Sleepwalking into Oblivion

January 25, 2010 2:24 PM

Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger on paywalls and the future of journalism.
posted by Artw (14 comments total)

Its upbeat, but it still doesn't answer the question as to who will be paying for journalisitic content to be provided. I note the Guardian and its sunday sister the Observer are currently hacking down the printed versions of their putput to save costs, with the Guardian's environment section already gone, the tech supplement now online only and the last Observer music monthly printed last weekend. Does Rusbridger have a plan to keep the Guardian solvent?
posted by biffa at 2:41 PM on January 25, 2010

Liked the comments on Murdoch's price tactics and the exponential leap in the US reach of the Guardian.
Saw recently that online advertising revenue in China has hit record levels; wonder if Western media outlets can get any slice of that - I know quite a few offer Chinese content now (the Guardian had tried but hit difficulties when their Chinese partner fell foul of the authorities) and that their English outlet reaches a wealthy elite I imagine would be attractive to advertisers.
posted by Abiezer at 2:43 PM on January 25, 2010

output, not outlet.
posted by Abiezer at 2:44 PM on January 25, 2010

I respect the sentiment, but the Guardian is losing £100,000 per day, and it's hard to see how they'll plug that gap without some massive leap in advertising revenues, or developing new revenue streams.
posted by adrianhon at 2:46 PM on January 25, 2010 [2 favorites]

Yeah, more than a bit disingenuous to run a piece hyping your editor's rosy predictions for the future and not even mention the fact that your paper just reported it was losing £100,000 a day. It's a kinda relevant piece of information, no?
posted by mediareport at 2:59 PM on January 25, 2010 [1 favorite]

"Rusbridger said that universal charging for newspaper content on the internet would remove the industry from a digital revolution which is allowing news organisations to engage with their readers more than ever before."

...which strikes me as exactly what much of the industry really wants. Having your content accessible (and able to be responded to) by the largest possible audience, most of whom contribute nothing to your revenue stream, seems way too messy for 'respectable journalists' to deal with.
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:16 PM on January 25, 2010

wonder if Western media outlets can get any slice of that

The media outlets wonder that too--if by wonder you mean drool and fantasize. That's what made it so remarkable when Google recently pushed back against China.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 3:19 PM on January 25, 2010

But if you judge newsmedia by their profitibilty, then FoxNews really is the "journalistic leader".
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:19 PM on January 25, 2010 [1 favorite]

You can't judge journalistic quality by profitability, but you can sure as heck judge likeliness to survive in the near-to-middling future by profitability.
posted by kyrademon at 3:41 PM on January 25, 2010

The main thing determining the Guardians likeliness to survive in the near-to-middling future is how much money the Scott Trust has.
posted by Artw at 3:55 PM on January 25, 2010

"The main thing determining the Guardians likeliness to survive in the near-to-middling future is how much money the Scott Trust has."

Or where the decimal place is, well, placed.
posted by vectr at 5:55 PM on January 25, 2010

Rusbridger is such an iphone cheering twat I find it hard to listen to anything he has to ay these days.

And I buy the Guardian.
posted by ciderwoman at 11:13 AM on January 26, 2010

After Three Months, Only 35 Subscriptions for Newsday's Web Site.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 1:27 PM on January 26, 2010

Rusbridger is such an iphone cheering twat I find it hard to listen to anything he has to ay these days.

The Guardian iPhone app is actually quite nice though, and it takes a lot to move me out of just using the actual website to view things.
posted by Artw at 1:34 PM on January 26, 2010