http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/26/stephen-pritchard-re...

Thanks for that its helpful.

I do get info from the sky EPG for WHEN things I want to record are on, but for instance, if someone writes an editorial about a show (lets take the new HBO one, True Blood) a few months in advance that TV guide section would be the one to let me know when it actually STARTED as opposed to the SKY guide, which isn't really suitable...

Sodding typical.

the best bit of the Observer (for a pedant like me anyway!) was the telly guide - and now it's gone. How long before the Guardian gets rid of "The Guide"?

It's actually "How long before The Guardian gets rid of The Observer"?

MILF!!!

Mind you, I only ever purchased it for the same reason. The Observer Music Monthly regularly sums up all that I revile in contemporary music journalism.

...As far as print newspapers sacrificing their " un-nessecary in the Internet/declining newspapers " Sunday TV sections , you're not alone in Britain , then , ( I thought British newspapers were doing better than Stateside newspapers but I suppose that's like saying that someone with a limb blown off and bleeding though all of them is doing better than someone with three all blown off/bleeding ! ) here in the Bay Area the San Jose Mercury News appears to be counting down to dropping its Sunday TV section altogether from subscription copies unless you order a more-expensive version w/it included !!!!!
I , too , have read that there is , now , considered to be no such thing as " the Serbo-Croat language " , it disappeared with the country Yugoslavia I guess...
The American newsstand-/supermarkets-sold TV Guide magazine drastically changed its format a couple years ago...

they reported that Guardian Media Group lost £89.8m last year, which surely explains why they are cost-cutting by dropping bits of both papers.

What is the point of the Observer food magazine? Or woman? Or two thirds of the Sunday Times.
They are the very epitome of everything that is wrong about the metropolitan, aspirational/ pretentious/ look at me I can write 1,500 words on a restaurant review of which only a handful are actually relevant.
Lucy Mangan, Polly Vernon, Barbra Ellen, Jay feckin Rayner, Tim Fecking Dowling - anti journalists one and all. I don't want to hear about any of them, their lives and especially not their families.

...and not a very welcome one. I have never been interested in the shopping trips, family birthdays or DIY challenges etc. But they are generally short enough to read quickly and mutter "ooh...you tosser!" to. They stoke up my self-esteem, which makes them vitally important.

at least 50% of the weekend Telegraph and Times goes straight into the recycling when I gut and fillet them ! Presumably their market research shows people want this stuff but god knows who. Maybe they could cut it out and reduce the prices - ha,ha !

Begin by whingeing about the Prime Minister. Mention one eye, socialism, his Scottishness and waves of Albanians stealing public school places.(300 words)
Next, target the chief constable of a regional police force and his speed cameras. Creeping Big Brother/ stealth tax blah blah (300 words)
Lament the passing of the age of speed because of the two above people (150 words).
Remind people you punched Piers Morgan (50 words).
Gratuitous mention of Zep, Camel, The Who or whoever the cool boys were into at boarding school. (100 words).
Mention (delete if not applicable): Aston Martin/ Ferrari/ Zonda.(60 words)
Say: 'Phwoarr, driving this is like Kristin Scott Thomas in a porno with Liz Hurley and Jody Kidd with the biblically epic AC DC blasting in the background. (Should take about 500 words).
Copy/ paste into email to Sunday Times, hit send and check that the Polish bloke clearing the gutters in your Isle of Man tax haven home for £25 hasn't stolen your child's grammar school place.
Retire smug.

I like him, but feel slightly bad for liking him. Then sometimes I feel really bad for liking him when he says something really stupid. The last really stupid thing I heard him say was in the Top Gear special where they drove to the North Pole. At the end of the piece he claimed that the climate change lobby were wrong because he had seen the North Pole and mankind hadn't made the slightest bit of impact on it. This was based on the fact that he had seen lots of ice, presumably.

This made me think: how do journalists reconcile what they say in print with what they might actually think about something? Do they even try, or are they happy to take the wages and continue to serve up the badly written, badly conceived, minority interest, lowest common denominator crap they (or their editors) assume their readers want? I use Clarkson as an example, but you could level the accusation at any number of journos. In fact, Clarkson is probably less guilty than most in that he at least has a persona and a set of consistent opinions and doesn't appear to be "for hire" in the same way.

I read The Guardian/Observer partly for heritage-lefty reasons, partly because they are the least bad of the options, but every weekend I move a little closer to not being bothered any more. In reference to another post, they really don't say anything to me about my life.

A subject that has no doubt been covered before but can anyone see newspapers (in their present form) still being around in 10 years. I've stopped taking a daily paper in the past year and only buy them at the weekends. I wonder how many people under 40 actually buy one at all?