How commercially successful are newspapers in the UK? And television stations other than the BBC that do news for that matter?
In the US almost every newspaper is struggling to survive, aside from a few “mega-papers” with national, if not global online subscriber bases or very wealthy individuals or corporations who own and support them (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, a few big regionals like the Los Angeles Times). Local papers that are not on the ropes are often owned by national media companies, mostly reprint stories from newswire services, and have very few full time local reporters able to do investigative work. It’s very hard to run a paper or a news website on ads anymore and subscriptions are hard to get people to pay unless you can offer all that a mega-paper can. Some independent journalists are succeeding with their own subscription based newsletters but only the most famous ones can make much of a living from that. There is talk of having nonprofits support local journalism and some limited success in doing so but not sure if it is enough.
Is this the case in the UK? What kind of financial shape are The Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Independent, etc, in? What about the Daily Mail or the tabloids? Do they make good business on their own or have to be supported by their owners? Do they make money mostly from
Subscriptions or ads?
There's been a lot of debate in France about political bias in satire. One major point is that left-wing satire is just funnier, because it hits up, where right-wing satire hits down.
I think there can be satire making fun of “left things” going to absurd extremes, though that doesn’t have to make the satire “right-wing.” When I currently encounter right-wing satire here in the US, it’s usually got a kind of meanness to it that puts me off, or it’s just kind of, well… lame.
Let me check the latest Mallard Fillmore comic strip…
How commercially successful are newspapers in the UK? And television stations other than the BBC that do news for that matter?
In the US almost every newspaper is struggling to survive, aside from a few “mega-papers” with national, if not global online subscriber bases or very wealthy individuals or corporations who own and support them (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, a few big regionals like the Los Angeles Times). Local papers that are not on the ropes are often owned by national media companies, mostly reprint stories from newswire services, and have very few full time local reporters able to do investigative work. It’s very hard to run a paper or a news website on ads anymore and subscriptions are hard to get people to pay unless you can offer all that a mega-paper can. Some independent journalists are succeeding with their own subscription based newsletters but only the most famous ones can make much of a living from that. There is talk of having nonprofits support local journalism and some limited success in doing so but not sure if it is enough.
Is this the case in the UK? What kind of financial shape are The Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Independent, etc, in? What about the Daily Mail or the tabloids? Do they make good business on their own or have to be supported by their owners? Do they make money mostly from
Subscriptions or ads?
Several of the big national papers (we have more than the US) are owned by rich media barons and have a right wing slant. The Guardian tries its best to be independent. The Daily Mirror is politically left. Local papers have various means of making money. My old local paper in Lancashire hired out its presses to national papers. Some club together to share journalists and presses.
The Telegraph has always had a Tory agenda in its editorial, comment and analysis but in the past was usually pretty balanced in its news reporting. In recent years though, the news reporting has also had an obvious Tory bias. I once heard it described as The Daily Mail with a college education.
I think most of the UK newspapers are funded by wealthy individuals, most of whom are right-wing. The Guardian is I think pursuing a model of funding by membership which seems to be working.
The Guardian is I think pursuing a model of funding by membership which seems to be working.
I'm not sure that's totally accurate - they're in another round of cuts because they're not raising anything like what they need. On the other hand, they're mostly kept afloat because they've got a vast amount of money sitting offshore.
I don't think there are any 'profitable' dailies at all now (though the Spectator as a weekly is I think) - the closest, depressingly, is probably the Daily Mail, but only because (depressingly again) it has massive penetration in other countries, most notably the US and Australia.
The Guardian is I think pursuing a model of funding by membership which seems to be working.
I'm not sure that's totally accurate - they're in another round of cuts because they're not raising anything like what they need.
I don't necessarily think this reflects their true position either to be honest. They announced last year that they were increasing staffing and the current cuts appear to be
less than that increase and to be affecting different areas. They've done this before, and it seems like a longer term strategy to pivot to different areas that they think bring additional audience (such as the shift towards podcasts).
On the other hand, they're mostly kept afloat because they've got a vast amount of money sitting offshore.
Yeah, although it's not like Kath Viner is in personal control of the Scots Trust, it has an independent mandate to sustainably fund the paper in the long term - complaining about it is very 'and yet you participate in society'.
The Guardian is I think pursuing a model of funding by membership which seems to be working.
I'm not sure that's totally accurate - they're in another round of cuts because they're not raising anything like what they need.
I don't necessarily think this reflects their true position either to be honest. They announced last year that they were increasing staffing and the current cuts appear to be
less than that increase and to be affecting different areas. They've done this before, and it seems like a longer term strategy to pivot to different areas that they think bring additional audience (such as the shift towards podcasts).
On the other hand, they're mostly kept afloat because they've got a vast amount of money sitting offshore.
Yeah, although it's not like Kath Viner is in personal control of the Scots Trust, it has an independent mandate to sustainably fund the paper in the long term - complaining about it is very 'and yet you participate in society'.
Cuts both ways though - I read the Guardian and every time they attack tax havens I find my ironymeter nearly explodes.
Comments
Dafyd Hell Host
In the US almost every newspaper is struggling to survive, aside from a few “mega-papers” with national, if not global online subscriber bases or very wealthy individuals or corporations who own and support them (NYT, WaPo, WSJ, a few big regionals like the Los Angeles Times). Local papers that are not on the ropes are often owned by national media companies, mostly reprint stories from newswire services, and have very few full time local reporters able to do investigative work. It’s very hard to run a paper or a news website on ads anymore and subscriptions are hard to get people to pay unless you can offer all that a mega-paper can. Some independent journalists are succeeding with their own subscription based newsletters but only the most famous ones can make much of a living from that. There is talk of having nonprofits support local journalism and some limited success in doing so but not sure if it is enough.
Is this the case in the UK? What kind of financial shape are The Guardian, Times, Telegraph, Independent, etc, in? What about the Daily Mail or the tabloids? Do they make good business on their own or have to be supported by their owners? Do they make money mostly from
Subscriptions or ads?
I was going to say this, yes!
Let me check the latest Mallard Fillmore comic strip…
Yep, still lame. And mean, in a couple of cases…
Several of the big national papers (we have more than the US) are owned by rich media barons and have a right wing slant. The Guardian tries its best to be independent. The Daily Mirror is politically left. Local papers have various means of making money. My old local paper in Lancashire hired out its presses to national papers. Some club together to share journalists and presses.
I'm not sure that's totally accurate - they're in another round of cuts because they're not raising anything like what they need. On the other hand, they're mostly kept afloat because they've got a vast amount of money sitting offshore.
I don't think there are any 'profitable' dailies at all now (though the Spectator as a weekly is I think) - the closest, depressingly, is probably the Daily Mail, but only because (depressingly again) it has massive penetration in other countries, most notably the US and Australia.
I don't necessarily think this reflects their true position either to be honest. They announced last year that they were increasing staffing and the current cuts appear to be
less than that increase and to be affecting different areas. They've done this before, and it seems like a longer term strategy to pivot to different areas that they think bring additional audience (such as the shift towards podcasts).
Yeah, although it's not like Kath Viner is in personal control of the Scots Trust, it has an independent mandate to sustainably fund the paper in the long term - complaining about it is very 'and yet you participate in society'.
Cuts both ways though - I read the Guardian and every time they attack tax havens I find my ironymeter nearly explodes.