Apparently, crazy non-factual opinion just doesn’t sell all that well. Kind of reminds me of the doomed “Air America” radio network.
Climate resistance writes:
There are of course a number of reasons for the decline of ‘dead tree media’, one of which is the rise of Internet-based media. However, the internet had been around for a decade before the series above begins, during which time sales were stable, or possibly even showed an improvement.
This one graph tells the story:
![independentAndGuardianCirculation[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/independentandguardiancirculation1.jpg?quality=83)
However, I prefer a different explanation. All newspapers have lost sales. But the Independent and Guardian have suffered more than average, and I don’t believe their catastrophism is coincidental.
See whole story here: http://www.climate-resistance.org/2014/01/buy-a-newspaper-or-the-planet-dies.html
=============================================================
Dana Nuccitelli, phone your office.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I’d like to see how much “more than average” they have suffered. All print media are struggling these days.
If you remove the number of copies supplied daily to the BBC those Grauniad figures are considerably worse…
Kill the trees to save the trees? only in an alarmist’s delusional state does that make sense.
Confirmation bias rags don’t sell these days. One-sided propaganda.
charles the moderator says:
January 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm
“I’d like to see how much “more than average” they have suffered. All print media are struggling these days.”
Der Spiegel, German division of the NYT-Guardian-Spiegel NSA/CIA psyop axis, has a rather stable circulation of a million. Might have to do with German leftists being a lot thicker.
Disasterologist media like the Guardian have seen their day come and gone. Perhaps in a way highlighting sites like this one who fought against the AGW tide, growing, more relevant, and thriving. How times have changed.
What a pleasing and heart warming sight that graph is. I’m almost tempted to email it to both papers.
The Guardian is so desperate for money that its just carried out a fire sale of some of its profitable parts. Its sold AutoTrader to a private equity firm, netting nearly $1bn over a series of sales. The great thing is that it has done so using a secretive company based in the Cayman Islands so is avoiding tax, the same tax that it lambasts Amazon and Starbucks for avoiding. Both Guardian and Amazon et al use legal methods of minimising their tax, however the Guardian’s is Ok, Amazon’s is evil – the logic of the left.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-25830592
PS. You won’t find any mention of the tax avoiding in the BBC article, but then the BBC is one of the highest readers of the guardian, buying more copies of the Guardian than any other – http://order-order.com/2012/08/14/bbc-buys-the-guardian-more-than-any-other-paper/
Kinda looks like a hockey stick, upside down.
The Times and the Telegraph need to be plotted for the comparison (as stated on the blog comments).
Also, why does the Indy collapse in late 2011 and how many of their readers switched to the Guardian instead of giving up on left wing papers?
For me the problem came about because the editorial line is influenced by their readers’ comments in the online version. As the censorship became more stringent their feedback became more skewed. So they circled themselves like the Oozlum Bird.
Perhaps, that is the point. They obtain a small clientele but a focussed clientele. Such a clientele is easy to sell to marketing companies.
If you want lentil-eating, hemp-wearing insurance executives come hither!
Have these figures been adjusted and homogenized yet?
Bye bye Guardian
They are finding out that people don’t want to pay for propaganda.
Wonder about the Globe and Mail… the national green propaganda tool of Thomson Reuters in Canada.
Back to the issue of correlation and causation I guess. I would rather consider that in the context of solar cycles than more UK opinion mongers.
I hope the Grauniad and its Comment is Free sock puppets gets what they deserve.
Speaking of Air America, did Al Jazeera America face plant yet?
I think his graph would be a little bit more informative if he also put the Times, the Telegraph, and the Daily mail on that chart. Then we would have a better idea if this drop was systemic, or just confined to the more leftist papers.
Maybe Independant’s downward hockey stick blade has something to do with Climategate 2.0 in November 2011? Maybe people just started thinking enough already?
On one analysis I’ll be sorry to see the Guardian go because it was an important voice for liberty once. And in my youth “Newspaper” and “Guardian” were synonyms. Now I can’t stand the wretched rag, except for the Cryptic Crossword, still the best in the business.
Is this true?
http://garstontowers.blogspot.ca/2013/04/graphs-of-uk-newspaper-circulation.html
I think it’s really sad that a once great newspaper is falling on hard times. The newspaper media in the UK is saturated with right wing leaning papers with the Guardian being one of the few papers that takes a more liberal view. It’s partially a result of online news resources. Having said that I personally am deeply disappointed in it’s heavy handed moderation/censorship of comments in their online sections. They advertise that ‘comment is free’, it patently is not, and as a life long Guardian reader it pains me to see what has happened. The Guardian was once a champion of freedom of expression, currently it is almost impossible to follow the debate in some areas due to the dreaded censors red pen.
Many years ago the Manchester Guardian was a Liberal paper. It had some honour. Then it moved its business to London.
The only thing keeping the Guardian group going is its part ownerhip of AutoTrader – a magazine dedicated to the selling of second hand CO2 guzzling polluting cars.
In defence of the Guardian:
•The cryptic crossword and the daily quiz are fun
•The economic coverage is very good from a left-wing viewpoint It is a left-wing paper)
•The sports coverage is good for the north of England (online comments after a Liverpool game are more enlightening than all the other UK press experts)
•Generally, other than their environment section, online disagreement is allowed and challenged vigorously.
I have no defence for the Guardian environment section… not since Dana imported SkS censorship policies.
Is quality of journalism important in a british newspaper? I thought sales were driven by the page 2 content?