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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 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 (13 years ago) Permalink

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

blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (13 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 (13 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

haha nah she's fucking terrible of course but what do you expect from the fucking guardian

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:07 (1 month ago) Permalink

all of these things seem almost aleatoric? like that writer with the britpop thing hogan or whatever he was called, there doesnt seem to be any sort of organizational/discriminatory intelligence at work, random proletkult / news / content signifiers thrown together, every single one of them will have tweeted some variation of suarez & food this week, how would one even go about hiring someone writing in this genre

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:14 (1 month ago) Permalink

Michael Hogan @michaelhogan Jun 25

Dunno why Suarez is getting so much grief. Who hasn't fancied a bite to eat and opted for an Italian? #WorldCup

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:18 (1 month ago) Permalink

this is pure SEO-as-reportage, the dismal final frontier of journalism

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:21 (1 month ago) Permalink

the lowest common denominator of comment. these people are simply machines of the news agenda at its most brutalistic

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:22 (1 month ago) Permalink

yeah im glad there are still people ready to get upset about content under late capitalism or whatever you but im more just drawn to how little specialist aptitude is required for a writer on pop culture, music, tech, football, etc, surely 80% of the white people in london 22-40 could do this work

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:38 (1 month ago) Permalink

these people sucked the right cocks, went to the right schools, knew the right m8s, and probably had (very) slightly more sophisticated content published in some guise at some point (university magazines lol)

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:44 (1 month ago) Permalink

we kinda need suzy to explain tho

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:46 (1 month ago) Permalink

i mean, there's the possibility they worked incredibly hard to build up blogging/article portfolios & networked like fuck to achieve these positions no matter their background, so well done them, now look what they're required to do, regression to pigshit, idk

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:47 (1 month ago) Permalink

doesn't keep me up at night

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:47 (1 month ago) Permalink

lj i think your latterday male feminism is slightly undermined once u suggest female journalists get their jobs from prostituting themselves

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:49 (1 month ago) Permalink

I would imagine a lot of it is down to having the patience and confidence to keep pitching ideas until one gets accepted. If I had the time and inclination to propose this stuff to a variety of national newspapers five times a day, 365 days a year, knowing that the vast majority of the time it would be knocked back, I could be making that £82 a week too, but it is a hard grind.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:53 (1 month ago) Permalink

its not like u could argue there is some underprivileged person who could do their work better than them because there is no level of achievement here, they are all exactly as competent as each other

and yeah sharivari probably gets it with the £82.....most of these people presumably dont earn very much at all so the question of who works in this field is either who is psychotically committed to content farming or who has other income streams

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:56 (1 month ago) Permalink

Rhiannon Cosslett still talks about temping to make ends meet. Even the successful bloggers are going to have irl jobs, for the most part.

Wristy Hurlington (ShariVari), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:59 (1 month ago) Permalink

the sad thought is that it's probably mostly ppl who grew up w/ journalism aspirations who still long to be intrepid correspondents in a world where the press has utterly collapsed

Mordy, Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:59 (1 month ago) Permalink

like it's kinda a calling

Mordy, Thursday, 3 July 2014 19:00 (1 month ago) Permalink

the question of who works in this field is either who is psychotically committed to content farming or who has other income streams

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

difficult listening hour, Thursday, 3 July 2014 19:02 (1 month ago) Permalink

lj i think your latterday male feminism is slightly undermined once u suggest female journalists get their jobs from prostituting themselves

― Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Thursday, 3 July 2014 18:49 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

oh i was talking about michael hogan here too, while alluding to the overly patriarchal nature of newspaper journalism

and it's a metaphor of course ;)

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:28 (1 month ago) Permalink

slightly affronted u called me on that tbh

which was retweeted by (imago), Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:32 (1 month ago) Permalink

that wasn't the post I fpd u for ITT fwiw xxx

cpt navajo (darraghmac), Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:48 (1 month ago) Permalink

the sad thought is that it's probably mostly ppl who grew up w/ journalism aspirations who still long to be intrepid correspondents in a world where the press has utterly collapsed

― Mordy, Thursday, 3 July 2014 19:59 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

like it's kinda a calling

― Mordy, Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:00 (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this sector doesn't really have anything to do with anything that highminded

doesnt seem likely that stuart heritage decompensates in a panic during his oscars drinking game liveblog wishing he was writing about the sri lankan civil war

even if he does, cultural pessimism arguments don't seem that persuasive after that very lengthy and grave coates reparation article got record pageviews and serious traction all over the place

Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln (nakhchivan), Thursday, 3 July 2014 20:54 (1 month ago) Permalink

Aleatoric.
Aleatoric?
Aleato-ric?
Alea-tor-ic?

