Manchester Guardian in the First World War

Manchester Guardian in the First World War

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Charles Prestwich Scott, the owner of the Manchester Guardian, initially opposed Britain's involvement in the First World War. Scott supported his friends, John Burns, John Morley and Charles Trevelyan, when they resigned from the government over this issue. As he wrote at the time: "I am strongly of the opinion that the war ought not to have taken place and that we ought not to have become parties to it, but once in it the whole future of our nation is at stake and we have no choice but do the utmost we can to secure success."

During the summer of 1914 most of the newspaper's writers, including C. E. Montague, Leonard Hobhouse, Herbert Sidebottom, Henry Nevinson, and J. A. Hobson had called for Britain to remain neutral in the growing conflict in Europe. However, once war was declared, most gave their support to the government.

J. Hobson remained opposed to Britain's involvement and joined the and anti-war organisation, the Union of Democratic Control (UDC). Hobson served on the UDC's executive council and wrote the book Towards International Government (1914) which advocated the formation of a world body to prevent wars.

C. Montague, although forty-seven with a wife and seven children, volunteered to join the British Army. Grey since his early twenties, Montague died his hair in an attempt to persuade the army to take him. On 23rd December, 1914, the Royal Fusiliers accepted him and he joined the Sportsman's Battalion.

Montague was later promoted to the rank of second lieutenant and transferred to Military Intelligence. For the next two years he had the task of writing propaganda for the British Army and censoring articles written by the five authorized English journalists on the Western Front (Perry Robinson, Philip Gibbs, Percival Phillips, Herbert Russell and Bleach Thomas). Howard Spring, another of the newspaper's writers, also worked for the Military Intelligence in France.

Henry Nevinson, the newspaper's main war reporter, was highly critical of the tactics used by the British Army but was unable to get this view past the censors. C. P. Scott and Leonard Hobhouse opposed conscription introduced in 1916 and the following year supported attempts made by Arthur Henderson to secure a negotiated peace.

On the whole, English newspapers have avoided taking sides in the quarrel. All with, we think, only with one exception (the Morning Post) have recognised the extreme provocation that Austria has received, and her right to take the strongest measures to secure the punishment of all concerned in the assassination of the Crown Prince.

If Russia makes a general war out of a local war it will be a crime against Europe. If we, who might remain neutral, rush into the war or let our attitude remain doubtful, it will be both a crime and an act of supreme and gratuitous folly.

It would be expedient to hold back the pamphlet. The war is at present going badly against us and any day may bring more serious news. I suppose that as soon as the Germans have time to turn their attention to us we may expect to see their big guns mounted on the other side of the Channel and their Zeppelins flying over Dover and perhaps London. People will be wholly impatient of any sort of criticism of policy at such a time and I am afraid that premature action now might destroy any hope of usefulness for your organisation (Union of Democratic Control) later. I saw Angell and Ramsay MacDonald yesterday afternoon and found that they had come to the same conclusion.

After the strain of carefully organised preparations, the excitement of the final hours was extreme, but no signs of anxiety were shown. Would the sea remain calm? Would the moon remain veiled in a thin cloud? Would the brigades keep time and place? Our own guns continued firing duly till the moment for withdrawal came. Our rifles kept up an intermittent fire, and sometimes came sudden outbursts from the Turks.

Mules neighed, chains rattled, steamers hooted low, and sailor men shouted into megaphones language strong enough to carry a hundred miles. Still the enemy showed no sign of life or hearing, though he lay almost visible in the moonlight across the familiar scene of bay and plain and hills to which British soldiers have given such unaccustomed names.

So the critical hours went by slowly, and yet giving so little time for all to be done. At last the final bands of silent defenders began to come in from the nearest lines. Sappers began to come in, cutting all telephone wires and signals on their way. Some sappers came after arranging slow fuses to kindle our few abandoned stores of biscuits, bully beef, and bacon left in the bends of the shore.

Silently the staffs began to go. The officers of the beach party, who had accomplished such excellent and sleepless work, collected. With a smile they heard the distant blast of Turks still labouring at the trenches - a peculiar instance of labour lost. Just before three a pinnace took me off to one of the battleships. At half-past three the last-ditchers put off. From our familiar northern point of Suvla Bay itself, I am told, the General commanding the Ninth Army Corps was himself the last to leave, motioning his chief of staff to go first. So the Sulva expedition came to an end after more than five months of existence.

You know that I was honestly willing to accept compulsory military service, provided that the voluntary system had first been tried out, and had failed to supply the men needed and who could still be spared from industry, and were numerically worth troubling about. Those, I think, are not unreasonable conditions, and I thought that in the conversation I had with you last September you agreed with them. I cannot feel that they had been fulfilled, and I do feel very strongly that compulsion is now being forced upon us without proof shown of its necessity, and I resent this the more deeply because it seems to me in the nature of a breach of faith with those who, like myself - there are plenty of them - were prepared to make great sacrifices of feeling and conviction in order to maintain the national unity and secure every condition needed for winning the war.

To expose human flesh and blood to the malignity of machine-guns is not scientific war but the untutored valour of the savage. What we seem to need for operations of this nature is some kind of armour which would enable the attack to get to close quarters with the defence without suffering such heavy losses. The defence is in effect wearing armour - the armour of a wall of bullets from their machine-guns besides the wall of masonry. The attack should have armour too, and as in those close operations the support of heavy artillery is out of the question the real parallel is not with anything known in field operations but with street fighting.

I listened last night, at a dinner given to Philip Gibbs on his return from the front, to the most impressive and moving description from him of what the war (on the Western Front) really means, that I have heard. Even an audience of hardened politicians and journalists were strongly affected. If people really knew, the war would be stopped tomorrow. But of course they don't know, and can't know. The correspondents don't write and the censorship wouldn't pass the truth. What they do send is not the war, but just a pretty picture of the war with everybody doing gallant deeds. The thing is horrible and beyond human nature to bear and I feel I can't go on with this bloody business.

Remembrance Day

Remembrance Day (sometimes known informally as Poppy Day owing to the tradition of the remembrance poppy) is a memorial day observed in Commonwealth member states. Remembrance Day has been observed since the end of the First World War to remember armed forces members who have died in the line of duty. Following a tradition inaugurated by King George V in 1919, [1] the day is also marked by war remembrances in many non-Commonwealth countries. In most countries, Remembrance Day is observed on 11 November to recall the end of First World War hostilities. Hostilities formally ended "at the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month" of 1918, in accordance with the armistice signed by representatives of Germany and the Entente between 5:12 and 5:20 that morning. ("At the 11th hour" refers to the passing of the 11th hour, or 11:00 am.) The First World War officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 28 June 1919. [2]

The tradition of Remembrance Day evolved out of Armistice Day. The initial Armistice Day was observed at Buckingham Palace, commencing with King George V hosting a "Banquet in Honour of the President of the French Republic" [3] during the evening hours of 10 November 1919. The first official Armistice Day was subsequently held on the grounds of Buckingham Palace the following morning. During the Second World War, many countries changed the name of the holiday. Member states of the Commonwealth of Nations adopted Remembrance Day, while the US chose Veterans Day. [4]

The Guardian

Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.

The Guardian, formerly (1821–1959) The Manchester Guardian, influential daily newspaper published in London, generally considered one of the United Kingdom’s leading newspapers.

The paper was founded in Manchester in 1821 as the weekly Manchester Guardian but became a daily after the British government lifted its Stamp Tax on newspapers in 1855. “Manchester” was dropped from the name in 1959 to reflect the newspaper’s standing as a national daily with a positive international reputation, and its editor and editorial staff moved to London in 1964.

The Guardian has historically been praised for its investigative journalism, its dispassionate discussion of issues, its literary and artistic coverage and criticism, and its foreign correspondence. The Guardian’s editorial stance is considered less conservative than that of The Daily Telegraph and The Times, its main London competitors, but its reporting is also marked by its independence. The paper was once called “Britain’s non-conformist conscience.”

Its editorial approach is credited to the 57-year tenure of Charles Prestwich Scott, which began in 1871, when the paper covered both the Prussian and the French sides in the Franco-German War. As Scott once described his paper’s publishing philosophy, “Comment is free. Facts are sacred…. The voice of opponents no less than of friends has a right to be heard.”

The paper is owned by the Scott Trust, which also owns the Guardian Media Group. Income from the group supports the newspaper and allows it to remain financially secure. The trust ownership structure has prevented a buyout of the newspaper by larger media owners.

This article was most recently revised and updated by Adam Augustyn, Managing Editor, Reference Content.


1821 to 1972

Early years

The Manchester Guardian was founded in Manchester in 1821 by cotton merchant John Edward Taylor with backing from the Little Circle, a group of non-conformist businessmen. [22] They launched the paper, on 5 May 1821 (by chance the very day of Napoleon's death) after the police closure of the more radical Manchester Observer, a paper that had championed the cause of the Peterloo Massacre protesters. [23] Taylor had been hostile to the radical reformers, writing: "They have appealed not to the reason but the passions and the suffering of their abused and credulous fellow-countrymen, from whose ill-requited industry they extort for themselves the means of a plentiful and comfortable existence. They do not toil, neither do they spin, but they live better than those that do." [24] When the government closed down the Manchester Observer, the mill-owners' champions had the upper hand. [25]

The influential journalist Jeremiah Garnett joined Taylor during the establishment of the paper, and all of the Little Circle wrote articles for the new paper. [26] The prospectus announcing the new publication proclaimed that it would "zealously enforce the principles of civil and religious Liberty [. ] warmly advocate the cause of Reform [. ] endeavour to assist in the diffusion of just principles of Political Economy and [. ] support, without reference to the party from which they emanate, all serviceable measures". [27] In 1825, the paper merged with the British Volunteer and was known as The Manchester Guardian and British Volunteer until 1828. [28]

The working-class Manchester and Salford Advertiser called The Manchester Guardian "the foul prostitute and dirty parasite of the worst portion of the mill-owners". [29] The Manchester Guardian was generally hostile to labour's claims. Of the 1832 Ten Hours Bill, the paper doubted whether in view of the foreign competition "the passing of a law positively enacting a gradual destruction of the cotton manufacture in this kingdom would be a much less rational procedure." [30] The Manchester Guardian dismissed strikes as the work of outside agitators: "[…] if an accommodation can be effected, the occupation of the agents of the Union is gone. They live on strife [. ]." [31]

Slavery and the American Civil War

The newspaper opposed slavery and supported free trade. An 1823 leading article on the continuing "cruelty and injustice" to slaves in the West Indies long after the abolition of the slave trade with the Slave Trade Act 1807 wanted fairness to the interests and claims both of the planters and of their oppressed slaves. [32] It welcomed the Slavery Abolition Act 1833 and accepted the "increased compensation" to the planters as the "guilt of slavery attaches far more to the nation" rather than individuals. Success of the Act would encourage emancipation in other slave-owning nations to avoid "imminent risk of a violent and bloody termination." [33] However, the newspaper argued against restricting trade with countries which had not yet abolished slavery. [34]

Complex tensions developed in the United States. [35] When the abolitionist George Thompson toured, the newspaper said that "[s]lavery is a monstrous evil, but civil war is not a less one and we would not seek the abolition even of the former through the imminent hazard of the latter". It suggested that the United States should compensate slave-owners for freeing slaves [36] and called on President Franklin Pierce to resolve the 1856 "civil war", the Sacking of Lawrence due to pro-slavery laws imposed by Congress. [37]

In 1860, The Observer quoted a report that the newly elected president Abraham Lincoln was opposed to abolition of slavery. [38] On 13 May 1861, shortly after the start of the American Civil War, the Manchester Guardian portrayed the Northern states as primarily imposing a burdensome trade monopoly on the Confederate States, arguing that if the South was freed to have direct trade with Europe, "the day would not be distant when slavery itself would cease". Therefore, the newspaper asked "Why should the South be prevented from freeing itself from slavery?" [39] This hopeful view was also held by the Liberal leader William Ewart Gladstone. [40]

