Well you could argue they would do better with more resources.
Anyway: the Guardian is just one paper. Support independent journalism, whether it's the NYT / WSJ / WaPo / FT / your favourite non-clickbait news platform.
I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of a local hacks-and-hackers (journalists and programmers) group...
How can one best support journalism, if its brokenness is systemic?
Consider a supermarket-checkout tabloid of the "UFO aliens tattooed my baby!" variety. It seems unlikely that any plausible level of resources will yield high-quality journalism. But perhaps the BuzzFeed and BuzzFeed News pair is a counterargument.
Consider the NYT, with its view of the world as a competition between ideas, rather than between economic and political interests. More resources won't fix that.
Also apropos the NYT, for decades I wished for better coverage of the role of subculture group-think in governance failures. I excused that NYT's lack of it as resource limitations, and hoped for reallocation someday. Then Trump, and there was lots of coverage of group-think among his supporters, and still a dearth of it about its role among elite. Resource limitations weren't the bottleneck.
So yes, marginally better funding might yield marginally better journalism from the the Guardian / NYT / WSJ / WaPo / FT / etc. More reporters, fact checking, foreign bureaus, conferences, etc. But...
They still won't be tracking their failures, searching for root causes, and pursuing continuous process improvement. It won't change journalism's culture of obliviousness to decades of learning in other industries about how to organize processes for consistently high quality.
Is there any journalistic platform that has a plausibly modern process story, and just needs resources to flesh it out and grow? Regardless of focus - just, is anyone doing this well, who can be funded and assisted as an exemplar? Is there any journalism foundation attempting to encourage modern processes? Is there any dinky little local paper that's made a commitment to consistently record its failures in a google spreadsheet, and to follow up on what went wrong and how their process might be improved? That I could see funding.
Marginal non-transformative improvement is nice too. With society and history being chaotic, small deltas can have large consequences. But I find the current product quality demotivating without some prospect for transformative improvement.
