Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
My feeling is: Yes, somewhat. But Regular Readers will recall that I am a curmudgeon who doesn't like New Things. So do they really want to agree with me here? Plus, we do have (somewhere round here) a house Guardian expert whose opinion would be interesting.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Some readers might, conceivably, like to know that the Guardian (formerly Manchester Guardian) is a UK daily newspaper which has for several decades been the main print source / gathering-point, as it were, for those on 'The Liberal Left'. Many UK ILE posters, I imagine, know it very well and have done for many years, so I thought there might be some opinions around.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I like the Guardian now more than I have for years. Perhaps the restyle of the mag helped, but generally the Burchill thing works for me and I haven't noticed a drop in quality elsewhere. The Guide has always been shite (and I say that working for PA Listings) but the rest seems cool. Can you specify what's gone wrong for you?

chris, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I hate the Guardian - particularly the G2 section, with it's crappy 'think' pieces, terrible arts reviews and smug phillistinism - and have bought it every weekday and Saturdays for at least the last fifteen years. Because, being a bleeding heart liberal and a news junkie, I couldn't bring myself to read any of the other rags (morning papers are somehow part of my going to work coping ritual.) I flirted with the Independent for a while - and the IOS still has the great film critic David Thomson writing for 'em - but I found it to be even more boring than the Guardian. I suspect that I am far from alone in all this, and that the Guardian survives on the unearned good will of the liberal middle classes.

Funnily enough, I quite like the Guide, partly because Joe Queenan and Byron Coley sometimes write for it, partly because it means I no longer have to buy that useless piece of toss Time Out anymore.

Andrew L, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I've never actually bought a copy of the Guardian, if I did buy a newspaper I'd get the Telegraph, it has a good weather section, obituaries, world news briefs and I like the sports section.

james e l, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I suppose the short answer is 'Trivialization'. One has to be a tad careful using a word like that, because, for instance,

1. The simplification of the accusation may just echo what it asserts about the target (just as 'Dumbing Down' is a dumb, dull phrase);

2. If I don't like Triviality, why don't I read nothing but 10-page reports from the former Yugoslavia? It would be hypocritical of me to say that I simply wanted them to be SERIOUS and SOLEMN and RESPONSIBLE all the time. No, that's not it.

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. Today's Lara Croft piece was just the latest of a million examples. It feels (the terms are problematic here, I know) JOURNALISTIC in a bad way - trite, unconsidered, full of crowd- pleasing Received Ideas - rather than JOURNALISTIC in a good way (that is: dogged, resourceful, brave, mentally agile, snappy and what have you).

It's the world of second-hand Lifestyle phrases that bugs me. The way that adults can still write a phrase like "*that* dress" and not hang their heads in shame.

A rider to all my bile, though, is that my previous, more impressed impressions of the Guardian may just reflect youthful impressionability. (Sentence!) Maybe the same kind of crap used to impress me that now feels rubbishy, faux-zeitgeisty and embarrassing? Maybe, but I suspect it's a bit of both.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Andrew L: I know what you mean - the Labour party factor of Nowhere Else To Go? (And brand loyalty, or whatever you want to call it.) There's actually a Verso book out (yet?) which makes a massive attack on the Guardian as home of neo-conservative (ie New Labour) ideas. I find this rather unconvincing and overstated. Even offensive, come to think of it.

I agree about Queenan too. But most of all, I agree about Thomson. There's almost no point having a thread about Thomson, because people who know what they think about him already know it all and would just send in superlatives.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Andrew L, and indeed everyone: cut em loose and let em drown in their own smug laziness!! I stopped buying it a YEAR ago FOREVER and now buy NO NEWSPAPER and am FREE. (Actually I too buy saturday for the guide — and for the food page in the mag, but the mag redesign is utter shit, and the recipes are in fact on long recycle: eg I have seen Lady Llandower's Duck three times now, always copied (of course) from Elizabeth David Salt, Spices and Aromatics...) The age of the newspaper is dead.

mark s, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Something has clearly gone wrong with G2: the other week they ran a page-long feature on the phenomenon of "Jumping the shark" (referring to that moment when a long-running tv fave finally loses the plot completely, apparently derived from a late episode of Happy Days where Fonzie, yes, jumped a shark). This was all well and good (except it was inane and ripped off from a website [this is a whole other can of worms]), but they ran an almost IDENTICAL story in the Guide not two weeks previously. Do they not read their own paper, or did they simply think the readers wouldn't notice?