There was division in Britain over the Civil War, even within political parties. The Manchester Guardian had also been conflicted. It had supported other independence movements and felt it should also support the rights of the Confederacy to self-determination. It criticised Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation for not freeing all American slaves. [40] On 10 October 1862, it wrote: "It is impossible to cast any reflections upon a man so evidently sincere and well-intentioned as Mr Lincoln but it is also impossible not to feel that it was an evil day both for America and the world, when he was chosen President of the United States". [41] By then, the Union blockade was causing suffering in British towns. Some including Liverpool supported the Confederacy as did "current opinion in all classes" in London. On 31 December 1862, cotton workers held a meeting at the Free Trade Hall in Manchester which resolved "its detestation of negro slavery in America, and of the attempt of the rebellious Southern slave-holders to organise on the great American continent a nation having slavery as its basis". There was a comment that "an effort had been made in a leading article of the Manchester Guardian to deter the working men from assembling together for such a purpose". The newspaper reported all this and published their letter to President Lincoln [42] while complaining that "the chief occupation, if not the chief object of the meeting, seems to have been to abuse the Manchester Guardian". [41] Lincoln replied to the letter thanking the workers for their "sublime Christian heroism" and American ships delivered relief supplies to Britain. [42]

The newspaper reported the shock to the community of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in 1865, concluding that "[t]he parting of his family with the dying President is too sad for description", [43] but in what from today's perspective looks an ill-judged editorial wrote that "[o]f his rule we can never speak except as a series of acts abhorrent to every true notion of constitutional right and human liberty", adding "it is doubtless to be regretted that he had not the opportunity of vindicating his good intentions". [40]

According to Martin Kettle, writing for The Guardian in February 2011, "The Guardian had always hated slavery. But it doubted the Union hated slavery to the same degree. It argued that the Union had always tacitly condoned slavery by shielding the southern slave states from the condemnation they deserved. It was critical of Lincoln's emancipation proclamation for stopping short of a full repudiation of slavery throughout the US. And it chastised the president for being so willing to negotiate with the south, with slavery one of the issues still on the table". [44]

C. P. Scott

C. P. Scott made the newspaper nationally recognised. He was editor for 57 years from 1872, and became its owner when he bought the paper from the estate of Taylor's son in 1907. Under Scott, the paper's moderate editorial line became more radical, supporting William Gladstone when the Liberals split in 1886, and opposing the Second Boer War against popular opinion. [45] Scott supported the movement for women's suffrage, but was critical of any tactics by the Suffragettes that involved direct action: [46] "The really ludicrous position is that Mr Lloyd George is fighting to enfranchise seven million women and the militants are smashing unoffending people's windows and breaking up benevolent societies' meetings in a desperate effort to prevent him." Scott thought the Suffragettes' "courage and devotion" was "worthy of a better cause and saner leadership". [47] It has been argued that Scott's criticism reflected a widespread disdain, at the time, for those women who "transgressed the gender expectations of Edwardian society". [46]

Scott commissioned J. M. Synge and his friend Jack Yeats to produce articles and drawings documenting the social conditions of the west of Ireland these pieces were published in 1911 in the collection Travels in Wicklow, West Kerry and Connemara. [48]

Scott's friendship with Chaim Weizmann played a role in the Balfour Declaration of 1917. In 1948 The Manchester Guardian was a supporter of the new State of Israel.

In 1919, the paper's special correspondent W. T. Goode travelled to Moscow and secured interviews with Vladimir Lenin and other Soviet leaders. [49] [50]

Ownership of the paper passed in June 1936 to the Scott Trust (named after the last owner, John Russell Scott, who was the first chairman of the Trust). This move ensured the paper's independence. [51]

Sylvia Sprigge served as correspondent for The Manchester Guardian in Italy 1943–1953. [52]

From 1930 to 1967, a special archival copy of all the daily newspapers was preserved in 700 zinc cases. These were found in 1988 whilst the newspaper's archives were deposited at the University of Manchester's John Rylands University Library, on the Oxford Road campus. The first case was opened and found to contain the newspapers issued in August 1930 in pristine condition. The zinc cases had been made each month by the newspaper's plumber and stored for posterity. The other 699 cases were not opened and were all returned to storage at The Guardian ' s garage, owing to shortage of space at the library. [53]

Spanish Civil War

Traditionally affiliated with the centrist to centre-left Liberal Party, and with a northern, non-conformist circulation base, the paper earned a national reputation and the respect of the left during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). George Orwell writes in Homage to Catalonia (1938): "Of our larger papers, the Manchester Guardian is the only one that leaves me with an increased respect for its honesty". [54] With the pro-Liberal News Chronicle, the Labour-supporting Daily Herald, the Communist Party's Daily Worker and several Sunday and weekly papers, it supported the Republican government against General Francisco Franco's insurgent nationalists. [55]


The paper's then editor, A. P. Wadsworth, so loathed Labour's left-wing champion Aneurin Bevan, who had made a reference to getting rid of "Tory Vermin" in a speech "and the hate-gospellers of his entourage" that it encouraged readers to vote Conservative in the 1951 general election and remove Attlee's post-war Labour government. [56] The newspaper opposed the creation of the National Health Service as it feared the state provision of healthcare would "eliminate selective elimination" and lead to an increase of congenitally deformed and feckless people. [57]

The Manchester Guardian strongly opposed military intervention during the 1956 Suez Crisis: "The Anglo-French ultimatum to Egypt is an act of folly, without justification in any terms but brief expediency. It pours petrol on a growing fire. There is no knowing what kind of explosion will follow." [58] [59]

On 24 August 1959, The Manchester Guardian changed its name to The Guardian. This change reflected the growing prominence of national and international affairs in the newspaper. [60] In September 1961, The Guardian, which had previously only been published in Manchester, began to be printed in London. [61]

1972 to 2000

Northern Ireland conflict

When 13 civil rights demonstrators in Northern Ireland were killed by British soldiers on 30 January 1972 (known as Bloody Sunday), The Guardian said that "Neither side can escape condemnation." [62] Of the protesters, they wrote, "The organizers of the demonstration, Miss Bernadette Devlin among them, deliberately challenged the ban on marches. They knew that stone throwing and sniping could not be prevented, and that the IRA might use the crowd as a shield." [62] Of the army, they wrote, "there seems little doubt that random shots were fired into the crowd, that aim was taken at individuals who were neither bombers nor weapons carriers and that excessive force was used". [62]

Many Irish people believed that the Widgery Tribunal's ruling on the killings was a whitewash, [63] a view that was later supported with the publication of the Saville inquiry in 2010, [64] but in 1972 The Guardian declared that "Widgery's report is not one-sided" (20 April 1972). [65] At the time the paper also supported internment without trial in Northern Ireland: "Internment without trial is hateful, repressive and undemocratic. In the existing Irish situation, most regrettably, it is also inevitable. .To remove the ringleaders, in the hope that the atmosphere might calm down, is a step to which there is no obvious alternative." [66] Before then, The Guardian had called for British troops to be sent to the region: British soldiers could "present a more disinterested face of law and order," [67] but only on condition that "Britain takes charge." [68]

Sarah Tisdall

In 1983 the paper was at the centre of a controversy surrounding documents regarding the stationing of cruise missiles in Britain that were leaked to The Guardian by civil servant Sarah Tisdall. The paper eventually complied with a court order to hand over the documents to the authorities, which resulted in a six-month prison sentence for Tisdall, [69] though she served only four. "I still blame myself," said Peter Preston, who was the editor of The Guardian at the time, but he went on to argue that the paper had no choice because it "believed in the rule of law". [70] In an article discussing Julian Assange and the protection of sources by journalists, John Pilger criticised The Guardian's editor for betraying Tisdall by choosing not to go to prison "on a fundamental principle of protecting a source". [71]

Alleged penetration by Russian intelligence

In 1994, KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky identified Guardian literary editor Richard Gott as "an agent of influence". While Gott denied that he received cash, he admitted he had had lunch at the Soviet Embassy and had taken benefits from the KGB on overseas visits. Gott resigned from his post. [72]

Gordievsky commented on the newspaper: "The KGB loved The Guardian. It was deemed highly susceptible to penetration." [73]

Jonathan Aitken

In 1995, both the Granada Television programme World in Action and The Guardian were sued for libel by the then cabinet minister Jonathan Aitken, for their allegation that Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed had paid for Aitken and his wife to stay at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris, which would have amounted to accepting a bribe on Aitken's part. Aitken publicly stated that he would fight with "the simple sword of truth and the trusty shield of British fair play". [74] The court case proceeded, and in 1997 The Guardian produced evidence that Aitken's claim of his wife paying for the hotel stay was untrue. [75] In 1999, Aitken was jailed for perjury and perverting the course of justice. [76]


In May 1998, a series of Guardian investigations exposed the wholesale fabrication of a much-garlanded ITV documentary The Connection, produced by Carlton Television.

The documentary purported to film an undiscovered route by which heroin was smuggled into the United Kingdom from Colombia. An internal inquiry at Carlton found that The Guardian's allegations were in large part correct and the then industry regulator, the ITC, punished Carlton with a record £2-million fine [77] for multiple breaches of the UK's broadcasting codes. The scandal led to an impassioned debate about the accuracy of documentary production. [78] [79]

Later in June 1998, The Guardian revealed further fabrications in another Carlton documentary from the same director. [80]

Kosovo War

The paper supported NATO's military intervention in the Kosovo War in 1998–1999. The Guardian stated that "the only honourable course for Europe and America is to use military force". [81] Mary Kaldor's piece was headlined "Bombs away! But to save civilians, we must get in some soldiers too." [82]

Since 2000

In the early 2000s, The Guardian challenged the Act of Settlement 1701 and the Treason Felony Act 1848. [83] [84] In October 2004, The Guardian published a humorous column by Charlie Brooker in its entertainment guide, the final sentence of which was viewed by some as a call for violence against U.S. President George W. Bush after a controversy, Brooker and the paper issued an apology, saying the "closing comments were intended as an ironic joke, not as a call to action." [85] Following the 7 July 2005 London bombings, The Guardian published an article on its comment pages by Dilpazier Aslam, a 27-year-old British Muslim and journalism trainee from Yorkshire. [86] Aslam was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist group, and had published a number of articles on their website. According to the paper, it did not know that Aslam was a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir when he applied to become a trainee, though several staff members were informed of this once he started at the paper. [87] The Home Office has claimed the group's "ultimate aim is the establishment of an Islamic state (Caliphate), according to Hizb ut-Tahrir via non-violent means". The Guardian asked Aslam to resign his membership of the group and, when he did not do so, terminated his employment. [88] In early 2009, the paper started a tax investigation into a number of major UK companies, [89] including publishing a database of the tax paid by the FTSE 100 companies. [90] Internal documents relating to Barclays Bank's tax avoidance were removed from The Guardian website after Barclays obtained a gagging order. [91] The paper played a pivotal role in exposing the depth of the News of the World phone hacking affair. The Economist 's Intelligent Life magazine opined that.

