I Miss The Guardian Editors

I bought The Guardian yesterday for the first time in months. It was a bit like bumping into an old boyfriend and finding that the years have been unkind: recognisably the same, but thinner, less interesting and still going on about the same things it had been five years ago.

My love affair with The Guardian (which, until then, I had read for nearly 20 years) started to wane about a year ago. First, The Observer became a shadow of itself; then the editor of the “Weekend” magazine appeared to go on extended leave, leaving the magazine to replicate the same edition every week; and slowly the newspaper – particularly the Saturday edition – started to lose substance. And by substance I don’t particularly mean pages: it began to feel as if all of the editors had left the building. As if no one was putting care and attention into choosing what went onto the page; no one was returning articles to columnists that had clearly been dashed off over lunch; and no one was thinking anything more than “will this do?”.

The thing that bought the relationship to a staggering halt was the iPad edition. It seemed to have been designed with no thought to what was good about a newspaper. For a start, there wasn’t a crossword. The category headings were strangely ordered, giving – for me – undue prominence to sections like Obituaries, a section I never seek out but often read, because it appears at the right point; an opportunity to reflect and look backwards after the hurly burly of news and current affairs. It appeared to lose the idea of serendipity that a really good newspaper (like a really good radio station) offers as a matter of course: while I will happily continue turning the pages of a paper to the end and allow a Business article to catch my eye, I will almost never click on a tab marked “Business”. My self-identified interests are narrow, and I want them to be challenged by a good newspaper editor who shows me the things I should care about. And, most sadly of all, it didn’t feel as if there was anything to read, the layout of the pages confirming the sparseness of the content. On the ultimately paginating and scrollable device, it felt as if there was nothing longer than three-or four-hundred words.

I still look at The Guardian homepage most days, but I’m clicking through less and less often. While my requirement for rolling current affairs in one place has been lessened by Twitter, my interest in comment and analysis (the sort of article that is still interesting to read the day or the week or the month after an event) certainly hasn’t. My interest in what I will now lazily call Proper Journalism and Good Editing certainly remains, and it’s lack of a sense of an editor that pervades both the website and the newspaper.

A 5-minute visit to The Guardian site on Friday afternoon – while I was putting off the last email of the day at my desk – allowed me to glance at a whole slew of articles that I found again in the main newspaper on Saturday. A rather charming piece by Zoe Williams about the town with the lowest male:female ratio in Britain (not exactly a time sensitive scoop) was on the homepage at 5pm on Friday afternoon and in the newspaper on Saturday. A little bit of scheduling could have sent the online version live at midnight on Friday; putting it there on the afternoon of the day before felt like an admission that there was nothing much interesting to say, that they needed to fill a gap so were doing it with whatever came to hand. Surrendering to the importance of churn without having anything of substance to churn.

I notice I’m reading more of The New York Times, which still publishes longer articles filled with investigative reporting, comment and debate. The fact that I’m a reasonably avid reader of Twitter means, I think, that headlines pass before my eyes throughout the course of most days: I’m absorbing the ebb and flow of the news cycle without often needing to click through, so I have more time to read proper stuff. I don’t need to spend 30 minutes each day finding out what happened the day before, because the intake of that kind of news has sped up to almost the pace of my heartbeat. So I have a spare 30 minutes to engage in proper analysis, compelling storytelling and long-form discussion.

The sort of thing I would like to read needs good commissioners – the sort of editors who challenge their contributors and look at the ways stories unfold over the time, the sort with the courage to sack their columnists and find someone new, the sort who commission long-form articles for the magazine rather than simply take extracts from books. I have spare attention and want to use it up; I want to be challenged and provoked by big crashing waves, not provided with additional flotsam that I need to push out of the way.

I cannot, as yet, bring myself to spend my money with Murdoch or succumb to The Telegraph, so I don’t read a newspaper at all. A Tory government of the kind we have now should provide an easy heyday for liberal journalism, so I hope The Guardian editors come back. I miss them.


9 thoughts on “I Miss The Guardian Editors

  1. The New York Times IS the business. It doesn’t have a total paywall but lets you have access to self-selected topics – entertainment, health , books, food etc. Some the op-ed pictorials are quite brilliant.

    You should cast aside you Murdochian fears and give The Times a go. There are some terrific girls there; Treneman, Turner, Cavendish all who write beautifully and effectively and will give you pause for thought. You don’t have to buy into everything in a paper just the self-challenging bits that don’t just make you think outside the box but want to make you kick the box totally into touch.

    PS> Janice Turner – @victoriapeckham ( former Guardian girl now Camberwell Mum and wife of Radio Times editor) is a devout swimmer.

    1. The core problem for the Guardian lies in the flawed business plan of relying, for too long, on the huge recruitment revenues from local government and third sector that completely skewed its editorial strategy and direction – bit like the Labour years in government thinking that the good years and taxes from the financial sector would last for ever.

      During that period The Times built solidly on it it core business, editorial. op-ed and arts teams and also on its iPad and paywall products and introduced them carefully and slowly along with a brilliant team of journalists some drawn fron the Observer/Guardian.

      Sadly I see no light at the end of the tunnel for The Guardian / Observer and it needs brave and inventive leader to get ir out of the mire.

    2. I suppose one of the things I feel is that they’ve diversified a bit too heavily (video – so much video!, courses, events, all sorts of random blogs). Less stuff, better executed tends to always be the way forward. After all, there must be people making all these additional things happen?

  2. I’d put down my lack of interest in the on-line edition to a redesign that I wasn’t entirely comfortable with but maybe, as you suggest, there’s something more fundamental going on. As William says, it’s well known that they’re losing money so hardly surprising if they start losing people as well which is usually the start of a death-spiral for any organisation. It would be a significant loss though: as an obvious example, how much of phone-hacking would we know without it (and the consequent ownership of Sky by News Corp)?

  3. I enjoy the iPad edition, because I like just clicking through from one story to the next, so the section headings and lack of serendipity don’t bother me too much. It’s nowhere near as pleasant as a physical paper to browse, but I’ve no idea how any iPad app could get round that.

    But, while I look through it every day, it has made me realise how little of it I’m really keen to read – there are many articles, and particularly columnists, who, when I’m looking at a section front page, don’t seem worth tapping on to read. If an article can’t even reach that threshold of being worth a single tap (and a tap back to return) maybe I am in fact reading the wrong paper.

    1. I completely take your point about “reading the wrong newspaper”. I think my sadness is that there doesn’t appear to be a right newspaper anymore. This is entirely solvable by making a bit more effort and reading bits of lots of different publications (which, theoretically, should be very easy to do online, given a bit of planning), but I suppose I’m also lazy and would like to pay my money and get a nicely edited and interested thing at the other side.

      1. Yes, definitely. I feel like I read the Guardian because it’s the least-bad of the options (and I feel I should read a newspaper) not because it frequently excites and interests me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s