The Guardian Media Group is reported to be considering options for the future of its Sunday newspaper, the Observer, as part of a strategic company review. The company – parent of Guardian News & Media, which publishes the Observer, Guardian and guardian.co.uk – is said not to have ruled out closing the Sunday title.
Some details from the Guardian itself: [Link]
GMG has reportedly floated the idea of turning the Observer, which was founded in 1791, into a weekly news magazine or retaining it as a newspaper in a slimmed-down format. However, no decisions have been made at this stage and the company is not due to reveal the findings of its strategic review until the autumn.
A GMG spokesman would not confirm or deny whether the Observer's future was being reviewed. "We would not comment on speculation about the future of our papers or the private business of the [Scott] Trust," he said.
Following the reports, Carolyn McCall, GMG's chief executive, sent an internal email to all company staff today saying that the three-year GNM strategic review was "examining every aspect of GNM's publishing strategy and titles: the Guardian, Observer and guardian.co.uk; print and digital".
"It is also looking at how we develop our structure, both editorial and commercial, as we prepare for the next three to five years. A wide variety of different options, approaches and scenarios is being developed and will be considered," McCall added. "This is what has leaked, and resulted in headlines about the future of the Observer. Those of you who have worked here for a while will be familiar with intermittent coverage of this nature over the years.
"The work described above, which involves [GNM's editor in chief] Alan Rusbridger, [GNM's director of digital content] Emily Bell and [the Observer's editor] John Mulholland, is ongoing. It is far too early to say what its outcome will be. I know this uncertainty is very difficult for staff, but the trust, GMG and GNM are not about to do anything ill-considered or hasty. We will work through the plan and make the right decisions for the long-term future of GNM."
The Telegraph commented: [Link]
It would be an inglorious end for a newspaper that has been published since 1791, when W S Bourne thought he had found a quick way to make a fortune. Within three years he was £1,600 in debt and tried to sell the newspaper to the government. His offer was refused but ministers agreed to subsidise it instead, in return for some influence over its editorials.
One of the most illustrious figures in its history was David Astor, who was in the editor's chair for 27 years. Astor's Observer was the first national newspaper to oppose the government's doomed 1956 invasion of Suez, a move that cost it many readers.
In 1977, the Astors sold the troubled newspaper to US oil giant Atlantic Richfield (Arco), which in turn sold it to Tiny Rowland, the businessman referred to as the "unacceptable face of capitalism" by Edward Heath. When the Guardian Media Group bought the title in 1993, there were pledges to safeguard its future.
That relationship, always uneasy, has now come close to breaking point with the publication of the latest company figures. Last Friday, GMG reported that the group had lost £89.8 million, compared to a profit of £306.4 million the previous year. The group's 2008 profits were inflated by the one-off proceeds of selling 49.9 per cent of Trader Media Group, publisher of Auto Trader.
The figures showed that Guardian News & Media (GNM), the division that includes both the Guardian and the Observer, lost £36.8 million, considerably worse than the £26.4 million loss in the previous year.
The figures were so grim that by Sunday a leaked story said that the Scott Trust, which owns Guardian Media Group, had considered a proposal to sell or shut down the Observer and replace it with a midweek magazine. An organisation that has long been characterised by self-assurance now finds itself riven by doubt and fear.
Some more:
One senior source at the titles said: "They are in a time warp. Newspapers have to adapt and change but there has been no attempt to do so. The Guardian and Observer have moved under one roof but with the same number of editorial staff."
The truth is that a number of key figures on the Scott Trust have long resented the Sunday newspaper being in the same camp, competing for resources and refusing to conform to their view of the world.
The source said: "There is nothing more illiberal than a liberal organisation. Rusbridger and his chums want us to be all the same. They want an identikit version of the Guardian except in the way it spends money."Donald Trelford, who edited the Observer from 1975 to 1993, says: "Since the Guardian took over the paper in 1993, they have appointed five different editors, which may indicate some confusion over strategy. The Guardian clearly has to save money somewhere and its trustees have a prime responsibility to protect the daily. A great deal has been invested in the Guardian's online services and the Observer, which still sells more copies than the Guardian, may be paying the cost."
