
Guardian records first operating profit since 1998 - laurex
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48111464
======
asaph
> However, the operating profit excludes cash payments of between £25-30m for
> capital costs and other business expenditures, which are an annual draw-down
> from the Scott Trust, of which The Guardian is part. If these annual costs
> were included, The Guardian would still be loss-making

At first, I misinterpreted this to mean they're counting money granted by a
wealthy donor as profit. And without that, they would still be losing money.
But, as clarified in the comments below, the Guardian is actually _paying_ the
Scott Trust. Also the Scott Trust _owns_ The Guardian. Forgive my confusion.
This isn't a straightforward relationship.

> Nevertheless, the operating profit marks the completion of a three-year plan
> that few observers thought likely to succeed, and which leant heavily on a -
> for British media at least - eccentric business decision to ask readers to
> contribute financially for something they could get for free.

So the business model is asking users for a donation? This sounds more like a
non-profit to me.

I guess this is better than bleeding millions/year but we can hardly call this
a good business.

~~~
cptskippy
> So the business model is asking users for a donation?

With people's ever growing concerns about malware, ransomware, privacy
invasions and the invasive nature of ads, people are turning to Ad-Blockers so
this makes sense. I started using an Ad-Blocker a long time ago and I've
always struggled with it because I know it's robbing sites of revenue, and at
the same time I felt violated by all the ads I saw whenever I turned it off.

Back in 2017 when the Guardian started showing those big yellow banners at the
bottom of articles, I started contributing. If I'm on a site more than a few
times a year and they have an option to contribute, I try to.

I really think there's some space for innovation here. I like contributing to
journalism and I don't want to setup annual subscriptions for 20 different
sites, but I can't easily keep track of which sites I frequent or when I last
contributed.

~~~
Freak_NL
There is Blendle, but I hate paying per article — it places a restrictive
barrier on freely browsing articles. Blendle also misses a lot of quality
newspapers (like the Dutch NRC).

~~~
eitland
I love the original idea of Blendle, low price articles, no payment if you
leave within a few seconds.

Haven't used it recently since they hadn't too many of the articles I wanted
&& I have a sneaking suspicion that refunds aren't as easy anymore.

~~~
Doubl
I tried it and didn't like the model. Paying per article is just crazy, it
makes you feel like you have to watch what you're spending all the time. I'd
rather a fixed amount that leads me read as much or as little as I choose

~~~
eitland
Is it somehow worse than browsing a bookshelf in a bookstore or the magazines
in a kiosk?

~~~
givehimagun
No it's not worse. I think the author you replied to was stating that it's
nicer to pay a flat fee and get unlimited viewing (itunes, google play,
spotify, netflix, etc). Can we have that for journalism?

~~~
r3bl
Apple News?

I'm genuinely intrigued by the promises of that service, but I'm not willing
to pay $1000+ for hardware to access it.

~~~
hinkley
Well, if you go iPad, $400 but point taken.

------
growlist
Whilst there have always been loony left, misandrist etc. articles in the
Guardian (I speak having read it regularly since the 80s) I'd argue that to
make their supporter model work they've had to drop their editorial standards
lower still.

~~~
AsyncAwait
> Whilst there have always been loony left, misandrist etc. articles in the
> Guardian

Speaking as someone on the left in the UK, I can assure you the Guardian has
been more and more centrist as time goes on. I think the confusion is that
they do in fact publish loony articles sometimes on social issues, because
guess what? That's easy to do without really addressing any economic problems.

On the economic front they're as centrist as they get, regularly attacking the
likes of Corbyn in ways that the Sun is starting to envy, smearing Assange
once they're done profiting off him, printing puff pieces for the Saudi Crown
Prince etc. The Guardian is no darling of the (grassroots) left, I can assure
you.

