More questions for the Guardian over Observer 'carve-up'

News that the top brass at the Guardian – led by CEO Anna Bateson and editor-in-chief Kath Viner – were already considering the end game for the Observer months before James Harding’s Tortoise made its offer to take it off their hands for essentially nothing, have further infuriated journalists on the beleaguered title.

“If they were discussing its future, why were the staff kept in the dark even after the Tortoise process began?” asked one newsroom insider. “And why did Tortoise get this period of exclusive negotiation?

“We’ve just seen another grand old title – the Spectator – achieve £100m on the open market. Why would you take a storied title like the Observer and effectively toss it away for nothing to the first person that came calling? It all smacks of a carve-up.”

Critics of the way the process has been handled by Guardian Media Group point to Bateson’s long-standing friendship with Harding. The pair have holidayed together in the past with their families.

“I’m sure [the Tortoise proposal] all made a lot of sense over some cosy dinner table in Mayfair, but any objective observer would look at the opportunity and say the newspaper must have real value in the open market,” another insider told Rats.

“There are only a handful of titles with our history and clear positioning as one of the world’s leading liberal newspapers. If the Guardian was run as a proper business, with actual shareholders, they’d be a revolt at how the CEO is planning to toss a potentially valuable asset aside for effectively nowt.

“I get why it makes sense for Tortoise. They are struggling to make sense of their business, losing millions and running out of cash. So burying all those problems within the Observer deal makes a lot of sense. But why would the Guardian not even test the open market before giving Tortoise a clear run for nothing?”