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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

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

blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (12 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 (12 years ago) Permalink

6 years pass...

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

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (6 years ago) Permalink

"today"

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:32 (6 years ago) Permalink

It went downhill after I left.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:33 (6 years ago) Permalink

or were you PUSHED?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:35 (6 years ago) Permalink

heh. (sorry alex, no harm intended)

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (6 years ago) Permalink

xp

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:36 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:38 (6 years ago) Permalink

i couldn't agree less

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:41 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

Matt DC, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (6 years ago) Permalink

because you're cold xp

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

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

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (6 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 (6 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 (6 years ago) Permalink

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/07/valentines-day-more-like-tax-love

Valentines Day - it's a bit commercial. Stunning insight there, mate.

ailsa, Sunday, 16 February 2014 00:14 (2 months ago) Permalink

Oh, that was already noted. As you were.

ailsa, Sunday, 16 February 2014 00:15 (2 months ago) Permalink

valentines-day-MORE LIKE

i lost my shoes on acid (jed_), Sunday, 16 February 2014 01:41 (2 months ago) Permalink

wait until he sees the water aisle - he'll explode

koogs, Sunday, 16 February 2014 10:59 (2 months ago) Permalink

Wow that guy is terrible.

the Bronski Review (Trayce), Monday, 17 February 2014 02:29 (2 months ago) Permalink

It is disconcerting how much he looks like Woody Allen.

Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Monday, 17 February 2014 10:28 (2 months ago) Permalink

ghost written by adnan januzaj

^ 諷刺 (ken c), Monday, 17 February 2014 11:51 (2 months ago) Permalink

Eyeball Kicks, Friday, 21 February 2014 14:41 (1 month ago) Permalink

guardian weighs in on scottish independence http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/19/scottish-independence-76-things-apologise

conrad, Friday, 21 February 2014 14:46 (1 month ago) Permalink

Who are "we"?

Here he is with the classic "Poème Électronique." Good track (Marcello Carlin), Friday, 21 February 2014 14:47 (1 month ago) Permalink

the british guardian

conrad, Friday, 21 February 2014 14:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

will sir chris hoy and sir alex ferguson etc lose their knighthood? surely this cannot be allowed to happen

^ 諷刺 (ken c), Friday, 21 February 2014 14:57 (1 month ago) Permalink

can we stop referring to james vi as james i

conrad, Friday, 21 February 2014 15:03 (1 month ago) Permalink

3 weeks pass...

Such content, many wow**

For one week, we will share our perspectives on the media, globalisation, sex and pop culture, as well as the bare necessities of housing, food and employment. These are some of the pieces we will be bringing you:

• 30 under 30 – our picks of the brightest young global media stars. (We trust you to disagree with our choices rabidly in the comments)

• Buzzfeed's Beastmaster explains the cat thing

• Rage at how economically screwed this generation might be, then find answers in pages of life-hacks and not-so-scary facts

• Online dating? You're doing it wrong

• Everything you wanted to know about trans sex lives and were rude enough to ask

• Original political cartoons from international graphic artists.

• Why all roads lead to Drake

• Why Clueless defines Gen Y better than any other single cultural artifact

fedora the implorer (nakhchivan), Friday, 14 March 2014 22:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

Surely Clueless is firmly Gen X?

The Whittrick and Puddock (dowd), Friday, 14 March 2014 22:57 (1 month ago) Permalink

yeah clueless is gen x

balls, Saturday, 15 March 2014 00:30 (1 month ago) Permalink

THAT'S Y IT'S NEWS

j., Saturday, 15 March 2014 00:36 (1 month ago) Permalink

the inevitable live blog of people writing live blogs

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/mar/17/generation-y-takeover-as-it-happens

PONOPONOPONO (seandalai), Monday, 17 March 2014 20:28 (1 month ago) Permalink

The trend for including yesterday's "internet sensation"/wacky Youtube clip on website front pages (happens a lot on both The Guardian and Independent websites) seems a bit tragic. Makes me like both sites less than I would do otherwise. There's a skill to being click-baity - I clicked on Suzanne Moore's piece on Clarissa Dickson Wright earlier (someone I have close to no interest in) and was glad I had done.

djh, Monday, 17 March 2014 21:31 (1 month ago) Permalink

gave up at "My name is Mr B the Gentleman Rhymer."

