Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

There is a funny sort of thing about the filler of newspapers now living forever online. We tend to think of online as a devalued version of the "real" newspaper, i.e. it's not tangible, and you don't have to pay for it. Yet at the same time, it lasts forever, can be linked to, read, commented upon -- for eternity. Newspapers have traditionally represented exactly the opposite of this.

it's tomorrow's ... (nuclear) fission (silicon) chip paper!

[that was a sentimental tribute to Beano / Dandy / Tomorrow's World / lolly-sticks, etc, c.1979]

I have just seen the caption 'a man skins up a joint' on the relevant Graniaud photograph.

you'd think they'd recognise Cameron by now

Well it's been four years since he won Big Brother.

you can't draw moustaches and make up on pictures of people's faces as easily online than a paper newspaper

or draw comedy sideburns to make Lampard look like star of 1971 show The Comedians.

OTM

or draw comedy sideburns to make Lampard look like star of 1971 show The Comedians

Or like Frank Lampard Snr.

I think it's a great idea since I can just read them online and not have to waste hard earned cash on buying them

... which is fine, as long as you accept that plummeting sales = plummeting ad revenue = cutbacks = (whinging hacks like me being out of work; that's not so much of a problem) = the inevitable downward spiral in which newspapers are caught.

no, i can't actually blame the readers for that; it's a problem of newspapers' making. as stet has pointed out repeatedly: we, the press, have fucked it right up. however: enjoy it while we can, because it sure as fuck ain't a sustainable model.

firefox plugin to doodle spunking cocks and scrawl 'TURMOIL' on the pictures PLZ NAO

surprised more papers aren't doing a subscription version alongside a free version

e.g. subscribe and get music and video downloads + offers

theonion is free innit

Subscription doesn't work online, the FT tried it and fucked it up monumentally. And if ppl aren't willing to pay for a reliable archive of business news they're certainly not going to be willing to pay for anything else. Except porn obviously.

gf I think that was the joek!

but, yeh, people haven't been willing to pay for news since the advent of the radio -- it's all the other trinkets that papers were bought for, but internet has far better, shinier trinketry

i'm not suggesting pay for News but for other things that papers can act as guides/filters for v well. subscription works for certain kinds of content e.g. music, video plus a few other things you'd otherwise have to pay for in print. i wouldn't expect it to work for something like the FT.

i only buy paper to pass the time when i'm on a train and do crosswords.

The worry is that news is the only thing newspapers do even half-well, so could they ever come up with music/video/etc stuff that would compete with here/you tube/4chan -- and compete well enough that people would stump up?

Going by current stabs at "video" I suspect not.

i never buy papers so probably wouldn't pay for any form of online content either ah well there goes my argument (but people do pay for certain podcasts etc.)

That's exactly the sort of thinking I get at the office. "Well, I never pay for anything online [2s pause] so! We're going to monetise online advances in a flexible cross-title way! People might buy mugs branded with their favourite football team's colours from us"

i do pay for music tho, and would pay for video downloads online depending on what they were (not pr0n) and the versatility of format (can i mess around with it in premiere with no fuss? itunes sez no). as usual tho i fear i am in distinct minority.

I think it's the right lines -- papers will need to take the GMG route and use money-making enterprises (auto trader, the radio stations) to prop up a wheezing news beast. Thing is very few people are making big money from website content anywhere, so it's pretty daunting.

Especially for publishers who still grasp the wrong end of a mouse.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ruth_fowler/2008/04/club_rules.html

^^this broad really is pisspoor.

Haven't we already done this one somewhere else?

I think its a different, althought very similar piece.

I don't think I've seen so many strawmen in one place before. Who on earth are these people?

A month or so ago I phoned up the Guardian and told them that Julie Burchill only had eight weeks to live, and that everyone in the media was frantically trying to find a replacement.

sounds plausible. jules could write, was the thing.

She's not dead yet, don't try and rob her of those precious last four weeks!

I think Ruth Fowler deserves some respect for discovering this exciting new development.

Did you know she went to Cambridge?

I guess what's funnier is the self-flagellation of the Graun for printing her.

Did you know she went to Cambridge.

Cue standard gag re. getting beaten by Kidderminster Harriers 4-1.

Did you know she went to Cambridge.

And yet amazingly she also worked as a stripper!

Gotta top up those grants somehow.

Maybe we should have a few weeks where we pick on a different broadsheet. This shit's embarrasing--like making fun of a retarded kid.

troo.

torygraph?

You've gotta work your way up to that shit, start with the Times.

Damian Thompson's blog looks like a fertile source of OW MY HEAD

Times is even more of a joke than Guardian though?

Interests of balance tho.

That's why The Times is a good starting point. Maybe the Indy as well but yeah political balance and shit. The Torygraph is more solid across the board but when they decide to be ridiculous they top everyone.

I give 'Comment Is Free' about a year, tops. Until the 'ooh blogging, how modern!' thing finally dies down and they realise they're just paying shit journalists for no reason and lacerating their brand in the process.

^^ i really hope so. this will sound ridic and precious, but stuff like the thing i linked to does actively put me off.

i give daily enrique links to the guardian about a year, tops.

I give 'Comment Is Free' about a year, tops. Until the 'ooh blogging, how modern!' thing finally dies down and they realise they're just paying shit journalists for no reason and lacerating their brand in the process.

OTM.

Glad that Times thread has started, let's do that for a few weeks.

it's a game of opinions

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2008/05/it_was_while_watching_the.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/27/religion

^^ this is guy is a choad.

united states independent music lovers:pitchfork media::british:guardian

i wish there was a last call for internet connections