As Watergate is to the Washington Post, and thalidomide to the Sunday Times, so phone-hacking will surely be to The Guardian: a defining moment in its history. [92]

Israeli-Palestinian conflict coverage

In recent decades The Guardian has been accused of biased criticism of Israeli government policy [93] and of bias against the Palestinians. [94] In December 2003, columnist Julie Burchill cited "striking bias against the state of Israel" as one of the reasons she left the paper for The Times. [95]

Responding to these accusations, a Guardian editorial in 2002 condemned antisemitism and defended the paper's right to criticise the policies and actions of the Israeli government, arguing that those who view such criticism as inherently anti-Jewish are mistaken. [96] Harriet Sherwood, then The Guardian 's foreign editor, later its Jerusalem correspondent, has also denied that The Guardian has an anti-Israel bias, saying that the paper aims to cover all viewpoints in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. [97]

On 6 November 2011, Chris Elliott, The Guardian ' s readers' editor, wrote that "Guardian reporters, writers and editors must be more vigilant about the language they use when writing about Jews or Israel," citing recent cases where The Guardian received complaints regarding language chosen to describe Jews or Israel. Elliott noted that, over nine months, he upheld complaints regarding language in certain articles that were seen as anti-Semitic, revising the language and footnoting this change. [98]

The Guardian ' s style guide section referred to Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel in 2012. [99] [100] The Guardian later clarified: "In 1980, the Israeli Knesset enacted a law designating the city of Jerusalem, including East Jerusalem, as the country's capital. In response, the UN security council issued resolution 478, censuring the "change in character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem" and calling on all member states with diplomatic missions in the city to withdraw. The UN has reaffirmed this position on several occasions, and almost every country now has its embassy in Tel Aviv. While it was therefore right to issue a correction to make clear Israel's designation of Jerusalem as its capital is not recognised by the international community, we accept that it is wrong to state that Tel Aviv – the country's financial and diplomatic centre – is the capital. The style guide has been amended accordingly." [101]

On 11 August 2014 the print edition of The Guardian published a pro-Israeli advocacy advert during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict featuring Elie Wiesel, headed by the words "Jews rejected child sacrifice 3,500 years ago. Now it's Hamas' turn." The Times had decided against running the ad, although it had already appeared in major American newspapers. [102] One week later, Chris Elliott expressed the opinion that the newspaper should have rejected the language used in the advert and should have negotiated with the advertiser on this matter. [103]

Clark County

In August 2004, for the US presidential election, the daily G2 supplement launched an experimental letter-writing campaign in Clark County, Ohio, an average-sized county in a swing state. Editor Ian Katz bought a voter list from the county for $25 and asked readers to write to people listed as undecided in the election, giving them an impression of the international view and the importance of voting against President George W. Bush. [104] [ circular reference ] Katz admitted later that he did not believe Democrats who warned that the campaign would benefit Bush and not opponent John Kerry. [105] The newspaper scrapped "Operation Clark County" on 21 October 2004 after first publishing a column of responses—nearly all of them outraged—to the campaign under the headline "Dear Limey assholes". [106] Some commentators suggested that the public's dislike of the campaign contributed to Bush's victory in Clark County. [107]

Guardian America and Guardian US

In 2007, the paper launched Guardian America, an attempt to capitalise on its large online readership in the United States, which at the time stood at more than 5.9 million. The company hired former American Prospect editor, New York magazine columnist and New York Review of Books writer Michael Tomasky to head the project and hire a staff of American reporters and web editors. The site featured news from The Guardian that was relevant to an American audience: coverage of US news and the Middle East, for example. [108]

Tomasky stepped down from his position as editor of Guardian America in February 2009, ceding editing and planning duties to other US and London staff. He retained his position as a columnist and blogger, taking the title editor-at-large. [109]

In October 2009, the company abandoned the Guardian America homepage, instead directing users to a US news index page on the main Guardian website. [110] The following month, the company laid off six American employees, including a reporter, a multimedia producer and four web editors. The move came as Guardian News and Media opted to reconsider its US strategy amid a huge effort to cut costs across the company. [111] In subsequent years, however, The Guardian has hired various commentators on US affairs including Ana Marie Cox, Michael Wolff, Naomi Wolf, Glenn Greenwald and George W. Bush's former speechwriter Josh Treviño. [112] [113] Treviño's first blog post was an apology for a controversial tweet posted in June 2011 over the second Gaza flotilla, the controversy which had been revived by the appointment. [114]

Guardian US launched in September 2011, led by editor-in-chief Janine Gibson, which replaced the previous Guardian America service. [115] After a period during which Katharine Viner served as the US editor-in-chief before taking charge of Guardian News and Media as a whole, Viner's former deputy, Lee Glendinning, was appointed to succeed her as head of the American operation at the beginning of June 2015. [116]

Gagged from reporting Parliament

In October 2009, The Guardian reported that it was forbidden to report on a parliamentary matter – a question recorded in a Commons order paper, to be answered by a minister later that week. [117] The paper noted that it was being "forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented—for the first time in memory—from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret. The only fact The Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck." The paper further claimed that this case appears "to call into question privileges guaranteeing free speech established under the 1689 Bill of Rights". [118] The only parliamentary question mentioning Carter-Ruck in the relevant period was by Paul Farrelly MP, in reference to legal action by Barclays and Trafigura. [119] [120] The part of the question referencing Carter-Ruck relates to the latter company's September 2009 gagging order on the publication of a 2006 internal report [121] into the 2006 Côte d'Ivoire toxic waste dump scandal, which involved a class action case that the company only settled in September 2009 after The Guardian published some of the commodity trader's internal emails. [122] The reporting injunction was lifted the next day, for Carter-Ruck withdrew it before The Guardian could challenge it in the High Court. [123] Alan Rusbridger attributed the rapid back-down by Carter-Ruck to postings on Twitter, [124] as did a BBC article. [125]

Edward Snowden leaks and intervention by the UK government

In June 2013, the newspaper broke news of the secret collection of Verizon telephone records held by Barack Obama's administration [19] [126] and subsequently revealed the existence of the PRISM surveillance program after it was leaked to the paper by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden. [20] The newspaper was subsequently contacted by the British government's Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, under instruction from Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who ordered that the hard drives containing the information be destroyed. [127] The Guardian 's offices were then visited in July by agents from the UK's GCHQ, who supervised the destruction of the hard drives containing information acquired from Snowden. [128] In June 2014, The Register reported that the information the government sought to suppress by destroying the hard drives related to the location of a "beyond top secret" internet monitoring base in Seeb, Oman, and the close involvement of BT and Cable & Wireless in intercepting internet communications. [129] Julian Assange criticised the newspaper for not publishing the entirety of the content when it had the chance. [130] Rusbridger had initially proceeded without the government's supervision, but subsequently sought it, and established an ongoing relationship with the Defence Ministry. The Guardian enquiry later continued because the information had already been copied outside the United Kingdom, earning the newspaper a Pulitzer Prize. Rusbridger and subsequent chief editors would sit on the government's DSMA-notice board. [131]

Manafort–Assange secret meetings

In a November 2018 Guardian article, Luke Harding and Dan Collyns cited anonymous sources which stated that Donald Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manafort held secret meetings with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange inside the Ecuadorian embassy in London in 2013, 2015, and 2016. [132] One reporter characterized the story, "If it's right, it might be the biggest get this year. If it's wrong, it might be the biggest gaffe." Manafort and Assange both denied ever having met with the latter threatening legal action against The Guardian. [133] Ecuador's London consul Fidel Narváez, who had worked at Ecuador's embassy in London from 2010 to July 2018, denied that Manafort's visits had happened. [134]

Priti Patel cartoon

The Guardian was accused of being "racist and misogynistic" after it published a cartoon depicting Home Secretary, Priti Patel as a cow with a ring in its nose in an alleged reference to her Hindu faith, since cows are considered sacred in Hinduism. [135] [136]

WikiLeaks coverage

Journalist Glenn Greenwald of The Intercept, a former contributor to The Guardian, has accused The Guardian of falsifying the words of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in a report about the interview he gave to Italian newspaper La Repubblica. Greenwald wrote: "This article is about how those [Guardian 's ] false claims—fabrications, really—were spread all over the internet by journalists, causing hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) to consume false news." [137] The Guardian later amended its article about Assange. [138] [ clarification needed ]

After publishing a story on 13 January 2017 claiming that WhatsApp had a "backdoor [that] allows snooping on messages", more than 70 professional cryptographers signed on to an open letter calling for The Guardian to retract the article. [139] [140] On 13 June 2017, editor Paul Chadwick released an article detailing the flawed reporting in the original January article, which was amended to remove references to a backdoor. [141] [142]

The Guardian is part of the Guardian Media Group (GMG) of newspapers, radio stations and print media. GMG components include The Observer, The Guardian Weekly and All the aforementioned were owned by The Scott Trust, a charitable foundation existing between 1936 and 2008, which aimed to ensure the paper's editorial independence in perpetuity, maintaining its financial health in order to ensure it did not become vulnerable to takeovers by for-profit media groups. At the beginning of October 2008, the Scott Trust ' s assets were transferred to a new limited company, The Scott Trust Limited, with the intention being that the original trust would be wound up. [143] Dame Liz Forgan, chair of the Scott Trust, reassured staff that the purposes of the new company remained the same as under the previous arrangements.

The Guardian 's ownership by the Scott Trust is probably a factor in its being the only British national daily to conduct (since 2003) an annual social, ethical and environmental audit in which it examines, under the scrutiny of an independent external auditor, its own behaviour as a company. [144] It is also the only British national daily newspaper to employ an internal ombudsman (called the "readers' editor") to handle complaints and corrections.

The Guardian and its parent groups participate in Project Syndicate and intervened in 1995 to save the Mail & Guardian in South Africa. However, GMG sold the majority of its shares of the Mail & Guardian in 2002. [145]

The Guardian was consistently loss-making until 2019. [146] The National Newspaper division of GMG, which also includes The Observer, reported operating losses of £49.9 million in 2006, up from £18.6 million in 2005. [147] The paper was therefore heavily dependent on cross-subsidisation from profitable companies within the group.

The continual losses made by the National Newspaper division of the Guardian Media Group caused it to dispose of its Regional Media division by selling titles to competitor Trinity Mirror in March 2010. This included the flagship Manchester Evening News, and severed the historic link between that paper and The Guardian. The sale was in order to safeguard the future of The Guardian newspaper as is the intended purpose of the Scott Trust. [148]

In June 2011 Guardian News and Media revealed increased annual losses of £33 million and announced that it was looking to focus on its online edition for news coverage, leaving the print edition to contain more comments and features. It was also speculated that The Guardian might become the first British national daily paper to be fully online. [149] [150]

For the three years up to June 2012, the paper lost £100,000 a day, which prompted Intelligent Life to question whether The Guardian could survive. [151]

Between 2007 and 2014 The Guardian Media Group sold all their side businesses, of regional papers and online portals for classifieds and consolidated, into The Guardian as sole product. The sales let them acquire a capital stock of £838.3 million as of July 2014, supposed to guarantee the independence of the Guardian in perpetuity. In the first year, the paper made more losses than predicted, and in January 2016 the publishers announced, that The Guardian will cut 20 per cent of staff and costs within the next three years. [152] The newspaper is rare in calling for direct contributions "to deliver the independent journalism the world needs." [153]

The Guardian Media Group's 2018 annual report (year ending 1 April 2018) indicated some significant changes occurring. Its digital (online) editions accounted for over 50% of group revenues by that time the loss from news and media operations was £18.6 million, 52% lower than during the prior year (2017: £38.9 million). The Group had cut costs by £19.1 million, partly by switching its print edition to the tabloid format. The Guardian Media Group's owner, the Scott Trust Endowment Fund, reported that its value at the time was £1.01 billion (2017: £1.03 billion). [154] In the following financial report (for the year 2018/2019), the group reported a profit (EBITDA) of £0.8 million before exceptional items, thus breaking even in 2019. [155] [156]

"Membership" subscription scheme

In 2014, The Guardian launched a membership scheme. [157] The scheme aims to reduce the financial losses incurred by The Guardian without introducing a paywall, thus maintaining open access to the website. Website readers can pay a monthly subscription, with three tiers available. [158] As of 2018 this approach was considered successful, having brought more than 1 million subscriptions or donations, with the paper hoping to break even by April 2019. [159]

Foundation funding

In 2016, the company established a U.S.-based philanthropic arm to raise money from individuals and organizations including think tanks and corporate foundations. [160] The grants are focused by the donors on particular issues. By the following year, the organization had raised $1 million from the likes of Pierre Omidyar's Humanity United, the Skoll Foundation, and the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation to finance reporting on topics including modern-day slavery and climate change. The Guardian has stated that it has secured $6 million "in multi-year funding commitments" thus far. [161]

The new project developed from funding relationships which the paper already had with the Ford, Rockefeller, and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. [162] Gates had given the organization $5 million [163] for its Global Development webpage. [164]

As of March 2020, the journal claims to be "the first major global news organisation to institute an outright ban on taking money from companies that extract fossil fuels." [165]

Founded by textile traders and merchants, in its early years The Guardian had a reputation as "an organ of the middle class", [166] or in the words of C. P. Scott's son Ted, "a paper that will remain bourgeois to the last". [167] Associated at first with the Little Circle and hence with classical liberalism as expressed by the Whigs and later by the Liberal Party, its political orientation underwent a decisive change after World War II, leading to a gradual alignment with Labour and the political left in general.