~~~
sievebrain
Monbiot still has a regular article there, he's as far left as it gets. Maybe
a holdover from the past but the Guardian is still really keen on
nationalisation, regulation, state control over everything, the EU etc. The
modern left doesn't argue in terms of _direct_ state control anymore, just
indirect control through vast and vague regulations.

~~~
k1m
> Monbiot ... is as far left as it gets

Not at all. See The Dangerous Cult of the Guardian by former Guardian
journalist Jonathan Cook:

[https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/28/the-dangerous-
cult-o...](https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/28/the-dangerous-cult-of-the-
guardian/)

> George Monbiot, widely considered to be the Guardian’s most progressive
> columnist, has used his slot to attack a disparate group on the “left” who
> also happen to be harsh critics of the Guardian.

Media analysts Media Lens have written a lot on Monbiot too.
[http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-
archive/search-t...](http://medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-
archive/search-the-archive.html?searchword=monbiot&searchphrase=all)

~~~
sievebrain
I'm not sure that refutes anything. One of the hallmarks of far left views is
the intense infighting between rival factions that seems to accompany them.
Far left types attacking each other despite agreeing on nearly everything is
not new.

------
ChrisSD
The Guardian editor-in-chief on breaking even against the odds:
[https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/may/01/the-
guardian-...](https://www.theguardian.com/global/2019/may/01/the-guardian-
break-even-katharine-viner)

------
Freak_NL
I've setup a yearly donation of €12. As someone outside of the UK, The
Guardian has proven to be one of the few sources of reliable, in-depth
reporting on the Brexit shambles (I do miss ColinCaserole though).

Ideally, I would be able to set up an all-you-can-eat subscription to a number
of well-regarded international newspapers for languages that I am proficient
in and access them at will from both a single portal (like Blendle, but
absolutely not paying per article) and the newspapers own websites.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
>'The Guardian has proven to be one of the few sources of reliable, in-depth
reporting on the Brexit shambles.'

In many ways, The Guardian is a remarkable paper. It does not publish
falsehoods, or - for the most part - appeal to the worst in people. It is
committed to the defence of civil liberties, and to ensuring that journalism
is open to everyone, regardless of their income.

But it's coverage of Brexit is highly partisan. It is not unreliable in the
sense of being inaccurate; it is simply one side of the conversation.

~~~
CaptainZapp
I'm an avid reader of The Guardian and donate 50EUR a year.

Of course it's partisan on Brexit (as is The Economist, btw) and of course its
general direction has a leftist slant (and why should it not?)

That said, I think it's one of the few remaining quality papers in the UK,
which provides overall accurate reporting.

What makes me gag sometimes is some of the writers in The Opinion section. But
that's fine too. If it's too crack-pottery I'm alsways free to ignore it.

Their Long Read section[1], though, is fantastic long form journalism and that
alone justifies my yearly donation.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-
read](https://www.theguardian.com/news/series/the-long-read)

EDIT : Slight clarification

~~~
chrisseaton
> and of course its general direction has a leftist slant (and why should it
> not?)

Because when you go into every news story already convinced that the left are
in the right in a given situation then your reporting is compromised.

~~~
CaptainZapp
No paper is strictly objective and it's not supposed to be.

I think that's completely fine as long as the direction is clear and the
reporting is accurate.

On the other side of the spectrum we would have, for example, The Wall Street
Journal.

While I personally believe that _some_ of their opinion writers are even worse
than _some_ of The Guardian's opinion writers there's no doubt that The
Journal delivers some stellar world class journalism.

Or would you apply a different standard there?

~~~
chrisseaton
I think people can at least try not to bring their bias to work, or failing
that actively declare that your reporting is designed to campaign for a
particular politics. The Guardian doesn’t even attempt that.