Sufjan Grafton, Friday, 4 July 2014 04:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

Lucy Rhiannon Cosslett is probably the worst writer in history

online hardman, Friday, 4 July 2014 08:57 (1 month ago) Permalink

This thread needs a few guardian Caitlin Moran pics:

Comfrey Mugwort (Bob Six), Sunday, 6 July 2014 11:01 (1 month ago) Permalink

speaking of...

ey, Sunday, 6 July 2014 17:32 (1 month ago) Permalink

A few posts above you

Towards A New Novel (and it sucks and whatever) (wins), Sunday, 6 July 2014 19:05 (1 month ago) Permalink

But yeah, Jesus. I couldn't finish it

Towards A New Novel (and it sucks and whatever) (wins), Sunday, 6 July 2014 19:06 (1 month ago) Permalink

Haha, oops! So bad it had to be posted twice.

Chewshabadoo, Sunday, 6 July 2014 20:56 (1 month ago) Permalink

a few weeks ago, a Harvard historian had the temerity to ask if Emperor Christensen had any clothes. Writing in the New Yorker, Jill Lepore gave The Innovator's Dilemma the kind of unsympathetic third degree to which historians regularly subject the books of their professional peers.

badg, Monday, 14 July 2014 16:11 (1 month ago) Permalink

first paragraph shows complete misunderstanding of innovator's dilemma, didn't continue any further. econ's a social science so picking it apart shouldn't be difficult (that's why the word 'social' is there, to let you know it's not actually science) but these lazy motherfuckers aren't up to the task. it's like watching a snail fail to outrun a tortoise.

balls, Monday, 14 July 2014 17:48 (1 month ago) Permalink

Quiz: What type of Facebook user are you?

caek, Monday, 28 July 2014 10:29 (3 weeks ago) Permalink

A 29 year old on being 29 years old: "being 29 is great!"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/05/29-perfect-age-friend

Barry Gordy (Neil S), Tuesday, 5 August 2014 09:45 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

lol "Daisy Buchanan"

Prostitute Farm Online (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 5 August 2014 10:08 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Tomorrow: Simon Legree writes on Intersectionality and Privilege Checking

Prostitute Farm Online (Bananaman Begins), Tuesday, 5 August 2014 10:11 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Blimey - that's poor, even by guardian standards.

Comfrey Mugwort (Bob Six), Tuesday, 5 August 2014 10:53 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

i wish comment wasn't free

Daphnis Celesta, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 10:54 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

"why being young is great and not terrible like you thought"

Daphnis Celesta, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 10:56 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Since when was 29 young?

We cry crows craws (Tom D.), Tuesday, 5 August 2014 12:29 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

about the last 10 years in my case

Daphnis Celesta, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 12:36 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I am 29, and I am young.

Sufjan Grafton, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 15:26 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

it helps to not read the guardian tbh

Sufjan Grafton, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 15:27 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Amir Khan feeds his muscles with MaxiNutrition protein when training and competing #feedyourmuscles www.maxinutrition.com

dem bow dem bow need calcium (seandalai), Tuesday, 5 August 2014 21:35 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

I can remember when the Guardian started following the tabloids in having shitty, asinine interviews with non-entities in the sport section but also started supplying extra sponsorship details below the article. Like Michael Owen wears Nike predator mk2 whatever whatevers because he is a cunt

xelab, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 21:45 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

Oh wow I thought this was a strange one-off. I guess I don't read the sports section that often.

dem bow dem bow need calcium (seandalai), Tuesday, 5 August 2014 22:01 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

It has been going on for years.

xelab, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 22:05 (2 weeks ago) Permalink

been going on for three/four years certainly. seems it can be difficult to get access to players these days without promising to mention a sponsor (saw journos complaining about this for cricket a while ago).

wonder if this came out of the - more laudable? - requirement to promote charitable work when doing an interview (such and such was interviewed at an away day for inner city children etc) which I assume also came from clubs/agents and appears to have been going on longer.

Not sure what would happen if newspapers refused to do it, though presumably they find it difficult to hold rank like that.

Fizzles, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 04:24 (2 weeks ago) Permalink


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