The Scott Trust describes one of its "core purposes" to be "to secure the financial and editorial independence of the Guardian in perpetuity: as a quality national newspaper without party affiliation remaining faithful to its liberal tradition". [7] [168] The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion: a MORI poll taken between April and June 2000 showed that 80 per cent of Guardian readers were Labour Party voters [10] according to another MORI poll taken in 2005, 48 per cent of Guardian readers were Labour voters and 34 per cent Liberal Democrat voters. [11] The newspaper's reputation as a platform for liberal opinions has led to the use of the epithets "Guardian reader" and "Guardianista" for people holding such views, or as a stereotype of such people as middle class, earnest and politically correct. [13] [169]

Although the paper is often considered to be "linked inextricably" to the Labour Party, [168] three of The Guardian 's four leader writers joined the more centrist Social Democratic Party on its foundation in 1981. The paper was enthusiastic in its support for Tony Blair in his successful bid to lead the Labour Party, [170] and to be elected Prime Minister. [171] On 19 January 2003, two months before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, an Observer Editorial said: "Military intervention in the Middle East holds many dangers. But if we want a lasting peace it may be the only option. […] War with Iraq may yet not come, but, conscious of the potentially terrifying responsibility resting with the British Government, we find ourselves supporting the current commitment to a possible use of force." [172] But The Guardian opposed the war, along with the Daily Mirror and The Independent. [173]

Then Guardian features editor Ian Katz asserted in 2004 that "it is no secret we are a centre-left newspaper". [174] In 2008, Guardian columnist Jackie Ashley said that editorial contributors were a mix of "right-of-centre libertarians, greens, Blairites, Brownites, Labourite but less enthusiastic Brownites, etc," and that the newspaper was "clearly left of centre and vaguely progressive". She also said that "you can be absolutely certain that come the next general election, The Guardian 's stance will not be dictated by the editor, still less any foreign proprietor (it helps that there isn't one) but will be the result of vigorous debate within the paper". [175] The paper's comment and opinion pages, though often written by centre-left contributors such as Polly Toynbee, have allowed some space for right-of-centre voices such as Sir Max Hastings and Michael Gove. Since an editorial in 2000, The Guardian has favoured abolition of the British monarchy. [176] "I write for the Guardian," said Max Hastings in 2005, [177] "because it is read by the new establishment," reflecting the paper's then-growing influence.

In the run-up to the 2010 general election, following a meeting of the editorial staff, [178] the paper declared its support for the Liberal Democrats, due in particular, to the party's stance on electoral reform. The paper suggested tactical voting to prevent a Conservative victory, given Britain's first-past-the-post electoral system. [179] At the 2015 election, the paper switched its support to the Labour Party. The paper argued that Britain needed a new direction and Labour "speaks with more urgency than its rivals on social justice, standing up to predatory capitalism, on investment for growth, on reforming and strengthening the public realm, Britain's place in Europe and international development". [180]

Assistant Editor Michael White, in discussing media self-censorship in March 2011, says: "I have always sensed liberal, middle class ill-ease in going after stories about immigration, legal or otherwise, about welfare fraud or the less attractive tribal habits of the working class, which is more easily ignored altogether. Toffs, including royal ones, Christians, especially popes, governments of Israel, and US Republicans are more straightforward targets." [181]

In a 2013 interview for NPR, The Guardian's Latin America correspondent Rory Carroll stated that many editors at The Guardian believed and continue to believe that they should support Hugo Chávez "because he was a standard-bearer for the left". [182]

In the 2015 Labour Party leadership election, The Guardian supported Yvette Cooper and was critical of left-winger Jeremy Corbyn, the successful candidate. [183] These positions were criticised by the Morning Star, which accused The Guardian of being conservative. [184] Although the majority of political columnists in The Guardian were against Corbyn winning, Owen Jones, Seumas Milne, and George Monbiot wrote supportive articles about him.

Despite this critical position, in the 2017 election The Guardian endorsed the Labour Party. [185] In the 2019 European election The Guardian invited its readers to vote for pro-EU candidates, without endorsing specific parties. [186]

The Guardian had a certified average daily circulation of 204,222 copies in December 2012 — a drop of 11.25 per cent in January 2012 — as compared to sales of 547,465 for The Daily Telegraph, 396,041 for The Times, and 78,082 for The Independent. [187] In March 2013, its average daily circulation had fallen to 193,586, according to the Audit Bureau of Circulations. [188] Circulation has continued to decline and stood at 161,091 in December 2016, a decline of 2.98 per cent year-on-year. [189]

Publication history

The first edition was published on 5 May 1821, [190] at which time The Guardian was a weekly, published on Saturdays and costing 7d the stamp duty on newspapers (4d per sheet) forced the price up so high that it was uneconomic to publish more frequently. When the stamp duty was cut in 1836, The Guardian added a Wednesday edition and with the abolition of the tax in 1855 it became a daily paper costing 2d.

In October 1952, the paper took the step of printing news on the front page, replacing the adverts that had hitherto filled that space. Then-editor A. P. Wadsworth wrote: "It is not a thing I like myself, but it seems to be accepted by all the newspaper pundits that it is preferable to be in fashion." [191]

Following the closure of the Anglican Church Newspaper, The Guardian, in 1951, the paper dropped "Manchester" from its title in 1959, becoming simply The Guardian. [192] In 1964 it moved to London, losing some of its regional agenda but continuing to be heavily subsidised by sales of the more downmarket but more profitable Manchester Evening News. The financial position remained extremely poor into the 1970s at one time it was in merger talks with The Times. The paper consolidated its centre-left stance during the 1970s and 1980s. [ citation needed ]

On 12 February 1988, The Guardian had a significant redesign as well as improving the quality of its printers' ink, it also changed its masthead to a juxtaposition of an italic Garamond "The", with a bold Helvetica "Guardian", that remained in use until the 2005 redesign.

In 1992, The Guardian relaunched its features section as G2, a tabloid-format supplement. This innovation was widely copied by the other "quality" broadsheets and ultimately led to the rise of "compact" papers and The Guardian 's move to the Berliner format. In 1993 the paper declined to participate in the broadsheet price war started by Rupert Murdoch's The Times. In June 1993, The Guardian bought The Observer from Lonrho, thus gaining a serious Sunday sister newspaper with similar political views.

Its international weekly edition is now titled The Guardian Weekly, though it retained the title Manchester Guardian Weekly for some years after the home edition had moved to London. It includes sections from a number of other internationally significant newspapers of a somewhat left-of-centre inclination, including Le Monde and The Washington Post. The Guardian Weekly was also linked to a website for expatriates, Guardian Abroad, which was launched in 2007 but had been taken offline by 2012.

Moving to the Berliner paper format

The Guardian is printed in full colour, [193] and was the first newspaper in the UK to use the Berliner format for its main section, while producing sections and supplements in a range of page sizes including tabloid, approximately A4, and pocket-size (approximately A5).

In 2004, The Guardian announced plans to change to a Berliner or "midi" format, [194] similar to that used by Die Tageszeitung in Germany, Le Monde in France and many other European papers. At 470×315 mm, this is slightly larger than a traditional tabloid. Planned for the autumn of 2005, this change followed moves by The Independent and The Times to start publishing in tabloid (or compact) format. On Thursday, 1 September 2005, The Guardian announced that it would launch the new format on Monday 12 September 2005. [195] Sister Sunday newspaper The Observer also changed to this new format on 8 January 2006.

The format switch was accompanied by a comprehensive redesign of the paper's look. On Friday, 9 September 2005, the newspaper unveiled its newly designed front page, which débuted on Monday 12 September 2005. Designed by Mark Porter, the new look includes a new masthead for the newspaper, its first since 1988. A typeface family designed by Paul Barnes and Christian Schwartz was created for the new design. With just over 200 fonts, it was described as "one of the most ambitious custom type programs ever commissioned by a newspaper". [196] [197] Among the fonts is Guardian Egyptian, a slab serif that is used in various weights for both text and headlines, and is central to the redesign.

The switch cost Guardian Newspapers £80 million and involved setting up new printing presses in east London and Manchester. [198] This switch was necessary because, before The Guardian 's move, no printing presses in Britain could produce newspapers in the Berliner format. There were additional complications, as one of the paper's presses was part-owned by Telegraph Newspapers and Express Newspapers, contracted to use the plant until 2009. Another press was shared with the Guardian Media Group's north-western tabloid local papers, which did not wish to switch to the Berliner format.


The new format was generally well received by Guardian readers, who were encouraged to provide feedback on the changes. The only controversy was over the dropping of the Doonesbury cartoon strip. The paper reported thousands of calls and emails complaining about its loss within 24 hours the decision was reversed and the strip was reinstated the following week. G2 supplement editor Ian Katz, who was responsible for dropping it, apologised in the editors' blog saying, "I'm sorry, once again, that I made you—and the hundreds of fellow fans who have called our helpline or mailed our comments' address—so cross." [199] However, some readers were dissatisfied as the earlier deadline needed for the all-colour sports section meant coverage of late-finishing evening football matches became less satisfactory in the editions supplied to some parts of the country.

The investment was rewarded with a circulation rise. In December 2005, the average daily sale stood at 380,693, nearly 6 per cent higher than the figure for December 2004. [200] (However, as of December 2012, circulation had dropped to 204,222.) [201] In 2006, the US-based Society for News Design chose The Guardian and Polish daily Rzeczpospolita as the world's best-designed newspapers—from among 389 entries from 44 countries. [202]

Tabloid format since 2018

In June 2017, Guardian Media Group (GMG) announced that The Guardian and The Observer would relaunch in tabloid format from early 2018. [203] The Guardian confirmed the launch date for the new format to be 15 January 2018. GMG also signed a contract with Trinity Mirror – the publisher of the Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, and Sunday People – to outsource printing of The Guardian and The Observer. [204]

The format change is intended to help cut costs as it allows the paper to be printed by a wider array of presses, and outsourcing the printing to presses owned by Trinity Mirror is expected to save millions of pounds annually. The move is part of a three-year plan that includes cutting 300 jobs in an attempt to reduce losses and break even by 2019. [203] [205] The paper and ink are the same as previously and the font size is fractionally larger. [206]

An assessment of the response from readers in late April 2018 indicated that the new format had led to an increased number of subscriptions. The editors were working on changing aspects that had caused complaints from readers. [206]

In July 2018, the masthead of the new tabloid format was adjusted to a dark blue. [207]

The Guardian and its Sunday sibling The Observer publish all their news online, with free access both to current news and an archive of three million stories. A third of the site's hits are for items over a month old. [208] As of May 2013, it was the most popular UK newspaper website with 8.2 million unique visitors per month, just ahead of Mail Online with 7.6 million unique monthly visitors. [209] In April 2011, MediaWeek reported that The Guardian was the fifth most popular newspaper site in the world. [210] Journalists use an analytics tool called Ophan, built entire in-house, to measure website data around stories and audience. [211]

The Guardian launched an iOS mobile application for its content in 2009. [212] An Android app followed in 2011. [213] In 2018, the newspaper announced its apps and mobile website would be redesigned to coincide with its relaunch as a tabloid. [214]

The Comment is Free section features columns by the paper's journalists and regular commentators, as well as articles from guest writers, including readers' comments and responses below. The section includes all the opinion pieces published in the paper itself, as well as many others that only appear online. Censorship is exercised by Moderators who can ban posts – with no right of appeal – by those who they feel have overstepped the mark. The Guardian has taken what they call a very "open" stance in delivering news, and have launched an open platform for their content. This allows external developers to easily use Guardian content in external applications, and even to feed third-party content back into the Guardian network. [215] The Guardian also had a number of talkboards that were noted for their mix of political discussion and whimsy until they were closed on Friday, 25 February 2011 after they had settled a libel action brought after months of harassment of a conservative party activist. [216] [217] They were spoofed in The Guardian 's own regular humorous Chatroom column in G2. The spoof column purported to be excerpts from a chatroom on, a real URL that pointed to The Guardian 's talkboards.

