Wot no Grauniad?

[gurnemanz]

I read the Guardian for many years, buying it most days, then switched to The Independent. I subscribed for a few years but have now switched to the i Paper, which is great value at 20p and gives me enough to browse through and a decent cryptic crossword. More background detail from British and international sources can be found online if I want it + TV and radio.

[gingerjon]

Newsweek have announced today the end of their print edition. It will be online and tablet only from the end of the year.

[jean]

...the dreadful middle-class young trendy views that Ferret refers to...

I'd be careful about stigmatising any collection of concerns and attitudes as middle-class - it's simplistic at best, and it will surely come back to bite you the moment anyone throws classical music into the mix.

Still, after reading the Guardian for three years you might become a reasonable cook, appreciate the films of Peter Greenaway, and after careful study of the women's pages get a respectable degree in gynaecology.

And that just looks like a bit of thinly-disguised misogyny to me.

[DracoM]

Not just misogyny - ignorance and a limp attempt at cheap humour. Clearly someone who does not know the paper well.

[Thropplenoggin]

Not just misogyny - ignorance and a limp attempt at cheap humour. Clearly someone who does not know the paper well.

I call foul on this 'I am woman, here me roar!' knee-jerk use of "misogynist". What's misogynistic about it? Ferretfancy specifically refers to the women's pages of The Guardian, which, like R4's Woman's Hour, can seem gynocentric and certainly excessively explicit regarding female genital cosmetic surgery, Naomi Woolfe's new book, Vagina, et al.

Whatever next, Merkin of the Month?

[french frank]

And that just looks like a bit of thinly-disguised misogyny to me.

I always thought the women's sections and problem pages were mainly there to satisfy men's curiosity. Most seem to find them very interesting.

[scottycelt]

I always thought the women's sections and problem pages were mainly there to satisfy men's curiosity. Most seem to find them very interesting.

That is possibly true ... and that's maybe because so many of these pages are about women's problems with their grossly inadequate men.

We simply want to learn and try to discover where we are all going so badly wrong, y'see ...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

If the Guardian goes where will the councils place their adverts for PLAY AND PARENT SUPPORT OFFICERS? Where will we go for Monbiot's latest splenetic rant against our (but not his) environmental vandalism?

It was great when it was the Manchester Guardian - used to buy it; but not now, definitely not now.

[Simon]

Good point. It's the ad payments from the lefties in the public services (i.e. our taxes) that have been keeping it afloat for ages. I suppose they'll go online...

[french frank]

The most important thing - surely - is to have a range of political views available among national newspapers?

Why on earth should people be concerned about the existence of a newspaper that doesn't reflect their political opinions? You don't have to buy it or read it. Just as others don't have to buy Times, Telegraph, Mail or Express: good heavens, the conservatives have enough to choose from!

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I don't read your alternatives regularly, only the Times. And I think it can offer a balanced view on most subjects, unlike the Guardian.

I'm not concerned about the Guardian, it can express alternate views to my political opinion, I don't buy it, and only read the occasional piece of environmental lunacy (on line) for the laughs.

[amateur51]

I always thought the women's sections and problem pages were mainly there to satisfy men's curiosity. Most seem to find them very interesting.

[amateur51]

Good point. It's the ad payments from the lefties in the public services (i.e. our taxes) that have been keeping it afloat for ages. I suppose they'll go online...

Complete tosh - just shows he doesn't read it. Tt has been used for decades by Britain's voluntary sector too, not all of them, nor the local authorities in question, being 'lefty' at all

[amateur51]

The most important thing - surely - is to have a range of political views available among national newspapers?

Why on earth should people be concerned about the existence of a newspaper that doesn't reflect their political opinions? You don't have to buy it or read it. Just as others don't have to buy Times, Telegraph, Mail or Express: good heavens, the conservatives have enough to choose from!

Don't they just

[amateur51]

I don't read your alternatives regularly, only the Times. And I think it can offer a balanced view on most subjects, unlike the Guardian.

I'm not concerned about the Guardian, it can express alternate views to my political opinion, I don't buy it, and only read the occasional piece of environmental lunacy (on line) for the laughs.

It'll be interesting to see The Times' balanced reporting of the findings of Lord Justice Leveson's Inquiry