“The Guardian's reader funding model is working”

I've been a monthly donor to the Guardian for a long time now. Their opinion pieces have been getting more hysterical over time but I just don't read them, and I think their news coverage is really great.

Mark Curtis used to write for them, but he hasn't been very 'supportive' lately. Their coverage on war in Yemen and Julian Assange is far from what journalism should be.

some of his retweets

"This sub-heading is a microcosm of what a joke the Guardian is. After over 3 yrs of UK govt's total backing of mass murder in Yemen, the paper has the temerity to equate UK policy with easing humanitarian suffering. The state could not ask for more"

guardian article: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/nov/05/uk-backs-un-ca...

http://www.medialens.org/index.php/alerts/alert-archive/2018...

I know this thread is not about quality of journalism , but this opened my eyes before I was going to pay them.

The respect for the user here is huge. Every time I would get to the bottom of an article I would think, you know, I read that whole article, you're right, I should consider donating. Am a monthly donor now. The lack of a paywall or obnoxious popup went a long way towards getting my loyalty even though I historically haven't read it particularly regularly.

The question is whether their subscription model can make up for the fall in revenue from sales and adverts. Last year their revenues grew by just 1% and they managed to half their losses by cutting costs.

Whether they can cut another £20m of of costs (or increase revenues) in order to break even remains to be seen.

I am also a monthly donor now. I think their coverage is fair and they cover stories I don’t see elsewhere.

Also a monthly donor.