In August 2013, a webshow titled Thinkfluencer [218] was launched by Guardian Multimedia in association with Arte.

In 2004 the paper also launched a dating website, Guardian Soulmates. [219] On 1 July 2020, Guardian Soulmates was closed down with the explanation: "It hasn’t been an easy decision to make, but the online dating world is a very different place to when we first launched online in July 2004. There are so many dating apps now, so many ways to meet people, which are often free and very quick." [220]


The paper entered podcasting in 2005 with a twelve-part weekly podcast series by Ricky Gervais. [221] In January 2006, Gervais' show topped the iTunes podcast chart having been downloaded by two million listeners worldwide, [222] and was scheduled to be listed in the 2007 Guinness Book of Records as the most downloaded podcast. [223]

The Guardian now offers several regular podcasts made by its journalists. One of the most prominent is Today in Focus, a daily news podcast hosted by Anushka Asthana and launched on 1 November 2018. It was an immediate success [224] and became one of the UK's most-downloaded podcasts. [224] [225] [226]

In 2003, The Guardian started the film production company GuardianFilms, headed by journalist Maggie O'Kane. Much of the company's output is documentary made for television– and it has included Salam Pax's Baghdad Blogger for BBC Two's daily flagship Newsnight, some of which have been shown in compilations by CNN International, Sex on the Streets and Spiked, both made for the UK's Channel 4 television. [227]

GuardianFilms has received several broadcasting awards. In addition to two Amnesty International Media Awards in 2004 and 2005, The Baghdad Blogger: Salam Pax won a Royal Television Society Award in 2005. Baghdad: A Doctor's Story won an Emmy Award for Best International Current Affairs film in 2007. [228] In 2008, photojournalist Sean Smith's Inside the Surge won the Royal Television Society award for best international news film – the first time a newspaper has won such an award. [229] [230] The same year, The Guardian 's Katine website was awarded for its outstanding new media output at the One World Media awards. Again in 2008, GuardianFilms' undercover video report revealing vote rigging by Robert Mugabe's ZANU–PF party during the 2007 Zimbabwe election won best news programme of the year at the Broadcast Awards. [228] [231]

The paper's nickname The Grauniad (sometimes abbreviated as "Graun") originated with the satirical magazine Private Eye. [232] This anagram played on The Guardian ' s early reputation for frequent typographical errors, including misspelling its own name as The Gaurdian. [233]

The first issue of the newspaper contained a number of errors, including a notification that there would soon be some goods sold at atction instead of auction. Fewer typographical errors are seen in the paper since the end of hot-metal typesetting. [234] One Guardian writer, Keith Devlin, suggested that the high number of observed misprints was due more to the quality of the readership than the misprints' greater frequency. [235] The fact that the newspaper was printed in Manchester until 1961 and the early, more error-prone, prints were sent to London by train may have contributed to this image as well. [236] [233] When John Cole was appointed news editor by Alastair Hetherington in 1963, he sharpened the paper's comparatively "amateurish" setup. [237]

Employees of The Guardian and sister paper The Observer have been depicted in the films The Fifth Estate (2013), Snowden (2016) and Official Secrets (2019), while Paddy Considine played a fictional Guardian journalist in the film The Bourne Ultimatum (2007).


The Guardian has been awarded the National Newspaper of the Year in 1998, 2005, [238] 2010 [239] and 2013 [21] by the British Press Awards, and Front Page of the Year in 2002 ("A declaration of war", 12 September 2001). [238] [240] It was also co-winner of the World's Best-designed Newspaper as awarded by the Society for News Design (2005, 2007, 2013, 2014). [241]

Guardian journalists have won a range of British Press Awards, including: [238]

  • Reporter of the Year (Nick Davies, 2000 [242]Paul Lewis, 2010 [243] Rob Evans & Paul Lewis, 2014) [244]
  • Foreign Reporter of the Year (James Meek, 2004 [245]Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, 2008) [246]
  • Scoop of the Year (Milly Dowler phone hacked, 2012) [247]
  • Young Journalist of the Year (Emma Brockes, 2001 [248]Patrick Kingsley, 2013) [249]
  • Columnist of the Year (Polly Toynbee, 2007 [250]Charlie Brooker, 2009) [251]
  • Critic of the Year (Marina O'Loughlin, 2015) [252]
  • Feature Writer of the Year (Emma Brockes, 2002 [248]Tanya Gold, 2009 [253]Amelia Gentleman, 2010) [239]
  • Cartoonist of the Year (Steve Bell, 2003) [254]
  • Political Journalist of the Year (Patrick Wintour, 2006 Andrew Sparrow, 2010) [239]
  • Science & Health Journalist of the Year (Sarah Boseley, 2016) [255]
  • Business & Finance Journalist of the Year (Ian Griffiths, 2005 [256] Simon Goodley, 2014) [257]
  • Interviewer of the Year (Decca Aitkenhead, 2008) [258]
  • Sports Reporter of the Year (David Lacey, 2002) [259]
  • Sports Photographer of the Year (Tom Jenkins, 2003, 2005, 2006, [260] 2015) [261]
  • Website of the Year (, 1999, 2001, [262] 2007, [263] 2008, [264] 2015, [265] 2020) [266]
  • Digital Journalist of the Year (Dan Milmo, 2001 [267] Sean Smith, 2008 [268] Dave Hill, 2009) [269]
  • Supplement of the Year (Guardian's Guides to. , 2007 [270]Weekend Magazine, 2015) [271]
  • Special Supplement of the Year (World Cup 2010 Guide, 2010) [239]

The Guardian, Observer and its journalists have also won numerous accolades at the British Sports Journalism Awards:

  • Sports Writer of the Year (Daniel Taylor, 2017) [275]
  • Sports News Reporter of the Year (David Conn, 2009, 2014) [276]
  • Football Journalist of the Year (Daniel Taylor, 2015, 2016, 2017) [277]
  • Sports Interviewer of the Year (Donald McRae, 2009, 2011) [278]
  • Diarist of the Year (David Hills, 2009) [279]
  • Sports Feature Writer of the Year (Donald McRae, 2017, [280] 2018) [281]
  • Specialist Correspondent of the Year (Sean Ingle, 2016, [282] 2017) [283]
  • Scoop of the Year (Daniel Taylor 2016 [277]Martha Kelner and Sean Ingle, 2017) [283]
  • Sports Newspaper of the Year (2017) [284]
  • Sports Website of the Year (2014, 2015, 2016, 2017) [285][286]
  • Sports Journalists' Association Sports Portfolio of the Year (Tom Jenkins, 2011) [260]

The website won the Best Newspaper category three years running in 2005, 2006 and 2007 Webby Awards, beating (in 2005) The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and Variety. [287] It has been the winner for six years in a row of the British Press Awards for Best Electronic Daily Newspaper. [288] The site won an Eppy award from the US-based magazine Editor & Publisher in 2000 for the best-designed newspaper online service. [289]

In 2007, the newspaper was ranked first in a study on transparency that analysed 25 mainstream English-language media vehicles, which was conducted by the International Center for Media and the Public Agenda of the University of Maryland. [290] It scored 3.8 out of a possible 4.0.

The Guardian and The Washington Post shared the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for public service reporting for their coverage of the NSA's and GCHQ's worldwide electronic surveillance program and the document leaks by whistleblower Edward Snowden. [291]


The Guardian is the sponsor of two major literary awards: The Guardian First Book Award, established in 1999 as a successor to the Guardian Fiction Award, which had run since 1965, and the Guardian Children's Fiction Prize, founded in 1967. In recent years the newspaper has also sponsored the Hay Festival in Hay-on-Wye.

The annual Guardian Student Media Awards, founded in 1999, recognise excellence in journalism and design of British university and college student newspapers, magazines and websites.

In memory of Paul Foot, who died in 2004, The Guardian and Private Eye jointly set up the Paul Foot Award, with an annual £10,000 prize fund, for investigative or campaigning journalism. [292]

In 2016, The Guardian began awarding an annual Footballer of the Year award, given to a footballer regardless of gender "who has done something truly remarkable, whether by overcoming adversity, helping others or setting a sporting example by acting with exceptional honesty." [294]

Best books lists

    is a list of the best English-language novels as selected by Robert McCrum.
  • The Guardian's 100 greatest non-fiction book list has come out in 2011 [295][296] and in 2017, as selected by Robert McCrum. [297]
# Name Term Notes
1 John Edward Taylor 1821-1844
2 Jeremiah Garnett 1844-1861 Served jointly with Russell Scott Taylor from 1847 to 1848
Russell Scott Taylor 1847-1848 Served jointly with Jeremiah Garnett
4 Edward Taylor 1861-1872
5 Charles Prestwich Scott 1872-1929
6 Ted Scott 1929-1932
7 William Percival Crozier 1932-1944
8 Alfred Powell Wadsworth 1944-1956
9 Alastair Hetherington 1956-1975
10 Peter Preston 1975-1995
11 Alan Rusbridger 1995-2015
12 Katharine Viner 2015-

Columnists and journalists:

Photographers and picture editors:

The Guardian and its sister newspaper The Observer opened The Newsroom, an archive and visitor centre in London, in 2002. The centre preserved and promoted the histories and values of the newspapers through its archive, educational programmes and exhibitions. The Newsroom's activities were all transferred to Kings Place in 2008. [300] Now known as the Guardian News & Media archive, the archive preserves and promotes the histories and values of The Guardian and The Observer newspapers by collecting and making accessible material that provides an accurate and comprehensive history of the papers. The archive holds official records of The Guardian and The Observer, and also seeks to acquire material from individuals who have been associated with the papers. As well as corporate records, the archive holds correspondence, diaries, notebooks, original cartoons and photographs belonging to staff of the papers. [301] This material may be consulted by members of the public by prior appointment. An extensive Manchester Guardian archive also exists at the University of Manchester's John Rylands University Library, and there is a collaboration programme between the two archives. Additionally, the British Library has a large archive of The Manchester Guardian available in its British Library Newspapers collection, in online, hard copy, microform, and CD-ROM formats.

In November 2007, The Guardian and The Observer made their archives available over the internet via DigitalArchive. The current extent of the archives available are 1821 to 2000 for The Guardian and 1791 to 2000 for The Observer: these archives will eventually run up to 2003.

The Newsroom's other components were also transferred to Kings Place in 2008. The Guardian 's Education Centre provides a range of educational programmes for students and adults. The Guardian 's exhibition space was also moved to Kings Place, and has a rolling programme of exhibitions that investigate and reflect upon aspects of news and newspapers and the role of journalism. This programme often draws on the archive collections held in the GNM Archive.


Europe Edit

In 1556, the government of Venice first published the monthly Notizie scritte ("Written notices") which cost one gazzetta, [2] a Venetian coin of the time, the name of which eventually came to mean "newspaper". These avvisi were handwritten newsletters and used to convey political, military, and economic news quickly and efficiently throughout Europe, more specifically Italy, during the early modern era (1500-1800)—sharing some characteristics of newspapers though usually not considered true newspapers. [3]

However, none of these publications fully met the modern criteria for proper newspapers, as they were typically not intended for the general public and restricted to a certain range of topics. Early publications played into the development of what would today be recognized as the newspaper, which came about around 1601. Around the 15th and 16th centuries, in England and France, long news accounts called "relations" were published in Spain, they were called "Relaciones". Single event news publications were printed in the broadsheet format, which was often posted. These publications also appeared as pamphlets and small booklets (for longer narratives, often written in a letter format), often containing woodcut illustrations. Literacy rates were low in comparison to today, and these news publications were often read aloud (literacy and oral culture were, in a sense, existing side by side in this scenario). [4]

By 1400, businessmen in Italian and German cities were compiling handwritten chronicles of important news events, and circulating them to their business connections. The idea of using a printing press for this material first appeared in Germany around 1600. Early precursors were the so-called Messrelationen ("trade fair reports") which were semi-annual news compilations for the large book fairs at Frankfurt and Leipzig, starting in the 1580s. The first true newspaper was the weekly Relation aller Fuernemmen und gedenckwürdigen Historien ("Collection of all distinguished and memorable news"), started in Strasbourg in 1605. The Avisa Relation oder Zeitung was published in Wolfenbüttel from 1609, and gazettes soon were established in Frankfurt (1615), Berlin (1617) and Hamburg (1618). By 1650, 30 German cities had active gazettes. [5] A semi-yearly news chronicle, in Latin, the Mercurius Gallobelgicus, was published at Cologne between 1594 and 1635, but it was not the model for other publications. [ citation needed ]

The news circulated between newsletters through well-established channels in 17th century Europe. Antwerp was the hub of two networks, one linking France, Britain, Germany, and the Netherlands the other linking Italy, Spain and Portugal. Favorite topics included wars, military affairs, diplomacy, and court business and gossip. [6]

After 1600 the national governments in France and England began printing official newsletters. [7] In 1622 the first English-language weekly magazine, "A current of General News" was published and distributed in England [8] in an 8- to 24-page quarto format.

