Disclaimer: I do not subscribe to The Guardian, but I stop to read one of its stories occasionally. And so it was last Saturday that I ran into a piece by Jill Abramson, former executive editor of The New York Times, about the defeat of Hillary Clinton and why her gender had a lot to do with it.
The piece was, indeed, well done, and quite convincing: there has been a conspiracy to malign Hillary Clinton going back several decades.
My surprise, however, was that, at the end of the piece, a box popped up from The Guardian, stating the following:
Since you're here …
…we have a small favour to ask. More people are reading the Guardian than ever but far fewer are paying for it. And advertising revenues across the media are falling fast. So you can see why we need to ask for your help. The Guardian’s independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our perspective matters – because it might well be your perspective, too.Fund our journalism and together we can keep the world informed.
I wonder how this idea came about, and how editors of The Guardian reacted to it. More importantly, how are readers reacting and how are they viewing this request for contributions?
This bring up the question of journalistic value. How much is one specific article worth? Or, as I imagine, do we contribute to a newspaper's journalism in the same way we contribute to a charity, based on our income and not necessarily how worthy a cause may be.
As 2017 approaches, and more newspapers will find themselves under the gun to generate revenues, it will be interesting to see if The Guardian;s model of soliciting money from readers based on the articles they consume will become an option.
I am curious to see if any of my readers have more information about this topic, and, specifically, how it has resulted for The Guardian. Waiting to hear from you.