They approach reporting like an angry anonymous Twitter account.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
There is no such thing as impartial journalism. You have to select and
interpret events. You cannot but do so from a particular perspective. The
Guardian does a far better job than most newspapers at upholding accuracy in
their writing. They don't lie to or manipulate their readers.

~~~
chrisseaton
How come for example the Times manages to include opinion pieces by views
across the political spectrum and the Guardian doesn’t? The Guardian don’t
even pretend to be trying.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
'Trying' to do what? If you accept that a paper cannot be impartial, then what
ought they be trying to do? It seems to me, from what you said, that you wish
for them to be as plural as possible. Perhaps that's one virtue.

But there's nothing illegitimate about a paper having a particular political
persuasion. Every paper does. What they should be judged by - holding politics
equal - is the vocational standards of journalism: sobriety, rigour, accuracy,
style, and a refusal to appeal to the worst in humans. I would say the
Guardian does very well on all these counts. You say that it doesn't declare
its politics, but it does: you only have to read their editorials. Not that
it's a secret; everyone knows.

As for The Times, I can't speak with any authority. I don't read it, because
it's behind a paywall. I know they're a centre-right paper who sometimes
publish those on the centre-left. But my sense is that the former massively
outnumber the latter, and that they rarely if ever publish social democrats
and socialists.

The graph in this study fits, broadly, with my intuitions:

[https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-
reports/2017/0...](https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-
reports/2017/03/07/how-left-or-right-wing-are-uks-newspapers)

------
briandear
You know, I don’t particularly agree with the leftist bent of the Guardian.
However, that being said, the Guardian is, by far, one of the highest quality
publications available today. While the views don’t always align with mine, I
can respect quality. Wishing the folks at the Guardian continued success; I
appreciate being exposed to alternative views that consistently challenge my
own.

~~~
gridlockd
Call me a dreamer, but I believe unbiased reporting should be the goal of
journalism and I associate a "political bent" with _poor_ quality.

You must be associating (lack of) quality with how sensationalist/tabloid-
style a publication is, which is more superficial.

> I appreciate being exposed to alternative views that consistently challenge
> my own

Which is why a publication should aim to challenge its readers with _opposing_
opinion pieces, instead of constantly reinforcing their beliefs (aka "the easy
way out").

~~~
sgift
> Call me a dreamer, but I believe unbiased reporting should be the goal of
> journalism and I associate a "political bent" with poor quality.

If you want "unbiased reporting" you get articles like: Angela Merkel ate
Aspargus yesterday.

That's unbiased. It's also irrelevant. Anything more interesting will always
have a bias as long as it is written by humans.

~~~
ljf
For (largely) unbiased reporting read the Financial Times -
[https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/financial-
times/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/financial-times/)

The Guardian do pretty well: [https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-
guardian/](https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/) \- but are well known
to be left leaning

~~~
MrsPeaches
Financial Times have a very strong bias towards liberal economic policy. They
support de-regulation and reduced state involvement in markets. Similar to the
econmist.

------
rahimnathwani
The headline is incorrect. The Guardian recorded positive EBITDA, but did
_not_ record positive Operating Profit (almost universally used to refer to
EBIT).

The original source[0] seems to deliberately conflate the two measures: "GNM
has achieved its break even goal delivering an operating profit at EBITDA
level of £0.8 million"

The BBC article then parroted the 'operating profit' part, leaving out the 'at
EBITDA level' qualifier, thus turning a slightly misleading statement into a
factually incorrect one.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/p/bcd4a](https://www.theguardian.com/p/bcd4a)

------
wpdev_63
They're an excellent publication that publish stories[0] that the New York
times, LA times, and other institutional newspapers would not dare to touch.

If you value your privacy and your constitutional rights - please consider
donating to the Guardian. They are one of the very few news organizations that
are not censored by the US/UK gov't. [0]:[https://www.theguardian.com/us-
news/the-nsa-files](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/the-nsa-files)

~~~
technofiend
I have a friend whose email was hacked. His personal photos of himself, his
wife and child were taken. The guardian called him and said "we need a quote
from you about an article on XYZ or we'll release your personal information
found in the e-mails." So in this particular case "If you value your privacy"
does not apply to the Guardian. Unless you feel they have a constitutional
right to blackmail people?

~~~
Symbiote
That is an extraordinary claim, and needs some evidence for it to be taken
seriously.

------
basetop
Wasn't 1998 the midpoint of one the greatest economic booms in history? Kinda
like the one we are currently in? As a 90s kid I remember hearing about how
record unemployment and stock records on TV back then. It's amazing that the
guardian hasn't had a profit in 20 years.

This just shows that major news companies are not real companies, but state or
systematic enterpises. I can see microsoft or google going out of business
sometime in the future. But I can't see the guardian or the nytimes or any of
the major news companies going out of business. Because they are part of the
system though they claim to be the ones keeping an eye on the system.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that in 100 years, amazon won't exist. But
I'd never bet that the nytimes wouldn't exist. Though amazon may be a trillion
dollar company, it's still a company. Whiles the nytimes is more than a
system. It's part of the power structure.

------
raesene9
One thing the Guardian gets right (in my opinion) is their online subscriber
model.

I subscribed to it, the cost is reasonable (£5/month) and it was easy to sign
up and is easy to cancel.

Recently I wanted to get some news from a more right-wing perspective, so I
looked at paying for the The times.

Their site advertises a two month £7.99 subscription, which is fine.

However what you don't find till you go to sign up is after that it's
£26/month which isn't cheap and, far worse, to cancel a subscription you have
to phone them.

This kind of classic dark pattern (easy to sign-up hard to cancel) was enough
for me to cancel out and not complete the sub.