What the paper still has going for it: George Monbiot's column, the Diary, Steve Bell, giving review space to Ians Sansom and Penman, and the tv columns of Nancy Banks-Smith. (When N B-S finally pops her clogs I will have to think very hard about buying the paper.)

What is leading the paper ever closer to the abyss: consistently terrible pop coverage (honorable exceptions: Maddy Costa, Betty Clarke); the fatuous new Saturday mag (Zoe Ball on dressing? match the celebrity with the pet? that awful woman talking about words that should be banned??); Charlotte bloody Raven.

stevie t, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. (Pinefox)

I agree with you there. They sucker you in with the G2 front cover (and the masthead of the main paper), but when you get to read the cover story it often appears cobbled together and lightweight. I imagine it must be difficult to fill that space with high quality stories day in day out though.

David, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Stevie: agree about Steve Bell, of course. I mean, if only for the sake of 1981 and all that. But actually, he draws and paints better now.

I actually like Peter Preston's awkward, staccato opinion pieces, come to think of it. But not the pompous ones of Hugo Young. Freedland is sometimes good at summing political issues up, but usually he 'sums up' too much - there's too much glibness in the way he marshals it all. (I admit again, though, that it's easy - even glib - to call someone glib.)

Penman strikes me as a red herring. I can see that he doesn't do that to you, cos you have some kind of investment in his career. I agree about Sansom (great left-back, mean penalty, blah blah) - in fact I think that the whole Saturday book reviews section is quite possibly the best feature of the paper. EXCEPT of course the footy. Heroes? How could I forget David Lacey?

BUT I think that you are wrong about N B-S. It doesn't surprise me that older folk make that judgement about her; it does rather surprise me coming from you. She has skills, I guess, but she's terribly repetitive; uses the same lines on the same topics year in year out. It's all too - yes - glib and easy, while dressed up to look aged and thus wise.

the pinefox, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I agree with much of what's been said. After Mark Steel and Jeremy Hardy went, it didn't seem as essential anymore. The Observer's the same - just dear old Phil Hogan that still makes me go down the shops Sunday morning

jamesmichaelward, Tuesday, 3 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

My parents used to get a subscription to the Guardian shipped to them for the first few years they were in the States, because they couldn't trust the US Media. The Guardian just isn't the same when it's not printed on that semi-transluscent airmail paper.

I only read it for the Guide and the job listings. Not that either has been particularly helpful lately... ;-)

masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Steve Bell is a GOD but apart from that I read it largely out of having nowhere else to go and a worry that I'll become totally detached from the world if I don't read any newspapers at all. I think it might have marginally improved with the loss of Messrs. Hardy and Steel though. Everything they wrote was just as predictable and smug as any of the other writers mentioned above, only with a more left wing stance.

Richard Tunnicliffe, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I don't read anything except the Spectator. Hey Chris, if you work for PA Listings then that means you're in the same building as me.

tarden, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

The Guide last week (or was it the week before) had that BRILLIANT article slamming not just the Strokes, but the entire music hype industry... VERY funny because it was so clearly written by an insider who had been participating in the music hype game for so long.

masonic boom, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

I'd love to comment, but those Observer commissions are keeping me out of the poor house. Anything appearing in the Guardian or the Obs by my deepest and dearest friends is obviously genius...

Mark Morris, Wednesday, 4 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

As bad as the Guardian may have become, it's still better than the so-called "best" American newspapers. Or, if you think it couldn't get worse, it could end up becoming The New York Times or The Washington Post.

Tadeusz Suchodolski, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Reynard's right about the amount of trivial toss that gets in there. Mark's also right about the decline of the newspaper in general. Reynard's spot on re. New Labour - the Guardian's frequent criticism of some Blairite attitudes is one of the great things about it.

There's a lot of irritating stuff, yes. My favourite columnist is George Monbiot, by a mile. Something I like about the Independent when I do get it is that its liberalism is less metropolitan and more about the common good. Needless to say, though, the Guardian's series of articles on public service under that very title were awesome.

