First, it's important to understand the anomalous nature of the Guardian itself. There may not be anything else quite like it in commercial publishing anywhere. The Guardian is the fruit of a legal trust whose sole purpose is the perpetuation of the Guardian. In other words, the trust&emdash;the Scott Trust, created in 1936 by the Manchester family that controlled the paper&emdash;eliminates the exact thing that has most bedeviled media companies: the demands of impatient shareholders and the ambitions of would-be mogul CEOs.
I wonder whether there is any reason that such a thing started and kept going in Britain and not America. Is there some difference between the British and American cultural and/or media environments that would have made something like the Guardian less likely to get going, or to survive, in the US, or is the Guardian's British origin more or less an accident of history? (via FmH)
Posted by: acb | http://dev.null.org | Sat Jul 19 14:17:46 2003
Except that it has been based in London since the 1960s or so (in Farringdon Rd., opposite the Betsey Trotwood, in fact).
Want to say something? Do so here.
Note to spammers: This comment system applies the rel=nofollow attribute to the poster's URL and all links. Posting links to this page will not improve their search engine rankings.
Please keep comments on topic and to the point. Inappropriate comments may be deleted.
Note that markup is stripped from comments; URLs will be automatically converted into links.
Posted by: Benjamin | http://www.carnagevisors.net | Fri Jul 18 09:52:57 2003
Interesting, I wonder how it will go in the USA. The guardian is one of those papers I quite like, I liked its comics when I was little :). All in all a good manchester paper.