Comments: 1602 • Responses: 39 • Date: 2013-07-31 14:14:45 UTC
alanrusbridger2974 karma2013-07-31 15:10:39 UTC
I stay up all night working out my position on ducks and horses and you ask me this?
View HistoryShare Link
alanrusbridger1473 karma2013-07-31 14:57:36 UTC
Complicated answer: huge readership on mobile and website. Hasn’t made much impact on print sales. So, no direct revenues. It has also been very expensive: it’s involved a considerable number of reporters, several lawyers, a great deal of cost in travel/hotels etc etc.
Happily, the Guardian has been owned by a family Trust since the 1930s. That means that the main imperative for what we do is journalistic. The business side of the operation completely support this kind of editorial endeavour because they understand that’s the mission.
Having said that, we do have to make money. And this kind of reporting does - hopefully - reinforce a perception of the Guardian as a paper that still does proper journalism. And that, in the end, builds a readership and a reputation. And that’s being reflected in our digital revenues (grew last year 28.9% to £55.9m). So, in the end, good journalism = good business. That’s the theory, anyway!
And Happy Cake Day!
alanrusbridger1006 karma2013-07-31 15:35:50 UTC
I thought you’d never ask!
I’d rather the former. Just so I could say “A duck, a duck, my kingdom for a duck!”
Before I killed it.
alanrusbridger834 karma2013-07-31 15:05:39 UTC
We actually got to shout “Stop the Presses!" in the middle of the Prism story a few weeks ago. Sadly, it was my deputy, Paul Johnson, who got to shout it, as I was in NYC.
I did once have to keep a judge talking while waiting for the print lorries to be loaded up with freshly-printed newspapers. Once the first van left the yard it was too late for an injunction. Quaint days!
alanrusbridger828 karma2013-07-31 14:42:13 UTC
I’ve become much more careful about everything digital. The more you read of these documents, the more you realised they’re across pretty much everything.
alanrusbridger753 karma2013-07-31 14:48:57 UTC
Mostly, it’s all bad. I don’t think most news organisations have remotely considered the threat to journalism potentially posed by the methods revealed in the Snowden documents. One basic question: how are we going to have secure communication with sources in future - by phone, by chat, by email, by anything except face to face contact? And, obviously, the use of the Espionage Act - a first world war panic measure passed in 1917 - to clamp down on whistleblowing is really dismaying. But the US still has the First Amendment. Wish we had one of those in the UK
alanrusbridger686 karma2013-07-31 16:30:21 UTC
Just like the US Army! I’m sure you’re all intelligent enough to find a way round the ban....
alanrusbridger594 karma2013-07-31 15:27:11 UTC
My colleague James Ball contributed to this piece published just last week on tips for how to protect your sources online.
alanrusbridger585 karma2013-07-31 14:59:19 UTC
Capaldi as Alan Rusbridger? About as much use as a marzipan dildo. Fuckity-bye!
alanrusbridger581 karma2013-07-31 14:36:21 UTC
We’ve had some discussions with the US authorities. We’ve put allegations to them in advance and included their response. I wouldn’t say they’re happy with what we’re doing, but, to date, no undue pressure (that I know of!).
Copyright © 2014 BestofAMA.com, All rights reserved.
reddit has not approved or endorsed BestofAMA, reddit design elements are trademarks of reddit inc.