Are you really shocked Martin? I didn't think anybody saw MG as unbiased when it comes to their rival broadsheets. In my view, they play up their rivals woes and play down their successes and do the reverse with stories about the Guardian.
Of course I'm biased too, so perhaps that colours my perception of what is published in MG.
Roy Greenslade is the honourable exception, in my view. I've always found his analysis to be reasonable and fair - even when he's criticising us.
Shane Richmond
· 2 years ago
One other thing: I don't know how I managed to link my previous comment to a specific post from my blog. I intended to link it to my blog homepage but the post I ended up linking to is amusingly appropriate in the circumstances.
Shane
Howard Owens
· 2 years ago
According to Jim Buckmaster, nobody should try to make money.
Imagine where we'd all be if newspapers hadn't had so far to slide profit wise?
That last comment is presuming, of course, that newspapers would be in trouble no matter how well run. The internet is the internet. Kids are kids. Change is change. There'd still be a craigslist. A monster. A Yahoo! and on and on ...
Bobbie Johnson
· 2 years ago
1) Does anybody really claim otherwise, Shane? Monkey, specifically, is a diary column and there's a long-standing tradition of partiality. I wouldn't get particularly upset if your email leaked, dozens of them cross the desk every day.
But I'm still interested to know what "we won't take anyone's blog away" means if you are saying you'll get archive those with less than three posts a week.
PS, please take those comments with whatever bucket of salt you require for the comments of a Guardian writer and former MediaGuardian employee.
2) Howard, I don't think I've ever heard Jim say that "nobody should try to make money". Craigslist does, after all. I think there's a fair point that good profit has trumped good product in many cases, and now that there's extra competition from outside sources, the newspaper industry is feeling the burn.
Shane Richmond
· 2 years ago
Hi Bobbie. I don't think anyone does claim otherwise. That's why I asked Martin whether he was actually shocked or was just being sarcastic.
And I hope I didn't come across as upset about the email. Mildly exasperated, perhaps, but I hoped the end of my post - threatening to tie people to railway tracks or simply copy the Guardian in on my emails - would show that I was taking it in good humour.
Finally, the 'won't take blogs away line' refers to an earlier part of the email. We're adding new bloggers and also trying to keep the size of the site manageable. I didn't want our existing bloggers to feel they might be elbowed aside to make way for new names.
So what I was saying was: 'keep your blog active and we won't take it away'. I realise it's not much of a distinction but there you are.
Martin
· 2 years ago
Shane,
I must remember that irony doesn't come across in blog posts. I'm not shocked at all, actually.
All Comments
Of course I'm biased too, so perhaps that colours my perception of what is published in MG.
Roy Greenslade is the honourable exception, in my view. I've always found his analysis to be reasonable and fair - even when he's criticising us.
Shane
Imagine where we'd all be if newspapers hadn't had so far to slide profit wise?
That last comment is presuming, of course, that newspapers would be in trouble no matter how well run. The internet is the internet. Kids are kids. Change is change. There'd still be a craigslist. A monster. A Yahoo! and on and on ...
But I'm still interested to know what "we won't take anyone's blog away" means if you are saying you'll get archive those with less than three posts a week.
PS, please take those comments with whatever bucket of salt you require for the comments of a Guardian writer and former MediaGuardian employee.
2) Howard, I don't think I've ever heard Jim say that "nobody should try to make money". Craigslist does, after all. I think there's a fair point that good profit has trumped good product in many cases, and now that there's extra competition from outside sources, the newspaper industry is feeling the burn.
And I hope I didn't come across as upset about the email. Mildly exasperated, perhaps, but I hoped the end of my post - threatening to tie people to railway tracks or simply copy the Guardian in on my emails - would show that I was taking it in good humour.
Finally, the 'won't take blogs away line' refers to an earlier part of the email. We're adding new bloggers and also trying to keep the size of the site manageable. I didn't want our existing bloggers to feel they might be elbowed aside to make way for new names.
So what I was saying was: 'keep your blog active and we won't take it away'. I realise it's not much of a distinction but there you are.
I must remember that irony doesn't come across in blog posts. I'm not shocked at all, actually.