The important line - "In January of this year we decided it was no longer financially viable for us to keep working in print"

Nothing else need be said - if the presentation of views, articles and opinions result in an endeavour which is not "financially viable" then the outcome is "assured".

It is better to leave things to the "whims" of the reading (as buying) public than to sink dollars of public funds into them for the want of pandering to the egos of a few cherished writers - Darn it, I wish someone would realise the same reason and logic applies to so called "public transport" as well.

Col, don't necessarily agree. The spirit of media is not to blah on about what Rupert et all would have us reading, rather an independent think tank of opinion and news. to give an example, I live in a relatively small Vic town and the local paper (syndicate) give us what we want without being too hard hitting. There has recently been a new chronicle locally published "free press" which has promised to tackle the local :hard issues" that the local rag doesn't want to challenge. I quite like the fact that the media should be independant and not beholden to their benefactors/shareholders/owners. Otherwise, what's the point? It will then become advertising.

Col, not sure why you brought public transport into the mix here, it is a totally different animal. My 83 year-old mother has just seen her local bus service withdrawn for economic reasons - as she says herself "there's only a couple of us old biddies who use it these days" - which has reduced her social circle to walking distance. At her age, even though she is a game old bird, that isn't far.

Providing a public service at a cost to the wider community is in no way analogous to the provision of the same funds to a newspaper, of whatever political hue. Fact is, there are many alternatives to reading Murdoch organs, only one of which is not to read them at all, while there is no alternative for my mother.