Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

people volunteer to go on Jeremy Kyle, i guess they just like seeing themselves being real and if other people can't handle that etc

Remember watching a Booze Nightmare prog about 10 years ago where one of the cops was (already too aggressively) asking a pissed bystander to move on, and the guy was being totally compliant and placatory but in the course of doing so casually used a swearword, I think it was "shit" in the sense of "and shit", and this savage was like DON'T SWEAR AT ME even tho any reasonable person could see that they hadn't sworn at him, had barely sworn to him. It was a scary scene but not in the way the programme makers seemed to think, just watching this vicious cunt with no idea how people interact leaping at the chance to create a situation where there was none

Acting like a drunken twat is pretty minor considering the things people will voluntarily do in exchange for being on TV. In any case in what is ostensibly a documentary I don't think you need to obtain explicit consent to broadcast that sort of footage, although you do leave yourself open to legal action after the fact. I've no idea what happens in practice.

That's not right.

The production company gets a permit to film an area, then puts up signage to the effect of 'we are filming People Are Horrible today and by entering this area you consent to being filmed' - and then it works just like when they film a gig, and there's something on the ticket about entering venue = consent to filming.

it's not that minor is it? like if my boss sees me getting arrested for pissing down an alley and shouting at a police officer, couldn't i be fired? p serious reputational damage i'd have thought, even for incidents which have no effect on your record.

they often blur faces on these shows so it's not as simple as that xp

Blurring is sometimes necessary when there are ongoing legal actions that could be prejudiced by showing faces.

The law isn't really settled though, afaik. There is a right of privacy and you can get in trouble if you film without explicit consent and the person specifically asks you not to show the footage but most of the cases I can recall have been around distressing situations, like the deaths of family members, rather than getting drunk in the street. It is a work in progress.

remembering working on shoots in london, as far as the place you film goes i think a lot of it depends on the council - like most of london you tend to need a permit from the borough council. maybe you could do it without that and get away with it, but at bbc we always got one as far as i recall.

i guess who you film is another issue.

the other thing i recall is - on booze britain or whatever - the camera would antagonise some people and they'd get more annoyed because of it. it always felt p wrong.

This fucking guy:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/06/liberals-harsh-truths-help-refugees-syria

hey, it's a simple enough demand

Comments will be open later today

I see The Guardian are avoiding to pay admins some over-time here.

They're not admins, they're moderators. And yes, there's less cover at weekends.

Please update resource plans for mods to factor in the inflammatory shit hardsh truth-telling at weekends.

Nick Cohen took a right-wing stance? Boy, that's going to make me reconsider my position.

a friend of mine is a graun au journo and I asked her about the comment moderation stuff, she said everyone who does it burns out from the dreadful shite they have to can. I couldn't do it.

there's a thing about this in the current private eye saying they're closing comment threads on articles about race/migration/islam/etc for ^ that reason

FREEZE PEACH THO

it's annoying when using the app to accidentally 'recommend" horrible CiF posts while scrolling.

this is more bizarre than bad

http://i.imgur.com/WDmc9jU.png

http://i.imgur.com/w6vS84I.png

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/mar/02/cult-of-memory-when-history-does-more-harm-than-good

http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/who-guards-the-guardian-2

is the guardian weekly decent? would like a NYT intl subscription but it's really expensive, guardian weekly is cheap!

https://twitter.com/suttonnick/status/713132632457011200

this isn't a picture of johan cruyff

One long haired Ducth footballer from the 70s is as much like any other tbh

Oeps!

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2016/mar/29/football-quiz-around-the-world-in-80-questions

this is a good, but incredibly difficult, football quiz

That was fun. 63/80, though quite a few of those were flukes.

I got something like 41, ha.

Damning read on Rusbridger's spendthrift ways http://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/article/guardian-editor-alan-rusbridger-rupert-murdoch

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/29/the-guardian-view-on-londons-mayoral-race-elect-citizen-khan

... the chaotic charisma of Boris Johnson ... the socialist swagger of Ken Livingstone ...

the competent drum work of Caroline Pidgeon

The Wild Shirtless Lyrics of Mark Farner etc

oops, meant to say Zac Goldsmith there. Dammit.

Rusbridger taking over as chairman of the Scott Trust has been nixed. Katharine Viner was reportedly opposed to it and the board failed to agree to his appointment yesterday. They were due to meet again today but the reports suggest (correctly or otherwise) that he has decided to step aside to resolve the impasse.

I sort of want to say.... thank fuck?

this thread will be going when every original ilxor is dead

reckon we'll outlast the guardian tbh

i would hate not to see my 40s

How many articles about Top Gear ffs

Irritating: from the plugging of nephew, to the crap ideas, and the general privileged view that people have parents in large houses to move into..to just about everything in the article really.

Living in boxes (and thinking out of them) might solve our housing crisis

The tldr extract to give a flavour of this is:

Aviva estimates that by 2025 3.8 million people aged between 21 and 34 could be living with their parents (compared with 2.8 million in 2015).

What’s most surprising about this is that people don’t even seem to mind that much.

entirely reasonable if you're ignorant that the rest of the world exists

https://i.imgur.com/ojXEDll.png

it's no "and here's why", but I feel that "I can't believe I have to say it" has potential as a clickbait headline formulation

That aside I completely agree with him.

There is a woman in the comments who says without question 10 times over she'd save the gorilla over a child. WTF, humanity.

oh, I don't disagree that a human life is worth more than a gorilla's, was just amused by the combination of silly headline and reproachful byline photo.

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/contributor/2016/1/20/1453280306466/Dave-Bry-L.png?w=300&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=588921b9a0dbf5f04a9e32fc4c318d9c

I don't think tits particularly irrational or gross to say that the gorilla's life was worth more than the child's there being something like 7 billion humans and around 100,000 lowland gorillas and just over 600 (!) mountain gorillas. Of course it's not about maths and I wouldn't strongly hold this view myself, but I think the they are equally valuable is what I would say. I don't know how I would feel if Harambe had been a mountain gorilla, for example, or whether the figure of 600 or so of those would give the gorilla's life priority.

lol @ "reproachful byline photo"