[HN Gopher] The Guardian flourishes without a paywall
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       The Guardian flourishes without a paywall
        
       Author : bookofjoe
       Score  : 58 points
       Date   : 2025-03-29 00:31 UTC (2 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (nymag.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (nymag.com)
        
       | bookofjoe wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/xBA7x
        
       | ggm wrote:
       | An article .. about paywalls not being needed.. behind a pay
       | wall.
        
         | andrei_says_ wrote:
         | I know, writers and editors not deciding on the business model
         | of the publication.
        
           | bookofjoe wrote:
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_(magazine)
        
       | yen223 wrote:
       | I was hoping this article went deeper into the Guardian's
       | somewhat unusual ownership model, because I find it interesting
       | and would love to learn more.
       | 
       | The Guardian is owned by (and I think largely funded by?) a trust
       | that was intentionally set up in a way to ensure no commercial
       | interest could interfere with the paper. How well it achieved
       | that goal is, of course, debatable, but it has survived nearly a
       | century in that form.
        
         | sambeau wrote:
         | Yes, The Scott Trust.
         | 
         | You can read more about it here:
         | 
         | https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-trust
        
         | facile3232 wrote:
         | > to ensure no commercial interest could interfere with the
         | paper.
         | 
         | How do they explain their taking ads, then?
         | https://advertising.theguardian.com
         | 
         | There's zero assurance that they could provide that would
         | convince me this doesn't come with influence over editorial
         | matters. It's the same problem NPR has (shoutout to the 'old
         | "National Petroleum Radio" moniker from the invasions of the
         | oughts).
         | 
         | EDIT: you -> they
        
           | protocolture wrote:
           | Well theres not going to be shareholder direction to conform
           | to advertisers wishes.
           | 
           | And assuming the trust is well funded, they may not feel
           | compelled to do so.
           | 
           | That said, its very possible for not for profit entities to
           | go very wrong so you cant rule it out absolutely.
        
       | beardyw wrote:
       | Maybe because it's a good newspaper?
        
       | rozab wrote:
       | The other day they forced me to give full consent to all
       | advertising cookies in order to read without a subscription. I
       | found this surprising, I do read them a great deal, it might only
       | happen for heavy users.
        
       | puttycat wrote:
       | The Guardian is simply a truly great paper with excellent
       | writers. Maybe that's their secret?
        
       | Analemma_ wrote:
       | The Guardian is extremely-polarized ragebait. I don't mean that
       | as an attack or dismissal-- they do have good reporting
       | sometimes-- but you have to keep that in mind when talking about
       | their business model and what it implies for the broader
       | industry. Any doofus on Substack or YouTube can make a living
       | posting ragebait because it keeps engagement high. The question
       | is whether the same business model (no paywall, unobtrusive ads)
       | can work for sober and honest journalism, and IMO the answer
       | sadly appears to be no, because not enough people value that to
       | pay for it.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-03-31 23:00 UTC)