There doesn't seem to be any sort of overarching strategy here, just flailing.
Perhaps you find annoying that they are exploring without sticking to certain "principles": "free access" and "no walled gardens". I would guess that part of their exploration consists of searching for which principles they can stick to without having to close down.
The Guardian, in particular, has an unusual ownership [1] and they probably need to explore solutions in rather unusual ways.
Pretty much since the first newspaper was printed, the industry's entire business model depended on being the main source of distribution of general information to a geographically defined audience.
Now that the internet is here, the model of distribution they've spent hundreds of years refining is practically useless and their audience is no longer clearly defined, but they're still saddled with hundreds of years of processes and experience.
In reality, it's actually very impressive that an organization like the Guardian is willing to try, fail, and try again the way they are.
I, for one, hope they can figure out something that works.
I would strongly disagree they don't know what their doing, in terms of commercial partnerships, cross promotional ideas and monetization of content you'll actually find that most media agencies follow their lead. Of course mistakes will be made along the way (as others have rightfully pointed out), but its a massive challenge.
Lets Summarize newspapers, they produce original content at cost (writers, editors, designers, photos (getty etc) offices and everything else, they try to achieve top rankings in SERPS (SEO, Analysts) and then go out and try to get money from advertisers (sales execs, ad networks, managers etc) whilst competing with hundreds of other companies offering views at lower rates to sell the number of eyes that look at that content at a competitive price.
Most newspapers are barely breaking even, so give them a bit of slack for at least trying new methods and ideas.
I thought we were were calling "flailing" a "pivot" these days?
You make an observation that I agree with. The very few Old School Publishing people that I have brushed past in my life keep this observation alive with their hand wringing. (If it weren't for the handwringing, I might be tempted to call such activity 'exploration'...) But it seems to be what happens to organizations that get large and comfortable- they can't imagine life any other way, and when that way of life is threatened, they try to hold on.
It reminds me of the people living in a hurricane's landing zone. We know it's a killer hurricane, we know it's coming ashore, but these people will not be moved, will not be threatened to leave their homes by ... this inanimate storm that doesn't care whether your home is in its path or not.
My 'advice' to these companies: the market doesn't care whether your particular company survives. Its participants only care about their own desires- consuming quality content, being entertained, keeping their own costs down, etc.
The newspaper industry is currently in a situation nothing like anything it's ever seen. So there's a lot of experimentation- which, yes, includes some failures along the way. If it helps, I'll start referring to it as 'pivoting'.