Of course there are several factors to such an exclusive, not least of all the fact there's most likely not a single newspaper in the UK that doesn't have pretty well-formed plans B, C, D and maybe even E to mitigate falling sales. So word that the Observer is considering a mix of measures from shutting the paper in favour of a weekly magazine to making further cost-cuttings to both format and staff, is not the dirty secret of a lone paper the Times would have us believe, more a symptom of the current decline in print media affecting all such outlets. But that reality hasn't halted some ill-informed comments from the Times readership. According to today's Sunday Times, the Guardian Media Group is "plotting the closure of the Observer newspaper".
Anything that reduces the amount of socialist drivel in circulation is to be applauded... (A brave 'anonymous')
And…
"The trust has the core purpose of securing the financial position and editorial independence of The Guardian in perpetuity." And this is considered to be a proper charitable purpose, whereas providing education to children of parents who pay for it, is not? (Thomas Goodey) [er… the importance of a free and independent press, versus further handouts for public schools, discuss…] And... So the sandal wearing, coucous eating, politically correct liberals will have to read something else. (Keith Dutton) [Because, to embrace such crass stereotyping, this fall in sales would never happen to fox-hunting, immigrant-hating, right wingers...? Oh, hang on...]
And...
I will be sorry that a newspaper of such history will no longer exist, however, it is clear that people no longer wish to purchase newspapers with such left-wing sentiments, indeed you can link the slow death of the Observer with the decline of the Labour party. (J Sanderson) [And how would this argument explain the falling sales of the Telegraph, Times, Daily Mail and Sun?]
And…
If the Obs returns to its old structure, before it split off all the specialist supplements (which then had to be pumped up with fluff because there just wasn't enough material to fill them; and the Sport supplement was a bad joke, being predominantly football), it would probably survive. Keep the main paper and the magazine, and OFM - dump most of the rest. And cut the price. (Ron Graves)
The latter point, while the most coherent of a bad bunch, still illustrates a major problem all newspapers face and highlights the reason the web is killing print. Everybody - even the Keith Duttons of this world - thinks they would make a better editor - because they know what they like: drop the football; give us more food and restaurant reviews; stop covering pop music; focus on UK not foreign news, don't write about 'the ethnics', etc…
Sad but true, it reads like a perfect synopsis of why people choose RSS, Google News and aggregation of news and comment from multiple sites, rather than the broad mix of content from one outlet.
Will Sturgeon is director of media strategy at LEWIS PR and a former editor of silicon.com. He also blogs at sturgeonslaw.blogspot.com.
I like the Times and despite being owned by Murdoch I do rate its coverage in certain areas. But sadly its most vocal readers are clearly educationally sub-normal. I imagine Keith Dutton cries himself to sleep at night because of all the 'liberalism' in the world. What a bunch of losers!
Posted by: Ian Smith | Aug 02, 2009 at 18:15
Well done! Good post. I don't feel much loyalty to the Observer, but the Times just went down even further in my estimation - what a bunch of cretins!
Check out the other comments on the article. There's just enough people commenting to fill a 'special' minbus and drive them somewhere they can't be a danger to society!
Posted by: Abigail Fuller | Aug 02, 2009 at 18:17
All newspapers are going bust. The Observer won't even be first! £100 says the Independent/Indie on Sunday goes first. But Times readers should note the Times is going out of business too and falling fast.
Sorry but you'll all have to find new rags to read! ...or try the Interweb!!
Posted by: Chris W. | Aug 02, 2009 at 18:34