The Hemulen Who Loved Silence, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

OK, agree with the Hemulen re. The Common Good.

Today's G2 seems designed to add fuel to my (f)ire: one page of 'Style' after another, including a column on Why We're So Disappointed That Madonna Employs A Stylist.

the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Although Toynbee's piece on Labour post-election is admirable.

blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Broadly I agree with her, yes. It feels a wee bit ironic given her immediately-pre-election pieces telling everyone how urgent it was to overcome apathy and vote for the people she's now criticizing. (But actually I think she was right both times.)

Also good in Guardian: John Patterson re. cinema.

the pinefox, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

six years pass...

oh god, ask hadley today is just... tooth-grinding.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

"today"

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (nine years ago) Permalink

"At what age is a man too old to wear band T-shirts?"

Martin McCall, by email

"About 15 - that young enough for you, Martin? And to follow one rhetorical question with several more, what in God's name is the point of band T-shirts anyway? To show your allegiance to a band? Do you think anyone else cares? To impress onlookers with your esoteric musical knowledge? See previous reply. To make people stare at your bony chest? Again, I refer you to the first answer. To show that you once attended a live gig? Wow, like, a pair of golden headsets to the guy in the Nirvana '91 T-shirt. In case you happen to bump into the lead singer on the street, he sees that the two of you are kindred souls and therefore invites you to join his band and you then go on the road and have all the manly bonding sessions followed by groupies that your heart could desire? OK, I'll give you that one, although this does suggest that you still harbour the fantasy that you might bump into Joey Ramone in Waterstone's.

"As for ladies in band T-shirts, give me a fricking break. First, gals, a badly cut, poorly made, oversized T-shirt is good for nothing other than wearing to bed and the gym. Second, too often women who wear band T-shirts appear to be going for what we shall call Groupie Chic. It is a style amply modelled by Kate Moss in recent years, and can pretty much be summed up as skinny faded black jeans, ankle boots, a ripped band T-shirt and a cropped fur jacket. In other words, a girlified version of Marc Bolan's or Keith Richards' wardrobe, as though the woman has been so busy, um, sleeping on the band bus she hasn't had time to clean her clothes, so she's now wearing ones belonging to her musical companion. This column has no time for such nonsense."

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:19 (nine years ago) Permalink

Yeah, because women have *no* interest in music whatsoever except for sleeping with musicians. What CENTURY is this cretin from?

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

I think I stopped wearing band T-shirts by the time I was 23. It wasn't necessarily a conscious move tho. I doubt I will ever wear one again tho - I guess it seems lame unless it's an old obscure or overlooked thus hip act (even this I dunno about). I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them. Does Matt DC still have that Save Ferris T?

I only want to sleep with musicians if they are hot as they are (their musical ability is pretty irrelevant in fact).

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

dear teh grauniad - a long time ago/we used to be friends...

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

It went downhill after I left.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:33 (nine years ago) Permalink

or were you PUSHED?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:35 (nine years ago) Permalink

heh. (sorry alex, no harm intended)

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

xp

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

i was being harsh really. i don't care what's on other people's t-shirts that much. just trying to work out why i stopped wearing/wouldn't wear band t-shirts myself.

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:37 (nine years ago) Permalink

Any t-shirt which isn't plain white clearly sucks that's why.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

i couldn't agree less

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

I still wear band t-shirts if I like the band. Why not? I don't *define* myself or my personality by my music tastes any more, I haven't done that since I was about 18. But that's not the same thing as wearing a band t-shirt.

I suppose the fashion journalist in discussion cannot fathom the idea that clothes are just something you put on, rather than a definition of or statement about your personality.

This is definitely something that happens as you age - or rather, has happened to me as I aged. There's a subtle difference between Statement Clothes and just things you put on.

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (nine years ago) Permalink

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:41 (nine years ago) Permalink

why else would you buy a band t-shirt if not as a statement or definition of personality?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

I didn't know it was a band t-shirt okay?

Matt DC, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

because you're cold xp

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (nine years ago) Permalink

In the past I've usually just bought them as a keepsake of a gig I've enjoyed. The piece tracer quotes is idiotic fluff, obv. I'd be embarrased to admit I'd written that.

Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

Because you like the design? Because you like the music? Because it was given to you (this is where most of mine come from)? Because it was a souvenier?

x-post

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (nine years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

given to you = not you buying

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

No, plus I've only ever bought them @ gigs.

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

Probably yeah, but w/smaller bands there's also the knowledge that in buying it, yr helping to supposrt the tour.

Pashmina, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:50 (nine years ago) Permalink

i actually bought a comets on fire t-shirt solely because the design was so awesome. (it was at a gig, but they hadn't come on stage yet.) then i heard the music and i liked that too. i suppose if i hadn't liked their music, or thought it was boring, it would have posed a problem.

a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless so that alex in nyc doesn't stalk and kill him, bought a huge iron maiden patch when he was 14 and sewed it across the shoulders of his denim jacket. he had never heard a note of iron maiden, but he wound up becoming the biggest iron maiden fan i know, and even sung in a band later, where his vocal style was almost inseparable from bruce dickinson's.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

my take on this: do not read hadley freeman.

this resolution made some time ago, stands as strong today as it ever did.

it's a crass and deliberately invidious piece of writing. such an attitude, if sincerely held, could be turned around on pretty much ANY choice of clothing. so forgeddaboudit

Alan, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:53 (nine years ago) Permalink

the last band t-shirt i bought - robyn!

alan i can't help myself, i know i'm sick and need help.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:54 (nine years ago) Permalink

is there a thread for best band t-shirts? must see

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

Taste is something that I have. It does not define me. Clothes are something I wear. The statement I am making is "I don't really care about clothes any more."

If I'm going to make a statement about clothes, I'll wear a bright green paisley jacket to a dronerock festival where everyone else is in leather.

I suppose my Hawkwind t-shirt is a statement, it says "ha ha, I'm wearing a Hawkwind t-shirt, I care nothing for fashion, I am wearing the shirt of a band so deeply uncool you can suck my left one because I love them!" But it's certainly not a statement saying that I want to f*ck any of Hawkwind or that I have a musician boyfriend whose Hawkwind t-shirt I'm borrowing, which is the assumption of that article.

Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (nine years ago) Permalink

> I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them.

*SOBS*

> you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

EAR t-shirt with the putney on the front = great. EAR live = terrible. (EAR on CD = ok, plus pram and stereolab were supporting)

koogs, Monday, 3 September 2007 15:03 (nine years ago) Permalink

Just gonna take my mind off the rise of fascism by standing around a gas burner eating a £12 burger while some twat plays a Gorgon City tune.

Matt DC, Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:23 (two months ago) Permalink

the thing is, I actually did go out last night - so maybe they're onto something. the place i went wasn't tweeting at me.

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:25 (two months ago) Permalink

Yeah I mean I'm exactly the same, but that kind of marketing is almost guaranteed to make me want to go almost anywhere else.

The Guardian using it as yet another opportunity to rattle its begging bowl is a terrible look as well.

Matt DC, Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:27 (two months ago) Permalink

yeah i unfollowed anyone who made posts like that.

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:29 (two months ago) Permalink

at least the Guardian isn't publishing "sensible", best-of-all-possible-worlds leader columns arguing that Trump might not be so bad, like the Times:

Britain in many ways is well positioned from his victory. With a Scottish mother and investments north of the border, he has far more affinity with and affection for these islands than Mr Obama. He has also said that Brexit Britain will be at the front of the queue for any trade deal. Mr Obama had said that the United Kingdom would go to the back, a policy that is very likely to have been followed by a President Clinton.

As a political neophyte, Mr Trump will have to operate as delegator-in-chief. He must surround himself with experienced advisers, especially at the Treasury, State Department and the Pentagon. And as a businessman it is not unreasonable to hope that he will promote competence over ideology.

Washington’s checks and balances remain in place. Congress may be Republican but, if it endorses irresponsibility, the party will pay dearly in the 2018 mid-term elections. In the meantime Mr Trump has vowed to govern for all Americans, including those dismayed by his victory. His first job as president will be to prove their fears misplaced by showing more restraint and generosity of spirit than we have seen so far.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/american-revolution-jv3bsjzj2

soref, Thursday, 10 November 2016 16:21 (two months ago) Permalink

Being Scottish is OK now, is it?

