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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

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

blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (14 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 (14 years ago) Permalink

6 years pass...

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

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (7 years ago) Permalink

"today"

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:32 (7 years ago) Permalink

It went downhill after I left.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:33 (7 years ago) Permalink

or were you PUSHED?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:35 (7 years ago) Permalink

heh. (sorry alex, no harm intended)

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (7 years ago) Permalink

xp

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:38 (7 years ago) Permalink

i couldn't agree less

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:41 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

Matt DC, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (7 years ago) Permalink

because you're cold xp

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

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

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (7 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 (7 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 (7 years ago) Permalink

Featured comment

I like Stewart Lee's writing, but it's always the comments that provide the main interest. The section is always populated mainly by readers who have seemingly taken Lee at face value and assumed, for example, that he needs people to cook his steak, and by smug readers who celebrate their superiority over the other readers because they understand the joke.

So far so good, but then I wonder if the readers who were slagging Stewart off were in fact just joking so they could get a rise out of the earnest types. Then I worry that the earnest types are also just joking, and they understand full well that everyone gets the joke, and are just playing their part. Then I wonder if this is all obvious and I'm being the only idiot by even imagining that anyone is being serious with their comments.

Now I'm worried I'm spoiling the whole pantomime by just writing this comment.
giantmoth's avatar
giantmoth
5 Apr 2015

Albanic Kanun Autark (nakhchivan), Sunday, 5 April 2015 14:29 (3 months ago) Permalink

There's a particularly uninspired Geoff Dyer comment is free article today, "Underground culture isn’t dead – it’s just better hidden than it used to be".

Never has 'underground culture sounded' so dull, nor does he give any indication that he has any sense of what's going on. Don't know why he's so complacent.

the gabhal cabal (Bob Six), Sunday, 5 April 2015 14:40 (3 months ago) Permalink

xpost That reads like what Syd would write for Jugband Blues for the modern day.

Mark G, Tuesday, 7 April 2015 10:46 (3 months ago) Permalink

pretty sure 'giantmoth' is Stewart Lee

their fantastic and relevant debut single, ‘Times Are Hard’ (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 7 April 2015 11:21 (3 months ago) Permalink

Whole piece feels like a framework on which to prop the gag about feeling like a big-shot author because his books aren't in the determindley obscurantist bookshop.

their fantastic and relevant debut single, ‘Times Are Hard’ (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 7 April 2015 11:24 (3 months ago) Permalink

the whole Geoff Dyer piece

their fantastic and relevant debut single, ‘Times Are Hard’ (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 7 April 2015 11:26 (3 months ago) Permalink

Don't know why he's so complacent.

He's a fkn idiot.

xyzzzz__, Tuesday, 7 April 2015 12:21 (3 months ago) Permalink

I've enjoyed some of his writing in the past, though more his novels than his journalism.

the gabhal cabal (Bob Six), Tuesday, 7 April 2015 12:43 (3 months ago) Permalink

the Guardian view on...

courtney barnett formula (seandalai), Thursday, 16 April 2015 12:43 (2 months ago) Permalink

I’m a Facebook baby bore. If you don’t like it, log off

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, 16 April 2015 19:13 (2 months ago) Permalink

On this fourth #EdBallsDay, has the hype become too much?

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Wednesday, 29 April 2015 12:44 (2 months ago) Permalink

I can't help thinking they may have shot themselves in the foot with this prince Charles letters thing. Maybe it's just that it seems to me like prince Charles writing letters to ministers about homeopathic medicine, or whatever, is the least of the country's worries right now but it seems more like a convenient (though accidental, timing wise) distraction and actually seems fairly ridiculous when related to the actual breaking apart of our civil rights that's imminent. I realise the timing is out of their control but I feel like the meagre notes they are trumpeting seem ridiculous w/r/t what is actually happening to us.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Thursday, 14 May 2015 01:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

I know I'm not much of a deep thinker but this is more frustrating, to me, than helpful tbf.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Thursday, 14 May 2015 01:18 (1 month ago) Permalink

Nick, Michael, Lex, any other Guardian types who hang about this thread...

Who would I pitch to, a piece detailing the failures of a tech-giant not only to fail to protect their users by enforcing their own terms of service WRT stalking/doxing, but also giving out downright dangerous official advice in responses to complaints?

I don't know if that would be Tech or Women or Comment Is Free, but any suggestions as to who to pitch at?

The Hauntology of Celebrity (Branwell with an N), Sunday, 24 May 2015 08:29 (1 month ago) Permalink

Possibly any of those. Email me at albaba at gmail.com and I can be more specific.

Alba, Sunday, 24 May 2015 21:20 (1 month ago) Permalink

Cheers! Sent.

The Hauntology of Celebrity (Branwell with an N), Monday, 25 May 2015 06:21 (1 month ago) Permalink

Joel Golby writes about general stuff for VICE and the Guardian Guide

glad baller (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 27 May 2015 14:58 (1 month ago) Permalink

nakh that really was the worst thing I've ever read

Eric Burdon & War, On Drugs (Cosmic Slop), Wednesday, 27 May 2015 17:09 (1 month ago) Permalink

the rest of his articles look like they could provide some competition if you have the will to go through them

glad baller (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 27 May 2015 17:21 (1 month ago) Permalink