~~~
dazc
I fell for the Times subscription too. Fair enough, I did expect the cost to
increase after the initial promotion period but not the hurdles required to
cancel.

But then, when you subscribe and find you're seeing as many ads as you do with
free to view alternatives it's not surprising they are going to rely on
keeping you locked in for as long as possible?

------
simonebrunozzi
HN is weird sometimes: this submission of mine was made earlier, on the same
subject, and only attracted a few sparse comments:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19803586](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19803586)

I am always interested in looking at cases like these and try to discern why
one submission received a lot more attention than another one. I guess it's
more haruspex than science.

~~~
reilly3000
It’s all about that headline. Yours conveys a reference to information, this
one conveys the interesting part up front. In a world where both print and
digital media are seeing consolidation and bankruptcy almost daily, this is a
story of an outlet with quality journalism making a profit. It made my Friday.

------
narnianal
I don't really get this "have the old media survive" stuff.

Media always need resources to get produced, no matter which format. So they
are never independent. Whoever provides these resources has the power. But
that's not a big deal because it applies to almost everything. And if you say
profit is the master ,then you need to do attention whoring and advertisement.
If politics is your master then you do propaganda. If a super rich is your
master, then you will keep silent about their allys and denounce their
enemies. All that is normal. It's not perfect but it can't be improved either.
You can only exchange one master for another.

And you also don't have to worry that there won't be a master. Of course there
will always be people who want to reach out to N other people for a number of
reasons. Some people just like the attention, some use it for power plays,
some use it to convince people to do something.

And no matter what's in it, there will also always be consumers. Because they
too like a good show and some attention.

So honestly we should simply not mind. If you work in the industry see where
things are going and develop skills in that direction. If you own a medium,
try to innovate and/or buy developing new media. If you are a consumer simply
consume what you like the most.

~~~
zoul
> Media always need resources to get produced, no matter which format. So they
> are never independent. Whoever provides these resources has the power. (…)
> It's not perfect but it can't be improved either. You can only exchange one
> master for another.

There’s a big difference between being dependent on (a) a wealthy owner, (b)
big advertisers, and (c) readers.

~~~
organsnyder
I'm not sure I've ever seen a successful news organization that hasn't relied
on some combination of all three.

~~~
chimprich
Well the Guardian has managed to be successful without a wealthy owner.

------
admiralspoo
The Guardian has become a clickbait rag in the last decade. I can't say I'm
happy their bad behavior is being rewarded.

~~~
mhh__
Do you read the Guardian? I do, practically everyday, and I can say - As
someone is centre-right, i.e. not the guardian's idea of their readers - that
just isn't true.

This comment ignores the existence of Owen Jones, of course, but still.

------
_pmf_
Would like to know how much they receive via Brave/BAT:
[https://batgrowth.com/publishers/website](https://batgrowth.com/publishers/website)

Could be a nice boost to adoption if it's significant, but maybe they want to
keep it their secret ...

------
alex_duf
Shameless plug, we're hiring:
[https://workforus.theguardian.com/careers/digital-
developmen...](https://workforus.theguardian.com/careers/digital-development/)

~~~
Zeppin
> To apply for this position you must already have the right to work in the
> UK.

Why must be dreams only be dreams? Signed, a developer in continental Europe.

~~~
cik
Brexit hasn't happened yet. You still currently have the right to work in the
UK.