Angkor Waht (Neil S), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 13:44 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

toes curled so hard i thought my shoes would split

emmeline skankhurst (NickB), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 13:47 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

I hope everyone involved is sacked on the spot.

online hardman, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 14:07 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

i read it and now i'm not sure if i'll ever stop squirming.

Merdeyeux, Tuesday, 25 March 2014 14:10 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

presume this was commissioned off the back of the zingy profile thing yesterday which basically and correctly said that this music is garbage and anyone who likes it is a shitlord. every single one of Mr B's awful fanbase signed up to comment squeakily with their own name and photo

From Tha Crouuuch To Da Palacios (DJ Mencap), Tuesday, 25 March 2014 14:24 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

2 weeks pass...

So I bought the Guardian today to get the men's fashion special, to lookit the suits.

This has a 6-page spread on a footballer's hairstyle.

The Guardian is just trolling me at this point, right?

(It's not even his haircut, to be honest.)

Branwell Bell, Saturday, 12 April 2014 08:49 (6 days ago) Permalink

The Guardian has seen the UK cultural zeitgeist and embraced it.

mohel hell (Bob Six), Saturday, 12 April 2014 08:59 (6 days ago) Permalink

which footballer?

online hardman, Saturday, 12 April 2014 09:28 (6 days ago) Permalink

There's an online piece with Ken Loach, Reggie Yates and a dude from Matches critiquing various managers / players on their fashion choices, which seems OK. I have no problem with looking at sports people as 'fashion icons' in the same way as pop stars, generally. Many cultivate a look, they're hugely influential and managers are often a guide to 'adult' fashion for kids.

Yuri Bashment (ShariVari), Saturday, 12 April 2014 09:52 (6 days ago) Permalink

Why does Tim Dowling even exist. Why.

Yes, that "football managers in suits" article is also in the same issue. Also there's another article about sports presenters' style choices. I feel like I have fallen into some bizarro world I no longer understand.

Branwell Bell, Saturday, 12 April 2014 09:56 (6 days ago) Permalink

I suspect that is how most people normally feel when reading style sections.

Yuri Bashment (ShariVari), Saturday, 12 April 2014 10:19 (6 days ago) Permalink

I don't know about that. I've been reading men's style sections since I was 9 (the New York Times used to do a really amazing one, OK?) and it's not like it requires particularly specialist language or knowledge? No more so than reading a supplement on architecture or a supplement on science requires specialist language?

Don't you ever feel vaguely... patronised when reading things aimed at men, and this presumption of being a colossal oaf with limited interests? Like it has to be ~bloked~ up with a bunch of football signifiers to make it palatable? I don't disagree with the assertion that football players can be and are fashion icons. But 6 pages of "Tim Dowling gets a footballer's haircut" is really an appallingly bad idea, clumsy and also bizarre.

But I do recognise that this probably has a great deal to do with my loathing of both Tim Dowling and football. I don't want either of these things besmirching my suit pr0n, so both of them together is just... extra special ugh.

Branwell Bell, Saturday, 12 April 2014 10:56 (6 days ago) Permalink

I really enjoy Tim Dowling's column, I realise this is a minority opinion but he often makes me laugh.

there was a definite cool-factor in tupac's hologram (stevie), Saturday, 12 April 2014 10:58 (6 days ago) Permalink

If Tim Dowling were a female Guardian columnist writing about the banal, navel-gazing tedium that Tim Dowling writes about, he'd be ripped to shreds.

"Oh no, the Big Dog has eaten my son's shoes! I'm getting a footballer's haircut. I'm a helpless American who doesn't understand grass!" There, column filed.