I don't

Eric Burdon & War, On Drugs (Cosmic Slop), Wednesday, 27 May 2015 17:59 (1 month ago) Permalink

checked out this lad's twitter earlier and he could be the millennial Michael Hogan we were all waiting for

pull blart, maul cops (DJ Mencap), Wednesday, 27 May 2015 20:51 (1 month ago) Permalink

he has someway to go before creating anything as bad as this
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2015/jan/12/mel-giedroyc-sue-perkins-funniest-moments

soref, Wednesday, 27 May 2015 20:57 (1 month ago) Permalink

switched from fhm to vice several months ago but hasnt updated his pic for something a bit more dorke

https://twitter.com/joelgolby/status/602196573121081345

lex merk a tory ya? (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 27 May 2015 21:04 (1 month ago) Permalink

Read news related to Joel Golby - Page no. 4 - BrunchNews
www.brunchnews.com › Joel Golby
Tags: Dapper Laughs, Joel Golby, lads, lad culture, misogyny, street harassment, Opinion, everyday sexism, the 90s, universities, fraternal bonding techniques, ...

lex merk a tory ya? (nakhchivan), Wednesday, 27 May 2015 21:09 (1 month ago) Permalink

too easy perhaps, but for the record http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/28/snoop-dogg-feminist-sexist-lyrics

Keith Moom (Neil S), Thursday, 28 May 2015 09:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

this is at least the third time Julie Bindel has written essentially this article about Snoop

"I own no fewer than four of his CDs" made me lol but general sentiment seems fine to me

pull blart, maul cops (DJ Mencap), Thursday, 28 May 2015 09:39 (1 month ago) Permalink

the revelation that she watches re-runs of Carry On films was also a bit o_O. The broader point she is making is fair enough, granted.

Keith Moom (Neil S), Thursday, 28 May 2015 09:44 (1 month ago) Permalink

TBF any British person with a Bank Holiday hangover watches marathons of Carry On films at some point.

scientist/exotic dancer (suzy), Thursday, 28 May 2015 10:10 (1 month ago) Permalink

I like the Julie Bindel piece.

Continue your brooding monologue (Re-Make/Re-Model), Thursday, 28 May 2015 10:12 (1 month ago) Permalink

hah fair enough. I hereby rescind my nomination.

Keith Moom (Neil S), Thursday, 28 May 2015 10:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

'I start to feel it in my knees' – working for hours while standing proves a tall order

With new research suggesting workers be on their feet for half of their working day, Esther Addley set out to meet the target. But four hours of standing is no easy task

Standing to work is not a new thing: Leonardo da Vinci, Ben Franklin, Winston Churchill and Vladimir Nabokov are all said to have done it. Philip Roth wrote his novels on his feet, while James Murdoch, now chief operating officer of 21st Century Fox, is a self-confessed “big believer” in standing while you work.

bureau belfast model (LocalGarda), Tuesday, 2 June 2015 12:48 (1 month ago) Permalink

I mean, I realise this means people standing in an office, but at no point does it even seem to realise shopworkers, waiting staff, bar staff, police, I mean, how many people stand all day at work? Dunno how you could write that and not think about just working in a shop even in your teens or whatever.

bureau belfast model (LocalGarda), Tuesday, 2 June 2015 12:50 (1 month ago) Permalink

Karl Marx famously did this too but only because he was plagued with boils on his arse, so that probably doesn't count.

Willibald Pirckheimers Briefwechsel (Tom D.), Tuesday, 2 June 2015 12:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

those blokes at Covent Garden who have painted themselves gold

Keith Moom (Neil S), Tuesday, 2 June 2015 12:54 (1 month ago) Permalink

priests who are uncomfortable with movement

bureau belfast model (LocalGarda), Tuesday, 2 June 2015 13:01 (1 month ago) Permalink

Liveblogging the relaunch episode of TFI Friday.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Friday, 12 June 2015 20:22 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I'm being forced to watch it and tbf it's deserves to be liveblogged, though not in the way I imagine the Guardian's doing it.

Madchen, Friday, 12 June 2015 20:37 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I'm watching it too a bit. I can't believe Chris Evans decided that's what he'd wear for the show.

Acting Crazy (Instrumental) (jed_), Friday, 12 June 2015 20:44 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Doesn't Chris Evans have all the money? I can't imagine wanting to do this again.

Rouge Trooper (dowd), Friday, 12 June 2015 21:40 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

Went to guardian website using my phone. Hit the search button at the top. But it uses some fancy web 2.0 thing instead of a proper text form. And my phone doesn't bring up the keyboard so I can't type anything.

Hit 'request desktop site', get exactly the same page.

I try scrolling down to the bottom to see if there's an option there, but it loads me content as I scroll. It's also very hard to scroll without touching something that wants to open a new page.

Progress...

koogs, Saturday, 20 June 2015 20:30 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Had a look at it. When you click on the search button it shows a proper text form for me. How old is your phone?

Chewshabadoo, Sunday, 21 June 2015 12:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Nexus 4, KitKat, Firefox is up to date.

I tried it again and sometimes I get redirected to a custom google page, but half the time I just get a pseudo text box pop up, no cursor, no keyboard.

koogs, Sunday, 21 June 2015 13:41 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Seems random. Might be google not responding in a timely fashion. (That redirected search page has a google domain but does a site search against guardian.computer)

koogs, Sunday, 21 June 2015 13:46 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It is from two years ago, so still few years to go before her daughter is in therapy.

holger sharkey (Tom D.), Thursday, 2 July 2015 16:10 (5 days ago) Permalink

oh lol

goole, Thursday, 2 July 2015 16:19 (5 days ago) Permalink

I am so glad I'm working from home so I can cackle like a fiend at that article

I Am Curious (Dolezal) (DJP), Thursday, 2 July 2015 18:07 (5 days ago) Permalink


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