~~~
chosenbreed37
Even after Brexit (if it ever happens) you should still apply. Rights to work
in the UK can be acquired. From my observation the number of non EU IT workers
(and foreign workers in general) out-number those from the EU

------
skilled
The Guardian is one of the most toxic news sites around. A lot of their pieces
are complete fluff filled with snarky opinions. It's pretty damning when you
read a "news" article and it sounds like a little kid rambling on.

~~~
tim333
Do you have an example of them being toxic? I read it a fair bit and there's
some pc/lefty silliness but it seldom sees toxic.

~~~
781
Some example of quality Guardian writing:

> _Like walking into a space and suddenly realising everyone there is white.
> You know that feeling? When you go to a rooftop bar in Peckham and you worry
> that you’ve inadvertently stumbled into a Klan meeting?_

Just imagine the same text with white replaced by black and Klan by gang.

[https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/22/avenge...](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/22/avengers-
endgame-superheroes-marvel)

~~~
gjm11
That's an opinion column about a superhero movie. I don't know about you, but
I wouldn't expect subtle sociopolitical analysis in that sort of material in
_any_ newspaper.

~~~
781
That was exactly my point. The Guardian casually drops anti-white bigotry in
articles as random as a superhero movie review.

If that statement had the word black instead of white, the next day the author
would have been fired and an extensive apology published on the front page.

------
cosmodisk
I do read it quite often, however I would never ever pay a penny for it until
it opens up comments under all the articles and not just some vanilla
news,where you can be pretty sure there won't be much of a debate. There many
ways to achieve self moderation if hiring extra staff isn't an option.

~~~
hellllllllooo
I would be happy if comments on contentious articles were only open to
donating members so they have some skin in the game and are contributing to
the cost of moderation. Problem is they become full of drive-by trolls if left
fully open.

~~~
cosmodisk
In the country where I come from,we've got a very popular online news website.
comments are are split into two categories: registered (facebook,google+) and
anonymous. Users also have an ability to upvote/downvote or flag comments.It
does work pretty well tbh.

~~~
hellllllllooo
Maybe. I think if someone visits just to troll having to donate to a
publication they dislike might be a reasonable deterrent and it improves user
tracking for moderation. It could serve to focus the conversation to people
who at least respect the publication as a whole even if they disagree with a
particular article. Seeing comments by people who clearly just dislike the
Guardian don't really add much. Comments like "Typical left wing Guardian
nonsense" are pretty common and useless.

------
StanislavPetrov
PT Barnum knew how profitable this business model was years ago. There's one
born any minute. Its a pity, too, because The Guardian used to do real
journalism. Now its a rag pushing conspiracy theories and MI6 propaganda.
Unbelievably, they still haven't retracted their debunked story about Paul
Manfort turning invisible and meeting Assange in the Ecuadorian Embassy three
times. Embarrassing.

~~~
threeseed
Why would they retract the story ?

They had sources whom I am sure they trusted and since it happened in 2016
before the change of the Ecuadorian government it's plausible that there was
implicit support for the meeting. Assange was hardly some innocent bystander
during the last US election so he definitely has form.

Fact is that when you have a situation like this we simply don't know what the
truth is so who is it to say that the Guardian is wrong here.

~~~
StanislavPetrov
There was no mention of any meeting whatsoever in the Mueller report. There
was no mention of any meeting whatsoever in the indictments and trials of
Manafort. There is no video footage or picture of Manafort ever being anywhere
near the embassy, or even in London, during any of the _three_ times that the
Guardian claimed they met. Your tinfoil hat has to be very, very tight to
believe that Manafort could have secretly met with the most watched man in the
world, in the city with the densest surveillance network in the world, without
anyone seeing him, without a single picture being taken, without any evidence
at all that he had every been there. Not only did he do supposedly do this,
but he supposedly did this _three times_!! Its been many months since the
story was published, and the Guardian has shown absolutely no evidence of any
meeting. The fact is that no matter what you think of Assange, Manafort,
Trump, or anyone else, this is a stunning journalistic failure. The fact that
the Guardian continues to stand by this story (silently) without offering any
evidence of its veracity is a terrible stain on what was once a very good
paper.

