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

at least it's an ethos

don't even see how this was a duck (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 6 October 2016 18:50 (one month ago) Permalink

I don't think that Fraser is really an accelerationalist, he's on more of a blue labour/red tory kick, and has been for some years now

soref, Thursday, 6 October 2016 18:52 (one month ago) Permalink

it's the utter confidence and authority with which he spews this shit

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 6 October 2016 19:07 (one month ago) Permalink

I always enjoy a good Giles Fraser Thought for the Day, by enjoy I mean marvel at the fatuousness of.

dancing jarman by derek (ledge), Thursday, 6 October 2016 19:14 (one month ago) Permalink

I MEAN THE PROBLEM WITH YOUR ETHNICS IS THEY KEEP TO THEIR OWN KIND, DON'T THEY? THEY DON'T WANT TO LEARN THE BLOODY LANGUAGE.

don't even see how this was a duck (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 6 October 2016 19:16 (one month ago) Permalink

Trust is good, but not trusting outsiders is bad. Diversity is good but lack of cohesion is bad. Friendship is good but not the kind you get on the interet. Business likes diversity but business is bad - right? The past was ok but we don't want to go back to the past. Crikey, this is confusing, no wonder poor Giles can't work it out.

dancing jarman by derek (ledge), Thursday, 6 October 2016 19:24 (one month ago) Permalink

Brexit and the new mood in politics is misunderstood as a hostility to outsiders, though it is easily purloined by racists. Rather, it is a cry for community, for togetherness, for the local, for mutuality, for social solidarity. Theresa May, the vicar’s daughter, wants to find all this in a return to the past. That’s the wrong answer. But at least she’s answering the right question.

what an unfortunate misunderstanding, thank heavens Giles is here to set us right! is there any case for "Lexit" that isn't based on this "ppl say they hate foreigners, but what they actually mean is that they agree with me" wishful thinking? (aside from accelerationism, I guess?) iirc correctly during the referendum he was pro-brexit but also said that we should have *more* immigration?

soref, Thursday, 6 October 2016 19:41 (one month ago) Permalink

ime lexiters broadly believe that 1) the eu has become a fundamentally neoliberal institution & 2) the single currency is a recipe for disaster. which is kinda hard to argue with tbrr, but imo it's a long unconvincing road to 3) therefore the UK should leave it

larry elliot voted leave "in order to shake things up" well be careful what you wish for mate

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 6 October 2016 22:18 (one month ago) Permalink

There are also leftwingers who are against freedom of movement because it's part of globalisation, treating workers as resources who are expected to move around the continent as capitalism requires. Job low paid or non-existent? Get on your bike and move to another place where you're more in demand.

Alba, Friday, 7 October 2016 13:22 (one month ago) Permalink

never feel lower than when giles fraser is trolling me with his hobbit morality in 2016

ogmor, Friday, 7 October 2016 20:01 (one month ago) Permalink

Larry Elliot is really beginning to piss me off...I had been a fan of his columns for some years, but he's now writing crap like this:

Will dearer food and the coming squeeze on living standards will prompt a change of heart about Brexit? Remainers should not bank on it. Life has not been great for many in recent years anyway. What’s more, Britain is a country with a streak of cussedness that delights in having its back to the wall.

Half-baked profundities. Self-referential smirkiness (Bob Six), Sunday, 16 October 2016 13:41 (one month ago) Permalink

Britain is a country with a streak of cussedness that delights in having its back to the wall.

Pretty sure that can't be England he's talking about.

Robby Mook (stevie), Monday, 17 October 2016 08:57 (one month ago) Permalink

Pixie geldof interview: frowns on paparazzi, links to salacious paparazzi pics.

quis gropes ipsos gropiuses? (ledge), Sunday, 30 October 2016 09:26 (one month ago) Permalink

paper edition doesn't have any papped photos.

koogs, Sunday, 30 October 2016 12:03 (one month ago) Permalink

Yeah they should offer the bonus content to those who actually pay.

quis gropes ipsos gropiuses? (ledge), Sunday, 30 October 2016 14:43 (one month ago) Permalink

Free glossy pamphlet of pap shots.

quis gropes ipsos gropiuses? (ledge), Sunday, 30 October 2016 14:44 (one month ago) Permalink

page 44 of the magazine "Nearly everything in the house is secondhand" says the owner of Aerende, which will sell you, on page 47, a £185 duvet cover and a £7 bar of soap.

koogs, Sunday, 30 October 2016 18:35 (one month ago) Permalink

https://www.theguardian.com/membership/2016/nov/09/with-trump-victorious-time-to-support-fearless-independent-journalism

Jesus Fucking Christ. I think I would genuinely prefer one of those 'Cheer yourself up with a gingerbread latte!' offers.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 9 November 2016 17:07 (three weeks ago) Permalink

rolling thread of shaming PRs who make omg-eyecatching references to the election results to promote their artist shite fucking paper

calzino, Wednesday, 9 November 2016 17:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Naomi Klein entering her Scott Adams phase

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/rise-of-the-davos-class-sealed-americas-fate

I thought the article couldn't be as crass as the subbing made it out to be, but I was wrong

Chuck_Tatum, Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:02 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Jesus Fucking Christ. I think I would genuinely prefer one of those 'Cheer yourself up with a gingerbread latte!' offers.

lol you stole my criticism!

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Did you actually say that? Not consciously nicked, honest, but it's the sort of thing that sticks around.

Matt DC, Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:15 (three weeks ago) Permalink

That shit is everywhere right now in fairness.

Matt DC, Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:19 (three weeks ago) Permalink

it is insufferable tho, all day on twitter today and yesterday

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:20 (three weeks ago) Permalink

xpost, yeah! awful.

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:20 (three weeks ago) Permalink

From the other thread:

Hillary is definitely going to delete this email

<liveyourc✧✧✧@yplan✧✧✧.c✧✧>

That's the kind of guy we want leading the free world

(BIG GIF OF TRUMP AT WRESTLEMANIA)

Have you ever taken out Vince McMahon live on WWE? Nah, didn't think so. Have you ever set up your own university? Oop, no, you haven't. And I bet if someone gave you a small loan of a million dollars you wouldn't even know what to do with it. Sounds like Donald just clotheslined your libertarian, democratic opinions right out of the window.

But seriously, before you go home and start building your own wall around your property to keep out all the post-apocalyptic raiders you'll be fighting off after the nuclear war, maybe go out, take one last gulp of fresh air and hit up some the hotspots in London we've been stockpiling for just such an eventuality. Believe us – these are the memories you'll cling to after all else has crumbled in the wake of WWIII…have fun!

Matt DC, Thursday, 10 November 2016 11:21 (three weeks 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 (three weeks 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 (three weeks 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 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yeah i unfollowed anyone who made posts like that.

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

Being Scottish is OK now, is it?

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

"challenge"

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

I have bought the Guardian today.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Amazing

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

Davictoria Cormitchen at your subservice.

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

does not fempute

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

I agree with each and every one of those sentiments!

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

lol

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


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