No, really I am! I don't think - no, it's an absolute certainty - that I have ever bought a copy of The Guardian. It's a Left-wing loony-bin as far as I am concerned but the news that it has decided to shrink itself in order to try and stem the financial losses it is suffering does not fill me with joy. I remain convinced that the health of the nation - any nation - depends on a vibrant free press and I am not absolutely certain that the internet will adequately fill the gap were it to disappear entirely. The Leveson enquiry is likely to stick a dagger in the money-making heart of the Red Tops if, as seems likely, he cracks down on 'sleb' hunting. Five or six million people a week parted with their hard-earned cash to buy the 'Screws of the World' every Sunday but if they are to be denied their titillating tittle-tattle will they continue to do so?
I do not buy a paper except on a Saturday and rely for daily information on Sky News which I have running constantly but with the sound off - unless something exciting is going on. Also, of course, I skim the internet news slots. Whilst I gain a fair bit of information that way I confess, unashamedly, that I still rely on brainier types than me to interpret it. Well, you didn't think these brilliant, insightful posts of mine were all my own work, did you? Oh, you didn't! Right, well, anyway, I worry whether there will be enough money in the reporting and the interpretation of news even if they sack all the printers and rely totally on the internet. It will depend on the advertisers, I guess, but with our current economic woes how deep will their pockets be?
Mind you, I suppose that as far as The Guardian is concerned they could make a start by paying that Rusbridger fella' a whole lot less than he is supposed to earn these days! And after that they could take a look at 'Chianti' Polly's pay cheques which, given the tat she produces, are almost certainly far too large.
You underestimate yourself David. Your chatty, witty self-deprecating style is far more readable than the vast majority of professional journalists manage and your interests are wider too. The Guardian churns out turgid, misleading drivel that doesn't even entertain. It deserves to go under.
Maybe we'll just move on to internet news media sustained by advertising and maybe subscription.
Posted by: A K Haart | Saturday, 17 December 2011 at 19:58
DD, there was me thinking that the similarity between your content and that of our major intellectual commentariat was due to them lifting it from D&N!
I quite like some aspects of the Guardian. Lots of it is complete knee-jerk rubbish, but some of the writing is quite amusing. CiF was fantastic, but that was before I got banned (or "pre-moderated", as the hypocritical illiberal tossers call it!!)and without me, it's just not the same....
I cheered when the News of the World went. But on reflection, I shouldn't have done. Every newspaper increases our chance of freedom, even if it is not immediately obvious at the time. Good luck to the Guardianistas, hypocritical rich privileged misguided naive bossy shits though they undoubtedly are.
Posted by: Whyaxye | Saturday, 17 December 2011 at 20:41
Did you see that the Guardian story that brought down the News of the Screws - that some bastard had hacked into Milly Dowler's phone and deleted messages - has turned out to be false?
Posted by: dearieme | Saturday, 17 December 2011 at 21:51
AK, thanks for your kind words, as it happens there is a vacancy for the job of being my agent, the pay's crap, and the boss is crappier but look upon it as a challenge!
'W', it always made me snort with derision that a so-called 'liberal' newspaper blog censored its readers' comments.
DM, yes, I saw that and I also saw the blustering prat who originally broke the story.
Posted by: David Duff | Sunday, 18 December 2011 at 09:41