Newspapers in all major countries became much more important in the 19th century because of a series of technical, business, political, and cultural changes. High-speed presses and cheap wood-based newsprint made large circulations possible. The rapid expansion of elementary education meant a vast increase in the number of potential readers. Political parties sponsored newspapers at the local and national levels. Toward the end of the century, advertising became well-established and became the main source of revenue for newspaper owners. This led to a race to obtain the largest possible circulation, often followed by downplaying partisanship so that members of all parties would buy a paper. The number of newspapers in Europe in the 1860s and 1870s was steady at about 6,000 then it doubled to 12,000 in 1900. In the 1860s and 1870s, most newspapers were four pages of editorials, reprinted speeches, excerpts from novels and poetry and a few small local ads. They were expensive, and most readers went to a café to look over the latest issue. There were major national papers in each capital city, such as the London Times, the London Post, the Paris Temps and so on. They were expensive and directed to the National political elite. Every decade the presses became faster, and the invention of automatic typesetting in the 1880s made feasible the overnight printing of a large morning newspaper. Cheap wood pulp replaced the much more expensive rag paper. A major cultural innovation was the professionalization of news gathering, handled by specialist reporters. Liberalism led to freedom of the press, and ended newspaper taxes, along with a sharp reduction to government censorship. Entrepreneurs interested in profit increasingly replaced politicians interested in shaping party positions, so there was dramatic outreach to a larger subscription base. The price fell to a penny. In New York, "Yellow Journalism" used sensationalism, comics (they were colored yellow), a strong emphasis on team sports, reduced coverage of political details and speeches, a new emphasis on crime, and a vastly expanded advertising section featuring especially major department stores. Women had previously been ignored, but now they were given multiple advice columns on family and household and fashion issues, and the advertising was increasingly pitched to them. [9] [10]

1632 to 1815 Edit

The first newspaper in France, the Gazette de France, was established in 1632 by the king's physician Theophrastus Renaudot (1586-1653), with the patronage of Louis XIII. [11] All newspapers were subject to prepublication censorship, and served as instruments of propaganda for the monarchy. [ citation needed ]

Under the ancien regime, the most prominent magazines were Mercure de France, Journal des sçavans, founded in 1665 for scientists, and Gazette de France, founded in 1631. Jean Loret was one of France's first journalists. He disseminated the weekly news of music, dance and Parisian society from 1650 until 1665 in verse, in what he called a gazette burlesque, assembled in three volumes of La Muse Historique (1650, 1660, 1665). The French press lagged a generation behind the British, for they catered to the needs the aristocracy, while the newer British counterparts were oriented toward the middle and working classes. [12]

Periodicals were censored by the central government in Paris. They were not totally quiescent politically—often they criticized Church abuses and bureaucratic ineptitude. They supported the monarchy and they played at most a small role in stimulating the revolution. [13] During the Revolution new periodicals played central roles as propaganda organs for various factions. Jean-Paul Marat (1743–1793) was the most prominent editor. His L'Ami du peuple advocated vigorously for the rights of the lower classes against the enemies of the people Marat hated it closed when he was assassinated. After 1800 Napoleon reimposed strict censorship. [14]

1815 to 1914 Edit

Magazines flourished after Napoleon left in 1815. Most were based in Paris and most emphasized literature, poetry and stories. They served religious, cultural and political communities. In times of political crisis they expressed and helped shape the views of their readership and thereby were major elements in the changing political culture. [15] For example, there were eight Catholic periodicals in 1830 in Paris. None were officially owned or sponsored by the Church and they reflected a range of opinions among educated Catholics about current issues, such as the 1830 July Revolution that overthrew the Bourbon monarchy. Several were strong supporters of the Bourbon kings, but all eight ultimately urged support for the new government, putting their appeals in terms of preserving civil order. They often discussed the relationship between church and state. Generally, they urged priests to focus on spiritual matters and not engage in politics. Historian M. Patricia Dougherty says this process created a distance between the Church and the new monarch and enabled Catholics to develop a new understanding of church-state relationships and the source of political authority. [16]

20th century Edit

The press was handicapped during the war by shortages of newsprint and young journalists, and by an abundance of censorship designed to maintain home front morale by minimizing bad war news. The Parisian newspapers were largely stagnant after the war circulation inched up to 6 million a day from 5 million in 1910. The major postwar success story was Paris Soir which lacked any political agenda and was dedicated to providing a mix of sensational reporting to aid circulation, and serious articles to build prestige. By 1939 its circulation was over 1.7 million, double that of its nearest rival the tabloid Le Petit Parisien. In addition to its daily paper Paris Soir sponsored a highly successful women's magazine Marie-Claire. Another magazine Match was modelled after the photojournalism of the American magazine Life. [17]

John Gunther wrote in 1940 that of the more than 100 daily newspapers in Paris, two (L'Humanité and Action Française ' s publication) were honest "Most of the others, from top to bottom, have news columns for sale". He reported that Bec et Ongles was simultaneously subsidized by the French government, German government, and Alexandre Stavisky, and that Italy allegedly paid 65 million francs to French newspapers in 1935. [18] France was a democratic society in the 1930s, but the people were kept in the dark about critical issues of foreign policy. The government tightly controlled all of the media to promulgate propaganda to support the government's foreign policy of appeasement to the aggressions of Italy and especially Nazi Germany. There were 253 daily newspapers, all owned separately. The five major national papers based in Paris were all under the control of special interests, especially right-wing political and business interests that supported appeasement. They were all venal, taking large secret subsidies to promote the policies of various special interests. Many leading journalists were secretly on the government payroll. The regional and local newspapers were heavily dependent on government advertising and published news and editorials to suit Paris. Most of the international news was distributed through the Havas agency, which was largely controlled by the government. [19]

20th century Edit

By 1900 popular journalism in Britain aimed at the largest possible audience, including the working class, had proven a success and made its profits through advertising. Alfred Harmsworth, 1st Viscount Northcliffe (1865–1922), "More than anyone. shaped the modern press. Developments he introduced or harnessed remain central: broad contents, exploitation of advertising revenue to subsidize prices, aggressive marketing, subordinate regional markets, independence from party control. [20] His Daily Mail held the world record for daily circulation until his death. Prime Minister Lord Salisbury quipped it was "written by office boys for office boys". [21]

Socialist and labour newspapers also proliferated and in 1912 the Daily Herald was launched as the first daily newspaper of the trade union and labour movement. [ citation needed ]

Newspapers reached their peak of importance during the First World War, in part because wartime issues were so urgent and newsworthy, while members of Parliament were constrained by the all-party coalition government from attacking the government. By 1914 Northcliffe controlled 40 percent of the morning newspaper circulation in Britain, 45 percent of the evening and 15 percent of the Sunday circulation. [22] He eagerly tried to turn it into political power, especially in attacking the government in the Shell Crisis of 1915. Lord Beaverbrook said he was, "the greatest figure who ever strode down Fleet Street." [23] A.J.P. Taylor, however, says, "Northcliffe could destroy when he used the news properly. He could not step into the vacant place. He aspired to power instead of influence, and as a result, forfeited both." [24]

Other powerful editors included C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian, James Louis Garvin of The Observer and Henry William Massingham of the highly influential weekly magazine of opinion, The Nation. [25]

Danish news media first appeared in the 1540s, when handwritten fly sheets reported on the news. In 1666, Anders Bording, the father of Danish journalism, began a state paper. The royal privilege to bring out a newspaper was issued to Joachim Wielandt in 1720. University officials handled the censorship, but in 1770 Denmark became one of the first nations of the world to provide for press freedom it ended in 1799. The press in 1795–1814, led by intellectuals and civil servants, called out for a more just and modern society, and spoke out for the oppressed tenant farmers against the power of the old aristocracy. [26]

In 1834, the first liberal newspaper appeared one that gave much more emphasis to actual news content rather than opinions. The newspapers championed the Revolution of 1848 in Denmark. The new constitution of 1849 liberated the Danish press. Newspapers flourished in the second half of the 19th century, usually tied to one or another political party or labor union. Modernization, bringing in new features and mechanical techniques, appeared after 1900. The total circulation was 500,000 daily in 1901, more than doubling to 1.2 million in 1925. The German occupation brought informal censorship some offending newspaper buildings were simply blown up by the Nazis. During the war, the underground produced 550 newspapers—small, surreptitiously printed sheets that encouraged sabotage and resistance. [27]

The appearance of a dozen editorial cartoons ridiculing Mohammed set off Muslim outrage and violent threats around the world. (see: Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy) The Muslim community decided the caricatures in the Copenhagen newspaper Jyllands-Posten in September 2005 represented another instance of Western animosity toward Islam and were so sacrilegious that the perpetrators deserved severe punishment. [28] [29]

The historiography of the Danish press is rich with scholarly studies. Historians have made insights into Danish political, social and cultural history, finding that individual newspapers are valid analytical entities, which can be studied in terms of source, content, audience, media, and effect. [30]

China Edit

Journalism in China before 1910 primarily served the international community. The main national newspapers in Chinese were published by Protestant missionary societies in order to reach the literate. Hard news was not their specialty, but they did train the first generation of Chinese journalists in Western standards of newsgathering. editorials, and advertising. [31] Demands for reform and revolution were impossible for papers based inside China. Instead, such demands appeared in polemical papers based in Japan, for example, those edited by Liang Qichao (1873-1929). [32]

The overthrow of the old imperial regime in 1911 produced a surge in Chinese nationalism, an end to censorship, and a demand for professional, nationwide journalism. [33] All the major cities launched such efforts. Special attention was paid to China's role in World War I. to the disappointing Paris Peace Conference of 1919, and to the aggressive demands and actions of Japan against Chinese interests. Journalists created professional organizations and aspired to separate news from commentary. At the Press Congress of the World conference in Honolulu in 1921, the Chinese delegates were among the most Westernized and self-consciously professional journalists from the developing world. [ citation needed ] By the late 1920s, however, there was a much greater emphasis on advertising and expanding circulation, and much less interest in the sort of advocacy journalism that had inspired the revolutionaries. [34]

India Edit

The first newspaper in India was circulated in 1780 under the editorship of James Augustus Hicky, named Bengal Gazette. [35] On May 30, 1826 Udant Martand (The Rising Sun), the first Hindi-language newspaper published in India, started from Calcutta (now Kolkata), published every Tuesday by Pt. Jugal Kishore Shukla. [36] [37] Maulawi Muhammad Baqir in 1836 founded the first Urdu-language newspaper the Delhi Urdu Akhbar. India's press in the 1840s was a motley collection of small-circulation daily or weekly sheets printed on rickety presses. Few extended beyond their small communities and seldom tried to unite the many castes, tribes, and regional subcultures of India. The Anglo-Indian papers promoted purely British interests. Englishman Robert Knight (1825–1890) founded two important English-language newspapers that reached a broad Indian audience, The Times of India and The Statesman. They promoted nationalism in India, as Knight introduced the people to the power of the press and made them familiar with political issues and the political process. [38]