Branwell Bell, Saturday, 12 April 2014 11:03 (6 days ago) Permalink

Err, yeah, cause female columnists get so much easier a time than male ones.

Alba, Saturday, 12 April 2014 11:05 (6 days ago) Permalink

Sorry – just woke up. Reading failure. As you were.

Alba, Saturday, 12 April 2014 11:06 (6 days ago) Permalink

Wait, that's not a Tim Dowling column because I haven't mentioned my banjo playing or put in a free plug for my band! Now I can file. Where's my paycheque?

Branwell Bell, Saturday, 12 April 2014 11:10 (6 days ago) Permalink

If they made a habit of bloking up fashion coverage it would annoy me but most, in the Guardian and elsewhere, does tend towards 'aspirational' and if you aren't in your mid thirties and in the market for £100 jumpers, £250 blazers and £700 suits will quite possibly look like bizarro world.

idk, I think there is still a tendency on both sides to look at a lot of young men who care about their image and like nice clothes as 'not fashion'. The occasional feature that makes fashion more relatable seems fine.

Yuri Bashment (ShariVari), Saturday, 12 April 2014 11:39 (6 days ago) Permalink

If Tim Dowling was Tess Dowling but wrote the same pieces I'd still find her funny.

there was a definite cool-factor in tupac's hologram (stevie), Saturday, 12 April 2014 11:53 (6 days ago) Permalink

why cant you type 'porn' btw, do you have an aversion to the word? is it a 'quirky' stylistic thing? does my nut in.

online hardman, Saturday, 12 April 2014 12:29 (6 days ago) Permalink

Isn't the female Tim Dowling just Lucy Mangan over the page? She's a bit less cringe I guess. imagine having so profoundly little to say about the world, and so thuddingly dull a way of saying it, as dim owl ting

lex pretend, Saturday, 12 April 2014 12:43 (6 days ago) Permalink

Yeah that's why you shouldn't ever attempt humour lex

online hardman, Saturday, 12 April 2014 12:45 (6 days ago) Permalink

Lex, it's dim low ting.

baked beings on toast (suzy), Saturday, 12 April 2014 14:09 (6 days ago) Permalink

has anyone here read Tim Dowling's novel, 'The Giles Wareing Haters' Club'?

Giles is a freelance writer of amusing articles for a national newspaper. One day, feeling particularly fortyish, he happens to type ‘Giles Wareing+unfunny’ into a search engine. And that’s when he discovers the thread. The thread is called ‘The Giles Wareing Haters’ Club’, and is entirely devoted to holding everything he has ever written up to excoriating criticism and ridicule. As Giles becomes obsessed with the thread, with tracking down its participants, his angst begins to focus on one particularly scornful contributor, and it soon becomes clear that things are going really quite badly wrong . . . A tragedy, a farce and a detective story, The Giles Wareing Haters’ Club is an absorbing, hilarious and razor-sharp look at the modern male in all his dysfunctional glory.

soref, Saturday, 12 April 2014 14:14 (6 days ago) Permalink

There is a fine line between "write what you know" and "so autobiographical as to be utterly unfunny to anyone outside of your tiny soap bubble world."

(Assuming that is not an actual parody as opposed to thinly veiled self parody.)

Branwell Bell, Saturday, 12 April 2014 14:25 (6 days ago) Permalink

He has a new book out later this year:

soref, Saturday, 12 April 2014 14:30 (6 days ago) Permalink

there's this as well, but I think it's a different Tim Dowling?

soref, Saturday, 12 April 2014 14:31 (6 days ago) Permalink

also looks like it's saying Tim Dowling is the nation's worst problem

soref, Saturday, 12 April 2014 14:31 (6 days ago) Permalink

Is the is the guardian worse than it used to be thread worse than it used to be?

recommend me a new bagman (darraghmac), Saturday, 12 April 2014 14:35 (6 days ago) Permalink


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