Rusbridger Email

8/9/2019 Rusbridger Email

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/rusbridger-email 1/4



> attack - just like the BBC - by people who dislike or envy the subsidy model

> and our journalistic freedoms. Reporters on other papers telephone to> question why we invest so much in our journalism and why the editor of the> Guardian has - always - had a seat round the table when decisions are taken

> about commercial, as well as editorial, strategies. As if these were bad> things.>> Some of it is because we have differentiated ourselves with a clear strategy> of not closing off our journalism by a universal pay wall. Murdoch's gamble> is just that - a gamble. Most non-print commentary is highly sceptical that> it can work, but we can certainly watch and learn. Murdoch himself is

> quietly backing all options by leaving many of his businesses outside pay> walls (Sky News website, Bookarmy and numerous others around his empire). We> - along with others (including non-print players) - can equally certainly

> make the most of the opportunity presented to us. It's no more than Mr> Murdoch would do to us.>

> Some of it is simply because this is the age of editorial insecurity. All> journalists are self-evidently extremely anxious to discover the economic> model which will be certain to sustain what we do and believe in. No-one in

> the world has that yet - not us, not Murdoch, not Arthur Sulzberger, not the> Frankfurter Allgemeine or Le Monde. Insecurity often breeds anger, denial> and a search for someone to blame. We are all doing the best to find the> right model for what we do. It's probable that there isn't going to be a

> universally "right" framework for everyone in future (eg advertising +> circulation revenue = success). What's right for Murdoch (with Sky as a

> digital subscription model in the background and infinitely deep corporate> cross-subsidies) may well not work for us at GNM, and vice versa. There may> be different models within one newspaper. We'll all make some mistakes> along the way. We can all learn from each other.>> But we must have an internal conviction about what feels right for us and> stick to it. Clay Shirky last week called it an organisation's

> "self-conception." It is for us to decide what our journalism will look> like in future; to what extent we want it to be open to the world and to> what extent we want to collaborate with others in forging it. If we can

> internalise this conviction - and not be distracted by the pecking and> sniping of outsiders who may not believe in, agree with, know about or even> understand our strategy - then we have a better chance of succeeding. That

> discussion is currently taking place: it has already involved well over 200> of you across all departments, commercial, technological and editorial.> Those conversations are some of the best I - and others - have ever

> experienced at the Guardian. It feels as if we are energised and galvanised

> by the possibilities we can mutually imagine.>



> We're doing all this in order to preserve and nurture the remarkable things

> we are doing journalistically. Since moving to Kings Place we have> investigated tax avoidance, torture, phone-hacking, policing, Trafigura,> sports funding and much else. We have led the debate on economics, civil

> liberties, ethical citizenship, culture, climate change, social welfare,> penal policy, constitutional reform and much else.>> The Observer has relaunched in a much-admired new form. It is a serious,> thoughtful paper which is doing exactly what a Sunday paper should do -> distill, contextualise and broaden understanding. The Review section> combines great elegance of writing with confidence of design. The website

> is powering away, re-inventing how reporting is done, how audiences are> engaged with and how to achieve the greatest richness and diversity from> involving others in what we do. We are streets ahead of others in the way

> we distribute our content and in the way we are experimenting with data.>> We have - without most readers noticing - achieved significant and necessary

> savings. We've managed the sort of integration, convergence and physical> moves that have convulsed other news organisations - and done it with great> calm and common sense. The editorial, web development and commercial sides

> of the business are united in the strategy for print and digital going> forward. We talk all the time. On pay walls there is no difference between> the editorial vision and the commercial imperative. From GMG chief > executive and financial director, to GNM managing director to advertising

> director to editor we all believe pretty much the same.>

> In GMG we have a parent company whose financial strategy has underwritten> our success and will continue to provide us with support and security for> the foreseeable future. Carolyn has been the most supportive chief > executive any editor could want, in matters legal, financial and editorial.> A chief executive who fights for editorial is, in my book, a Good Thing.> You'd be surprised by the calls from outside journalists - yes, journalists> - who want to portray this as a Bad Thing.

>> Outsiders look at all this and they don't quite understand it. They prod it> looking for rifts and splits and divisions.

>> No-one's pretending there can be no tensions in an industry as fundamentally> disrupted and challenged as ours. It would be a strange, and unhealthy,

> business which didn't argue and examine and test all alternatives,> occasionally change its mind and be constantly open to challenge and change.> So, yes, there's robust discussion. We are additionally challenged in all

> our thinking by a sharp set of non-executive directors on GMG, including

> Brent Hoberman ( ex Last Minute), Neil Berkett (Virgin Media) and Amelia> Fawcett (ex Morgan Stanley). So no proposition gets a free ride in this



Documents

Rusbridger Email