Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Please give us some money for our tabloid trollhole because we're hemorrhaging cash.
(we can have a serious discussion about this if you like, but it might be more fun to look at their price list and laugh at them: https://membership.theguardian.com/join)
how expensive is the package where you don't have to get this?
what time is Friends even on these days?
That's some full on patriarchal shit there you mother fuckers!
hard to imagine what kind of prick would shell out 500 quid on being a Guardian patron.
(Actually, it's really easy to imagine)
Mostly because they eliminate the need for the kind of shameful clickbait that the Guardian's been churning out recently. Still not going to pay for one mind but I reserve the right to complain haughtily when they keep churning out their trolling bollocks.
It doesn't eliminate the need for it at all.
That's not how sweeping generalisations work.
I think this is probably going to be combined with desperate attempts to drive up traffic rather than being an alternative...
Does perfectly nice coffee at the same price as any nearby coffee place. They should probably focus more on that side of things. Would make them more money.
is 20% discount on 'Guardian Live' events? What even is a 'Guardian Live' event?
Plus presumably a lot of the Kings Place gigs and concerts.
one every other day to make your cash back.
on the Announcements board?
And a chance to harrass their clueless cretins up close and personally.
Meths dropped his previous one, maybe he can get a new one?
HAHAHA! He looked!
and put part of DiS behind a paywall.
I suggest the Musicians & Festivals board
I'd pay to get the rest of the site blocked
'buying a newspaper'.
Jack in the website, don't bother with a diluted service or all this silly event stuff imo.
The digital side of things sustains the print editions.
Why the fuck don't they just bump up the price of the paper or stop printing it altogether then instead of this rubbish? Would presumably free up more resources to plug the mindless Buzzfeedery of late too.
...or stop printing the newspaper...
you'll all be jealous of my membership card
they're not introducing a proper pay-wall, just a fee to be a "member" and get some invites to live events?
a mailing where you can then buy tickets.
that's slightly mad.
Just go for the pay-wall guys. I'd pay for it. Loads of people would. You can even have a sliding scale of costs according to income if you want, I don't mind.
The perks aren't the main point, the point is you're supporting the guardian
also meths said "Just go for the pay-wall guys. I'd pay for it." i.e. he wants to pay money to the guardian for what he gets for free at the moment.
I don't want to attend their seminars though.
not like he read any of em
to get an email from the guardian
it's getting harder and harder to keep reading the guardian
they're also looking at opening some kind of members club.
I once sat in Alan Rusbridger's special reserved seat at a conference by accident. He didn't ask me to move, just sat next to me seething and glared at me for a couple of hours until I went home.
[That's a true story - a damn exciting true story - but feel free to consider it an allegory for something or other instead]
Love that he was too bedwetter to ask you to move.
I just go through, look at every headline, skip read the first paragraph of anything funny/mental, see if there's a good film on that night then chuck it in the bin. In reality, this is what all people do, imho, and if you're paying £1.60 a day for that then you're a fucking nutter.
looking forward to the new semester?
post wasn't intended as a dig at you, just a general observation.
and went through the paper in her room and asked them about the stories. Could she recall one name or piece from the content? Could she fuck.
I had the last laugh
As much as I dislike the Guardian (especially comment is free and vacuous lifestyle stuff, and their blatant unionist stance over the Scottish referendum, and their support of the Lib Dems during the last general election etc etc), I dunno where else I'd read the news- BBC I guess, but the online coverage is hardly in-depth.
It's essentially asking people to help support, beyond the cost of the cover charge, one of the few organs in the UK that actually pursues investigative journalism towards the end of increasing democracy, transparency and accountability. Outside of Private Eye there's no one else doing the same kind of thing in this country.
or even the Trafigura affair.
If I'm not mistaken he rang them up and offered them the story and Rusbridger took the decision to run with it. Not sure if he offered it to anyone else first...
a bit like the Wikileaks stuff (which was also a guardian story).
Snowden approached Greenwald, largely on the back of other reports he'd written for the Guardian and Salon.
I'm happy to pay good money for bold and robust editorial decision making too. Not really `investigative journalism` though. It's not out of the question that another broadsheet could've broken the story, but I'm happy the Guardian took on the risk on a personal level.