The Doug Walters of Crime (Tom D.), Thursday, 10 November 2016 16:38 (two months ago) Permalink

"challenge"

Fizzles, Monday, 28 November 2016 06:58 (one month ago) Permalink

excavations-of-neolithic-settlements-challenge-flintstones-myth?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

sure going to enjoy that coffee this week.

more like dork enlightenment lol (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 28 November 2016 11:57 (one month ago) Permalink

I have bought the Guardian today.

the pinefox, Monday, 28 November 2016 12:56 (one month ago) Permalink

How is it, compared to how it was at some point in the past?

Tim, Monday, 28 November 2016 13:28 (one month ago) Permalink

well, there's no manchester edition any more...

koogs, Monday, 28 November 2016 14:02 (one month ago) Permalink

pinefox if coffee's not your thing then maybe hot chocolate or herbal tea- lot of places have quite a range now

more like dork enlightenment lol (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 28 November 2016 14:11 (one month ago) Permalink

nashwan, Monday, 28 November 2016 15:13 (one month ago) Permalink

Amazing

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 28 November 2016 15:14 (one month ago) Permalink

Davictoria Cormitchen at your subservice.

nashwan, Monday, 28 November 2016 15:19 (one month ago) Permalink

verily, a take hotter than the earth's core

more like dork enlightenment lol (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 28 November 2016 15:32 (one month ago) Permalink

does not fempute

Neil S, Monday, 28 November 2016 15:37 (one month ago) Permalink

I like buying and reading the print Guardian. It mostly comes across better in print than online. Nowadays it is also like a tiny gesture of financial support.

Tim: that's really the nub of the question, isn't it, in many ways?

I think the answer is: it is in many ways as good as it was - say 10 years ago - but has gradually cut back so that various things it used to include are no longer there.

But this could be a good thing from the old POV of 'there is too much in the paper, I'll never get through it!'

- especially as I try to read the whole paper, or all of it that I can deem worthwhile.

the pinefox, Monday, 28 November 2016 22:48 (one month ago) Permalink

I agree with each and every one of those sentiments!

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Monday, 28 November 2016 23:02 (one month ago) Permalink

you can read the print edition as published at https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian fwiw

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 29 November 2016 02:56 (one month ago) Permalink

lol

more like dork enlightenment lol (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 29 November 2016 10:31 (one month ago) Permalink

four weeks pass...

The Guardian view on celebrity deaths

my hangover is a time machine (seandalai), Tuesday, 27 December 2016 22:00 (three weeks ago) Permalink

*scrambles to get to website as quick as possible*

Rock Wokeman (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 27 December 2016 22:01 (three weeks ago) Permalink

In the end, they give us their deaths quite as much as their works, and that is why they are so passionately mourned.

QED

Dr Drudge (Bob Six), Tuesday, 27 December 2016 22:41 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Deborah Orr is so terrible

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/30/donald-trump-personality-disorders-learn-minds-work

A fair number of people are implacably opposed to seeing any hope for the future after the election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States. But there’s one good reason to be hopeful. Many observers saw quite quickly that Trump’s personality was highly disordered. People with yet more dangerous personality disorders have gained power many times in human history – probably far more often than not. This time, however, the phenomenon is being scrutinised on those terms. The opportunity for everyone to learn a lot about this domineering, exploitative, unstable and superficially charismatic personality type has presented itself on a grand scale.

soref, Saturday, 31 December 2016 01:31 (two weeks ago) Permalink

that is a bad premise for a column, but the it somehow gets worse

A New Zealand study reported earlier this month that “high social cost” adults could be predicted from as young as three from a 45-minute survey of their brain. It has long been known that early intervention is important for vulnerable children. But the Dunedin Longitudinal study is a real wake-up call. It signposts how catching early developmental problems and helping children develop their minds more fully is of benefit to all of society, if only we have the will.

soref, Saturday, 31 December 2016 01:32 (two weeks ago) Permalink

ruok deb

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 31 December 2016 06:09 (two weeks ago) Permalink

maybe put them in some kind of camp or something idk

Rock Wokeman (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 31 December 2016 08:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink

typo in url...

koogs, Saturday, 31 December 2016 13:37 (two weeks ago) Permalink

the number of levels of wrongness and dishonesty and stupidity are pretty impressive tbh

Rock Wokeman (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 31 December 2016 13:54 (two weeks ago) Permalink

I have bought the Guardian today. I often do!