British influence extended globally through its colonies and its informal business relationships with merchants in major cities. They needed up-to-date market and political information. The Diario de Pernambuco was founded in Recife, Brazil, in 1825. [39] El Mercurio was founded in Valparaiso, Chile, in 1827. The most influential newspaper in Peru, El Comercio, first appeared in 1839. The Jornal do Commercio was established in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1827. Much later Argentina founded its newspapers in Buenos Aires: La Prensa in 1869 and La Nacion in 1870. [40]

In Jamaica, there were a number of newspapers that represented the views of the white planters who owned slaves. These newspapers included titles such as the Royal Gazette, The Diary and Kingston Daily Advertiser, Cornwall Chronicle, Cornwall Gazette, and Jamaica Courant. [41] In 1826, two free coloureds, Edward Jordan and Robert Osborn founded The Watchman, which openly campaigned for the rights of free coloureds, and became Jamaica's first anti-slavery newspaper. In 1830, the criticism of the slave-owning hierarchy was too much, and the Jamaican colonial authorities arrested Jordan, the editor, and charged him with constructive treason. However, Jordan was eventually acquitted, and he eventually became Mayor of Kingston in post-Emancipation Jamaica. [42]

On the abolition of slavery in the 1830s, Gleaner Company was founded by two Jamaican Jewish brothers, Joshua and Jacob De Cordova, budding businessmen who represented the new class of light-skinned Jamaicans taking over post-Emancipation Jamaica. [43] While the Gleaner represented the new establishment for the next century, there was a growing black, nationalist movement that campaigned for increased political representation and rights in the early twentieth century. To this end, Osmond Theodore Fairclough founded Public Opinion in 1937. O.T. Fairclough was supported by radical journalists Frank Hill and H.P. Jacobs, and the first edition of this new newspaper tried to galvanize public opinion around a new nationalism. Strongly aligned to the People's National Party (PNP), Public Opinion counted among its journalists progressive figures such as Roger Mais, Una Marson, Amy Bailey, Louis Marriott, Peter Abrahams, and future prime minister Michael Manley, among others. [44]

While Public Opinion campaigned for self-government, British prime minister Winston Churchill made it known he had no intention of presiding "over the liquidation of the British Empire", and consequently the Jamaican nationalists in the PNP were disappointed with the watered-down constitution that was handed down to Jamaica in 1944. Mais wrote an article saying "Now we know why the draft of the new constitution has not been published before," because the underlings of Churchill were "all over the British Empire implementing the real imperial policy implicit in the statement by the Prime Minister". The British colonial police raided the offices of Public Opinion, seized Mais's manuscript, arrested Mais himself, and convicted him of seditious libel, jailing him for six months. [45]

The history of radio broadcasting begins in the 1920s and reached its apogee in the 1930s and 1940s. Experimental television was being studied before the 2nd world war, became operational in the late 1940s, and became widespread in the 1950s and 1960s, largely but not entirely displacing radio.

The rapidly growing impact of the Internet, especially after 2000, brought "free" news and classified advertising to audiences that no longer cared for paid subscriptions. [ citation needed ] The Internet undercut the business model [ which? ] of many daily newspapers. [ citation needed ] Bankruptcy loomed across the U.S. and did hit such major papers as the Rocky Mountain news (Denver), the Chicago Tribune and the Los Angeles Times, among many others. Chapman and Nuttall find that proposed solutions, such as multiplatforms, paywalls, PR-dominated news gathering, and shrinking staffs have not resolved the challenge. The result, they argue, is that journalism today is characterized by four themes: personalization, globalization, localization, and pauperization. [46]

Journalism historian David Nord has argued that in the 1960s and 1970s:

"In journalism history and media history, a new generation of scholars . . . criticised traditional histories of the media for being too insular, too decontextualized, too uncritical, too captive to the needs of professional training, and too enamoured of the biographies of men and media organizations." [47]

In 1974, James W. Carey identified the 'Problem of Journalism History'. The field was dominated by a Whig interpretation of journalism history.

"This views journalism history as the slow, steady expansion of freedom and knowledge from the political press to the commercial press, the setbacks into sensationalism and yellow journalism, the forward thrust into muck raking and social responsibility. the entire story is framed by those large impersonal forces buffeting the press: industrialization, urbanization and mass democracy. [48]

O'Malley says the criticism went too far because there was much of value in the deep scholarship of the earlier period. [49]

2. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

The “Tom Thumb,” constructed by Peter Cooper in 1829, was the first locomotive to be built in America. (Credit: George Rinhart/Getty Images)

In order to compete with the commercial boom experienced by New York City following the construction of the Erie Canal, leaders of the rival port of Baltimore proposed a 380-mile rail line linking the city with the Ohio River in Wheeling, West Virginia. In 1827, the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad became the first American company to be granted a charter to transport both passengers and freight, and it was the first American railway to employ steam locomotives to carry both passengers and freight on a regular schedule. President Andrew Jackson became the first commander in chief to ride the rails when he boarded a B&O train running from Ellicott’s Mills to Baltimore in 1833.


This section covers all the main political parties and political movements. Subjects covered include early socialism (plus the Clarion movement), the Conservative and Liberal Parties, the birth of the Labour Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain, including the Spanish Civil War, fascism and post war politics including the General Strike.

Another aspect of this section is about how women had to fight for the right to vote on the same terms as men. The section includes the formation of the Manchester Suffrage Society in 1867 and the Women’s Social and Political Union (WSPU) founded in Manchester by Emmeline Pankhurst and her sisters in 1903.

The story told in Main Gallery One ends in 1945 at the end of World War II. The story continues in Main Gallery Two.

Family Friendly gallery, suitable for all ages.

Please note the museum is closed on Mondays and Tuesdays.

'Jerry-built' vs. 'Jury-rigged' vs. 'Jerry-rigged'

Imagine with us for a minute that you are putting together one of those tall, many-tiered, carpeted structures for a cat. You are, however, working with subpar tools and several improvised components. You succeed in getting the thing into something like its intended form only to be suddenly beset with a linguistic conundrum: is the structure jury-rigged or jerry-built or jerry-rigged?

Ah, good question, despite whatever the cat says.

jury-rig has meant "to erect, construct, or arrange in a makeshift fashion" since the late 18th century, and appears in its participial jury-rigged form from its earliest days. The only caveat here is that our 18th century selves would be using the word completely unconventionally in this context—unless the many-tiered carpeted cat structure were also a boat. That's right: in its early days jury-rigged was a strictly nautical term.

That fact is also our clue that jury-rig has nothing to do with the juries of the courtroom. Jury-rig comes from the adjective jury, meaning "improvised for temporary use especially in an emergency," or "makeshift." It's a 15th century term that comes from the Middle English jory, as known (back then, anyway) in the phrase "jory sail," meaning "improvised sail."

The rig in jury-rigged likewise has nothing to do with the rig that has to do with manipulating or controlling something, like a game or election, to get a desired result. That rig is from a 17th century noun meaning "swindle." The rig in jury-rigged is a 15th century sailing term meaning "to fit out with rigging," with rigging being the lines and chains used in operating a sailing vessel. In the 18th century, if it was jury-rigged it was a boat:

La Couronne … bad bottoms, jury rigged.
Morning Herald (London), 16 Aug. 1782

Jury-rigged was, of our three words, the only option for describing our questionably constructed many-tiered carpeted cat structure for quite a while. But in the mid-19th century another word came along: jerry-built means "built cheaply and unsubstantially" as well as "carelessly or hastily put together." The origin of this word is unknown, though there is plenty of speculation that it's from some poor slob named Jerry, which is a nickname for Jeremy or Jeremiah. While one named Jerry may reasonably disdain the word, jerry-built is not considered to be a slur. Jerry was used in British English around the time of the First World War as a disparaging word for a German person, but jerry-built predates that use:

The warehouses themselves which have been destroyed were of the class called “Jerry built,” which is equivalent to the term applied in Manchester to the property of building clubs.
The Guardian (London), 28 Sept. 1842

Before things were jerry-built, it seems that some things were built in the "jerry" style:

Another witness in the same case, Mr. Heighton, a house owner, who was called on the opposite side, was asked what was the meaning of the Jerry style of architecture. “Any thing that is badly built,” was the reply. “Have you any houses in Toxteth-park?” was the next question. “Yes,” said the witness. “Are any of them built in the Jerry style of architecture?” “No.” “What do you call your style?” “A sufficient and substantial style.” “And all your houses are of that order?” “I should say so.” “And what do you call the Jerry style?” “If the work is not well done, and the houses not well finished, we call that the Jerry style.”
The Liverpool (England) Mercury, 12 Apr. 1839

The definitive proof is absent, but etymologists believe that the similarity between something being jury-rigged and something being jerry-built paved the way for our third word. The jury of jury-rigged isn't transparent to the modern English speaker, but the rigged makes sense: after its "to fit out with rigging" meaning, rig developed other senses, including "to equip," "to construct," and "to put in condition or position for use." And so it was that in the late 19th century, the word jerry-rigged sidled up to the language and asked to come inside, offering a meaning of "organized or constructed in a crude or improvised manner":

Naturally the naval and military establishments have been potent factors in the improvement and development of so convenient a neighborhood, while the efforts of the corporation, in laying out the ground, have received great support from the Government, which, as principal landlord, has taken care that its tenants should carry out building operations in a fashion unconnected with the speculative builder and the “jerry-rigged” villa.
The Daily Telegraph (London), 17 Sept. 1890

I learned this one afternoon when something went wrong with the jerry rigged derrick we were using.
The New England Farmer (Boston, MA), 15 Mar. 1902

While some will assert that jerry-rigged is an inferior sort of word to be avoided, it is in fact fully established and has been busy in the language for more than a century, describing any number of things organized or constructed in a crude or improvised way. Jury-rigged and jerry-built are somewhat older and not generally criticized, and have the added benefit of having corresponding verb forms. Jury-rigged is the best choice when the makeshift nature of the effort is to be emphasized rather than a shoddiness that results the one who jury-rigs is merely doing what they can with the materials available. Jerry-built is most often applied when something has been made quickly and cheaply the one who jerry-builds something builds it badly.

Whatever your imagined many-tiered carpeted cat structure looks like, of course, the important thing is not which word you choose to describe it but how happy the box it came in is making your cat.

Sowing the Wind: The First Soviet-German Military Pact and the Origins of World War II

Before dawn on June 22, 1941, German bombers began to rain destruction down on a swath of Soviet cities from Leningrad to Sevastopol. It was the beginning of Operation Barbarossa, the largest military operation in the history of the world. By the end of the day, three million German soldiers and their allies crossed the Soviet border, inaugurating the bloodiest phase of World War II. The invasion also brought to a bloody conclusion 20 years of secret cooperation between Germany and the Soviet Union.

While Soviet-German military cooperation between 1922 and 1933 is often forgotten, it had a decisive impact on the origins and outbreak of World War II. Germany rebuilt its shattered military at four secret bases hidden in Russia. In exchange, the Reichswehr sent men to teach and train the young Soviet officer corps. However, the most important aspect of Soviet-German cooperation was its technological component. Together, the two states built a network of laboratories, workshops, and testing grounds in which they developed what became the major weapons systems of World War II. Without the technical results of this cooperation, Hitler would have been unable to launch his wars of conquest.

After World War I, the victors dismantled the vaunted German army, reducing it to only 100,000 men. The Treaty of Versailles further forbade Germany from producing or purchasing aircraft, armored vehicles, and submarines. These provisions highlighted the Entente’s hope that removing German access to modern technologies of war would force Germany to abandon its militarist past. To the contrary, those particular provisions further convinced the remnants of the German High Command that technological rearmament was essential to restoring Germany’s position. Few works since the opening of the Russian Archives have explored the Soviet-German military pact in its totality. None have focused on its technological aspects. In this article, I offer new conclusions on the subject, drawing from archives in Russia, Germany, the United Kingdom, Poland, and the United States. Of particular importance for this piece are the Russian State Military Archive (RGVA), the archives of the German corporations Krupp, M.A.N. and Daimler-Benz, the U.S. National Archive’s Collection of Foreign Records Seized, and Yale University’s Russian Archive Project.