Not sure wikileaks belong here as a good example of a journalistic reveal here either, but there you go.
(and even that's debatable) could you see any other paper in the UK breaking the wikileaks stories, the phone hacking scandal or the NSA stuff?
At the end of the day, that's all you need to ask, really.
Phone hacking was a difficult one - because most papers probably engaged in it to some extent. Fair play to The Guardian for running with it and being able to not be implicated in it.
I'd argue that nothing that we're learnt from the wikileaks fall out has meaningfully furthered anything to do with the `democracy, transparency and accountability` you identify either.
investigative journalism is a source approaching a reporter first.
if you have a reputation for handling and publishing the stories and for protecting sources where they want/need it.
“It’s really annoying and complicated, the encryption software,” Greenwald said as we sat on his porch during a tropical drizzle. “He kept harassing me, but at some point he just got frustrated, so he went to Laura.”
"The article tells how Snowden first tried to win the attention of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald by anonymously emailing him to say he had sensitive documents he wanted to share.
He followed that up with a step-by-step guide on how to encrypt communications, and then sent a link to an encryption video. Greenwald ignored the approaches.
In frustration, Snowden contacted documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras. And it was she who eventually got in touch with Greenwald, drawing the three of them together."
Textbook investigative journalism!
civil servant offered to every paper?
they've done in years was phone hacking, and that only finally took off when they published something highly inflammatory...and completely wrong.
The Sun hacked Milly Dowler's phone, causing messages to be deleted.
You've swallowed the Kelvin Mackenzie version hook, line and sinker.
Anyway, enjoy watching Rusbridger playing the piano at King's Place.
I think it's a shame the Guardian or any publications that are actually socially progressive and contribute decent journalism have to worry about the market (and become more like a tabloid in doing so)
But they're not offering more transparency or influence to their 'patrons', it seems like they're just commodifying themselves further as some sort of events/promotional organization as well.
Surely it's actually a sign they're becoming more controlled by capital rather than an oppurtunity for their readers to free them of those pressures?
the guardian is definitely, definitely not unionist.
The paper as a whole, and the news side, definitely are.
would probably be willing to chuck them a smaller amount of money a month - I mean purely for Football Weekly if anything - but those prices are too much.
Don't they lose money on printing and selling the actual newspaper as well?
but the paper especially, even after they binned off all the supplements and sacked a load of people. Think they're still trying to claw back their losses from when they switched to 'Berliner' format instead of broadsheet or tabloid, which meant investing millions in a printing press just for themselves rather than sharing with other papers. This was all after the website took off.
all national papers lose money on the paper product.
(I think, not 100% sure, but it used to be the case)
With the decline of paid-for print media and more people having a fevered sense of entitlement to receive high-quality content for free (whilst often bemoaning the advertising beside it) it makes perfect sense that the Guardian has to attempt some kind of subscription service in order for it prop up its long-term survival.
It's in all of our interests to support these kinds of developments, if you ask me.
to go down the road of being a business, having slightly dodgy tax/finance/ownership arrangements, gearing its content to generate more traffic (rather than to just be, you know, good), and doing other annoying stuff and then realise that's not working and instead* say "actually, guys, could you chuck us a couple of hundred quid each to help us out, because supporting us is the *right* thing to do".
I do read the Guardian website quite a bit and would probably pay something to do this but they have to promise to be less annoying
because they're "good", when they actually stopped being good a long time ago, is pretty irksome. Basically boils down to not trusting them to sort their act out even if a load of Islington dweebs shell out £500 a year to them. And that stupid fucking advert for their Saturday paper with Hugh Grant in it.
You seem to understand the complexities of the print media markets and how to cross-subsidise their flagship product better than they do.
Glad to know that your morals regarding supporting a business whose content you often consume for free can be compromised simply by you finding them a bit irritating. Nice one.
Re: my morals: what?
shit and stuff.
Wouldn't it be great if there were a DIs thing like that (I don't mean just like a band night where we are just observers)
Imagine all of us, in a big room.......together
the only thing I can think of that would be better than that would be if it were fancydress.
bit Londoncentric, innit?