So far I have only read the soccer pages. They're fine except for an ungrammatical headline about Everton's proposed move to a new stadium.

Also, on a similar theme, Daniel Taylor's THFC report of our victory mainly stresses the fact that it won't be so good once we move to a new stadium.

Come to think of it I really dislike Taylor. I suppose the Guardian isn't as good as it used to be.

the pinefox, Thursday, 5 January 2017 15:22 (one week ago) Permalink

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 9 January 2017 14:44 (one week ago) Permalink

"So it is not that Streep’s words are not true and important – they are – the thing is to understand how they are framed and understood. She is an Oscar winner calling out a reality TV star. She is a citizen calling the president-elect a bully. She is, by virtue of her success, part of an elite and yet Trump – who lives in a gold tower, who is not actually a self-made man – is really the voice of the elite."

Yes?

the pinefox, Monday, 9 January 2017 15:18 (one week ago) Permalink

I dnt think Streep is the first person 2 forcefully criticize Trump.

Houston John (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 9 January 2017 15:22 (one week ago) Permalink

sorry, i always fall for their commentisfree/blog/nottheactualnewspaper cheap trolling

brekekekexit collapse collapse (ledge), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:09 (one week ago) Permalink

I think Loach is a poor film maker and there is an element of fare like Daniel Blake being liberal comfort food. But this cunt is trying to suggest that life way below the poverty line isn't that bad at all, they obv have extensive insider knowledge on this to be so sure of such a shite opinion. But yeah it is just more click-shite, albeit very Mail type views in this case.

calzino, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:21 (one week ago) Permalink

David Cox is master of the "ppl think this thing is good. BUT is it in fact *bad*?" take:

Why British Baftas frontrunner I, Daniel Blake may betray its own cause
Ken Loach’s drama leads the field of homegrown contenders at next month’s awards. But does its attack on the way welfare works undermine the principles on which the system depends?

Bigger picture Why 'Slumnag Millionaire' movie Dark Horse is a political object lesson
An unlikely Welsh villagers’ project to train a racehorse pits the values of the left against the doctrines of the right. But though this documentary may look like Pride, its moral is not in lockstep

Bigger picture Gone Girl revamps gender stereotypes – for the worse
Gillian Flynn feels both book and film advance the female cause. Yet Rosamund Pike’s Amy may harm perceptions of women, although not for the reasons you might expect

Film blog Are female action heroes good role models for young women?
From Katniss Everdeen to Lisbeth Salander, today's film heroines kick butt. But are violent on-screen women empowering or oppressive, asks David Cox

soref, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:28 (one week ago) Permalink

I'm reliably informed that Gone Girl is dreadful about women, but that IDB article is such trash I'll assume he's gotten the wrong end of that stick as well

illbient microtonal poetry Surbiton (imago), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:31 (one week ago) Permalink

That is a very good set of evidence soref !

the pinefox, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:31 (one week ago) Permalink

well you see, Gone Girl is dreadful about women, "but not for the reasons you might expect"

soref, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:31 (one week ago) Permalink

ok, I'll stop now but:

Is Enough Said in films about the dangers of obesity?

Nicole Holofcener's comedy featuring an oversized romantic hero, played by James Gandolfini, implies that being fat is an external irrelevance. We wouldn't say the same about anorexia

soref, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:32 (one week ago) Permalink

Nice work if you can get it. No 'gorging cold beans from the can' for this talented fellow.

Eats like Elvis, shits like De Niro (Tom D.), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:43 (one week ago) Permalink

The Gone Girl article seems pretty on-point, which makes this new one all the more baffling

illbient microtonal poetry Surbiton (imago), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:44 (one week ago) Permalink

Rock Wokeman (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 10 January 2017 14:49 (one week ago) Permalink

I couldn't imagine Loach's IDB being anywhere near as moving as Stéphane Brizé's The Measure of a Man, but apart some of his early tv work and Kes I have a serious Loach aversion.

calzino, Tuesday, 10 January 2017 15:18 (one week ago) Permalink

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jan/19/why-i-sent-oxford-university-rejection-letter

"it is an amazing feeling to realise that so many people are enjoying my email"

the pinefox, Sunday, 15 January 2017 15:40 (three days ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.