General Hans von Seeckt, in command of the Reichswehr from 1920 to 1926, was eager to work with Soviet Russia, the only other European state equally hostile to the status quo. In 1919, Seeckt dispatched to Russia Enver Pasha, the former Turkish minister of defense then in hiding for his part in mass atrocities against Armenians in eastern Anatolia. Seeckt’s goal was to establish communications with the Soviet government to discuss the possibility of military cooperation. He was particularly eager to work against the newly revived state of Poland. German military leaders saw it as the “pillar of Versailles” — a French puppet designed to encircle Germany from the east. Its absorption of former German territory that included hundreds of thousands of ethnic Germans further inflamed Berlin’s hostility.

Enver’s first mission ended disastrously when his plane crash-landed in Lithuania and he was detained by the new Lithuanian government. He was carrying sensitive materials from the German military that might have ignited calls in Great Britain and France for the occupation of Germany. Only a daring jailbreak by a junior German officer prevented Enver and the secret documents from falling into Allied hands. But the following year, he made the attempt again and succeeded. The Enver wrote back to Berlin that

Today I spoke with … Trotsky. With him there’s a faction that has real power, and also includes that party that stands for an understanding with Germany. That party would be willing to acknowledge the old German borders of 1914.

That meant the extinction of Poland. This was exactly the hope of the German officer corps.

Leon Trotsky, then head of the Red Army, saw cooperation with Germany against Poland as a central pole in Soviet strategy. He wrote that “Poland can be a bridge between Germany and us, or a barrier.” After the Red Army’s defeat in the Polish-Bolshevik war, it had become a barrier. Bolshevik leadership believed in 1920 that only with access to the industrialized economies of the West could the Bolshevik revolutionary regime survive. As long as the state of Poland existed, this mutual objective proved to be a lodestar, guiding Berlin and Moscow in parallel.

At the Treaty of Rapallo in April 1922, Germany and the Soviet Union normalized relations for the first time, the first blow against the postwar order. The following summer, the Reichswehr and Red Army held a series of secret summits during which they crafted the framework for military cooperation. At first, Hans von Seeckt envisioned German military-industrial firms moving banned production and research to the Soviet Union. His staff earmarked considerable portions of the Reichswehr’s “black funds” — financial resources hidden from the German government — to subsidize these programs. To accommodate German firms, Lenin personally supervised the establishment of a concessionary system whereby German corporations could take over and modernize existing Soviet industrial plants under the close supervision of Soviet officials. Under the auspices of this program, German firms took over shipyards, factories for aviation, artillery, grenades, and rifles, chemical weapons plants, and other critical facilities. German businesses expected to profit from these ventures, but also hoped to find a new home for military experts, technical testing, and production in banned fields. Seeckt envisioned these factories one day supplying the reborn German army in a future war with France. The Soviets, in turn, hoped to increase their military industrial production cheaply, gain access to German technology, and train hundreds of new engineers.

Most of these ventures failed in the difficult economic circumstances of early Soviet Russia. The most important of these arrangements, a massive Junkers aircraft production facility outside of Moscow, failed to live up to either sides’ expectations, although it did become one of the most productive aircraft facilities in the Soviet Union. In December 1926, after massive financial losses, the owner of Junkers owner leaked details on the German program in Russia to members of the Reichstag, Germany’s parliament. On December 3, 1926, the scandal became public when a seven-line headline appeared in the Manchester Guardian, proclaiming: “Cargoes of Munitions from Russia to Germany! Secret Plan between Reichswehr Officers and Soviet[s]. STARTLING DISCLOSURES…” The German government, largely ignorant of ongoing Reichswehr efforts in the Soviet Union, fell in disgrace after a vote of no confidence in the Reichstag.

The scandal seemed to undo the grand hopes the German and Soviet militaries had invested in cooperation. But instead, the Soviet-German military relationship took on new life. Beginning in 1925 and growing rapidly after the Junkers scandal, the two militaries established a series of secret military bases at which German and Soviet officers lived, studied, and trained side-by-side. Teams of engineers and scientists worked on new weapons systems and reverse-engineered American, British, and French military equipment. Two of these bases were devoted to chemical weapons production, one to aviation training, and one to armored warfare. These bases helped to modernize the Red Army and played a central role in developing the military technologies that would enable the rebirth of the German military under Hitler .

The first cooperative base to open was a flight school located at Lipetsk, a city some 500 kilometers southeast of Moscow. Beginning in 1924, the Soviet Air Force invited German pilots to the Lipetsk Air Field to participate in flight training. A year later, the Soviet Air Force transferred the facility to the German military, although part of the agreement required the Germans to train Soviet officers and mechanics at the facility. In 1927, after the Junkers scandal, Lipetsk expanded massively in scope. Nearly 1,000 German pilots, observers, mechanics, and engineers would live at Lipetsk during its period of operation. They would become the core of the Luftwaffe when it reemerged in 1935. In addition, the Soviets and Germans sent many of their top test pilots to Lipetsk to fly their newest designs. All seven aircraft manufacturers in Germany secretly sent their prototypes — most of them violations of Versailles — to Lipetsk for testing. More important for the future were the intellectual exchanges that occurred there. The Germans borrowed Soviet concepts such as paratroopers and the dive bomber from the Red Air Force. The Red Air Force, in turn, learned tactical and operational lessons from German instructors, copied German designs, and — when unsatisfied with technical cooperation — stole design blueprints from their German partners.

German pilots disguised as tourists on their way to Lipetsk aerodrome (State Archive of Lipetsk Oblast [GALO], Fond 2176/Opis 1/Delo 1) As Lipetsk became operational, the Red Army and Reichswehr laid the foundations for an armored warfare and testing grounds located in the city of Kazan, 800 kilometers east of Moscow. Here, too, German and Soviet armored officers trained side-by-side. In addition, the major German corporations secretly involved in Germany’s illegal tank construction program — Krupp, Daimler, and M.A.N. — sent their engineering teams to Kazan. These engineers lived, worked, and tested new tank designs in Kazan that would lead to the Panzers I through IV, representing the majority of German tank production during the coming war. Soviet technical gains were also considerable: One Red Army officer wrote that the joint base at Kazan had resulted in the redesign of most of the Soviet Union’s armored vehicles. His report, preserved in the Russian State Military Archives, further noted that the Red Army had learned “a lot of interesting things on methods in tactics, the technique of driving vehicles, and marksmanship. Thus, in general, the work of TEKO [codename for the base] has been of great interest to the Red Army…” Further, the top theorists of warfare on each side — Heinz Guderian, Oswald Lutz and Ernst Volckheim for the Germans, Mikhail Tukhachevsky and Vladimir Triandafillov for the Soviets — visited, worked and in some instances taught as instructors in Kazan, training the next generation of armored warfare officers.

Starting in 1926, the two sides also began collaborating on chemical weapons development. At two facilities — Podosinki near Moscow, and Tomka near Samara — Soviet and German scientists experimented with new agents and dispersal techniques, as well as medical treatments for poison gas casualties. In addition, the German military helped Yakov Fishman, head of the Soviet chemical weapons program, hire German scientists and firms driven underground by the ban on chemical weapons. Both Germany and the Soviet Union profited from this illicit trade, which developed into a cornerstone of the Soviet-German relationship. By 1931, German scientists and engineers were managing about half of the Soviet Union’s vast chemical weapons production program. Critically, technical experiments in Russia convinced Reichswehr leaders that chemical weapons could not function alongside their new operational doctrine of mobile, combined arms warfare.

The cooperative Soviet-German facilities would operate until 1933, when Hitler, motivated in part by his antipathy for the Soviet Union, no longer felt it necessary to hide German rearmament activities. Even though direct Soviet-German military cooperation had lasted less than a decade, its impact would prove immense. The covert German rearmament program initiated by Seeckt had laid the groundwork for a massive expansion of the German military. German corporations were prepared to begin mass production of new lines of aircraft, tanks and submarines developed from prototypes secretly tested from 1926 to 1933. For their part, the Soviets had received extensive German assistance in the crash-course industrialization that would render the Red Army the world’s largest and most mechanized military force by 1939.

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, formalized on August 23, 1939, was the final culmination of a two-decade crusade by both sides to arm themselves, eliminate the postwar order established at Versailles and destroy their mutual enemy, Poland. The resumption of military cooperation played a vital role in reforming the interwar alliance. Stalin, who had begun personally directing Soviet naval construction in 1936, made sure that the Soviet military received vast quantities of German military technology in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in exchange for Soviet raw materials. Germany again began to send its officers to the Soviet Union to advise and assist the Soviets in training and technical development. Further, in the fall of 1939, the Germans agreed to supply Soviet submarines fighting against Finland, while the Soviets did the same for German commerce raiders. At the height of cooperation, Stalin even granted the German Navy permission to open a secret naval base near Murmansk to interdict British shipping and assist in the invasion of Norway. Only with the German invasion of the Soviet Union would the last of the joint ventures be terminated.

Though largely forgotten today, interwar Soviet-German military cooperation reshaped the European balance of power. By the end of September 1939, Germany and the Soviet Union shared a border, a capacity for making war, and an ideological framework of annihilation. Through their alliance, Germany gained the space to rebuild its army and develop new technologies of war. In return, the Soviet Union received vital military, technological, and economic assistance. The stage was set for World War II.

The Soviet-German Pact illustrates why the post-World War I order failed. It also offers some potent lessons for the present. The Inter-Allied Commissions of Control, the watchdog established to supervise German disarmament, delivered its final ominous report in January 1927:

Germany has never disarmed, has never had the intention of disarming, and for seven years had done everything in her power to deceive and ‘counter-control’ the Commission appointed to control her disarmament.

Yet the Allies lacked the political willpower to effectively end Germany’s secret rearmament programs. American policymakers were indifferent. British leaders tended to be sympathetic to Germany in the 1920s. Further, both British and American businesses were eager to exploit economic opportunities in Germany and the Soviet Union. France showed some inclination to halt German military resurgence, but lacked the power to act alone. This lack of strategic harmony among the victors hamstrung any efforts to preserve the status quo.

The postwar state of affairs was particularly damaged by the technological successes of Soviet-German cooperation. The limitations of the Treaty of Versailles failed to block the advance of German military technology primarily because of the Reichswehr’s work in Russia. In fact, the Reichswehr actually saved money on the research and development process through its secret, small-scale prototype production and testing program. A combination of industrial espionage, willing business partners outside of Germany, and cooperation with the Soviet Union enabled Germany to keep pace with military developments elsewhere at a fraction the cost of other military establishments. The failure of Western leaders to recognize this fact meant that they vastly underestimated the technical abilities of the German military during the crises of the late 1930s. The Soviet-German partnership makes clear the immense difficulty in halting the military-technological development of pariah states. In a world where the United States seeks to enforce nuclear non-proliferation and slow the military-technological advance of its geostrategic foes, the lessons of the interwar Soviet-German partnership remain valuable.

More Newspaper Facts

– Evening newspapers are the best way to read the news from the day itself

– Newspapers prefer to be stored in a cool, damp and dark environment – therefore our storage location in Scotland is ideal!

– UK national newspapers did not use to be printed on Good Friday (Easter) and the Financial Times still does not print on Good Friday

– Newspapers in the 1940s have less pages than newspapers from the 1930s due to a shortage of newsprint in the 1940s as a result of the Second World War

– Newspaper titles change over the years and a title of the past is generally very different from its counterpart today. Most papers were broadsheets with greater and more serious journalistic content. The Sunday People for example was a highly-regarded broadsheet 50 years ago that was not that different than the more serious broadsheets of today

Watch the video: The Haka - New Zealand WW1 Short Film. izakariah


  1. Sashura

    Certainly. I agree with told all above. We can communicate on this theme.

  2. Galan

    can fill the gap ...

  3. Washbourne

    Amazing! Amazing!

  4. Cleary

    YES, this intelligible message

Write a message