it would appear, is the FT.
As I say, read the [i[Eye[/i].
Newc said:
FT reports enormous annual loss at the gurdian, resulting in widespread redundancies.
Putting aside the 'socialists find running a business is harder than it looks' shocker, I was surprised that they can't just shake the magic money tree rather than introduce austerity measures. I am confused, because I thought the answer to an annual deficit was simply to borrow more money.
Can someone explain where I have gone wrong in my understanding?
Yes, they should have invested in higher wages for staff or a new building, job done!Putting aside the 'socialists find running a business is harder than it looks' shocker, I was surprised that they can't just shake the magic money tree rather than introduce austerity measures. I am confused, because I thought the answer to an annual deficit was simply to borrow more money.
Can someone explain where I have gone wrong in my understanding?
Derek Smith said:
Figures for 12 months are hardly useful. Let's go back further: (etc)
Yes, agreed again, you / we can go back any amount of time, but I would still say that figures for the last 12 to 18 months are indeed useful - they start to explain a decent part of why the Guardian (OP, thread title) is apparently undergoing austerity now not then, after begging on its website for months not years. The starting point for the G's recent decline is also material, it's gone from naff all to beluga all.
They do make good points:-
'The first argument for hurting the UK is by now well rehearsed: prevent another reckless exit on the basis of lies. Europhobe parties across Europe are anxious to repeat the feat of their British counterparts: using distortions, half-truths, racism and delusional fantasies to cheat their way to victory.'
'The first argument for hurting the UK is by now well rehearsed: prevent another reckless exit on the basis of lies. Europhobe parties across Europe are anxious to repeat the feat of their British counterparts: using distortions, half-truths, racism and delusional fantasies to cheat their way to victory.'
BlackLabel said:
They published this hatred-of-Britain revenge piece over the weekend calling for 'maximum economic damage' to the UK.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul...
It's ironic then that they themselves are the ones suffering economic damage and risk going burst.
Any paper that publishes something like that deserves to be shut down. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul...
It's ironic then that they themselves are the ones suffering economic damage and risk going burst.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff