Wednesday, Nov 11, 2009
Samm Potatoes but loosing 100K a day...........
The Guardian: Guardian Media Group to Make 100 new Job Cuts
.....can't see that going on for much longer. And how many other "newspaperes" are suffering? It's going from sour to curdled!
Posted by magnaman @ 05:12 PM (575 views) Add Comment
6 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. stillthinking said...
Maybe they shouldn't have repeatedly claimed that the public sector is the "engine of growth" every day.
2. cynicalsoothsayer said...
Awwwww. Poor rampers.
3. drewster said...
All newspapers are facing hard times because of the internet. It's not a meaningful indicator of the wider economy.
4. cynicalsoothsayer said...
They felt they should do a few redundancies to sympathize with all the comrades.
Isn't it funny how the only realistic journalism right now is coming from The Telegraph and The Guardian?
5. drewster said...
cynicalsoothsayer,
The other papers run the same stories, each with a slightly different spin. Each panders to their readership: the FT just prints the bare facts, while the Daily Mail uses block-capitals to emphasise their general theme of young-people-these-days-are-no-good:
Daily Mail: One in five people of working age contribute NOTHING to the economy for first time in almost 40 years.
I daren't look at what the Express or the Sun have written.
6. little professor said...
Oooh, a hundred job losses. That's going to put a sizeable dent in the economy.
No wait, it won't because its so low a number as to be ridiculously unimportant.