[Disclosure:] I’ve published cartoons in The Guardian before, but not for a while…

Haydn asked a question on my blog that I can address here, too: he wonders why I’ve called the Guardian “forward-thinking by any media analyst’s standards”, and I concede I was focusing on a few points in that regard.

On my post, Haydn asks (see comments):

“I can’t quite understand why so positive. The paper loses $15 million a year (this year $50 million+. It puts the screws on its staff while awarding bonuses to its editor, the conditions at papers that supply the revenues for the Guardian to lose money are not so great…. where is the liberal mantel?”

Much as the Guardian appears to be losing money, Greenslade reported in July that it’s the only “serious” UK paper for which sales have increased. (Granted, the post in general discussed “the death of a newspaper sales dream”, so the post in its context supports haydn’s point along with the “bulk” numbers mentioned there). Now, Haydn, I’m sure you’re still correct that it’s losing the money you say it is; I don’t deny that.

As for how the Guardian as a company treats its workers, Haydn I thank you for brining such issues to light, as perhaps I’ve been swayed by their own self-congratulatory audit in general, since that’s the kind of project I wish I heard more about. I can’t recall many North American papers, if any, doing such an audit. For example, as far as I know, the Globe and Mail, easily Canada’s most “serious” paper, hasn’t been so transparent as the Guardian (in its audit) to begin with, much less to that extent. So I applauded the action the paper took by opening up, but perhaps missed some of the context. I still think it’s a great idea and hope other papers follow the model, with the environmental concerns as high on the list, too.

Even if the Guardian doesn’t for some reason deserve the “liberal mantle” I noted, it does hav some edge. The blogs it publishes are solid, especially CiF, the news blog and Greenslade. From where I sit overe here in North America, it looks like a progressive, raising-the-bar kind of paper. Maybe its corporate practices need questioning? Okay, all the more reason to further the discussion online.

– we negotiate minimum freelance rates with the national union of journalists. And a few years ago we set up a mini tribunal to settle the IP question. It was composed of figures with union and management background and resulted in a freelance agreement that was acceptable to all and become something of a model for the rest of the print industry in the UK

Read more on this issue or write your own take:
http://jenerationwhy.blogspot.com/2006/10/cato-institute-forum-fallacy-of.html

the [Blethen] family would save approximately 253.9 million if the tax were repealed

Now it’s their newspaper so, they can support any position they wish (especially on the editorial page), but should they reveal their self-interest in the matter?