Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

...Although the effect is paradoxically that Sarandon comes over as an unthinking new aged air-head, repeating well-worn stoner accepted 'truths'

"I love mushrooms and I've done those successfully, but I don't like anything chemical. I didn't like LSD, and ecstasy wouldn't agree with me. I like stuff you can smoke."

Mushrooms are 'chemical' ....Presumably she means to say she's an organic doper? Instead of any element of challenge, Chrissy Illey concludes:

It doesn't surprise me that seven minutes into our interview we are discussing chemical versus herbal drugs in detail. Sarandon is curious and open.

Hang on a minute - it was Sarandon who brought up the subject of drugs in the interview directly. It didn't just happen.

I'm very susceptible to drugs of every kind. Coffee, it's great because it gets me very up, but then I crash."

I tell her I find coffee comforting. She surmises authoritatively: "You are probably someone who takes Ritalin to calm them."

illey is always a suck-up -- though more often with male performers.

Come on, you know what she means when she says "chemical". I'm willing to cut her some slack.

You're right though that the interview is fairly sicky.

Yeah - you're right. This is a diversion from the overall sycophantic nature of the article.... I can't quite put my finger on it, but I guess what irritates me is that it's a bit 'Hey, I'm down with the kids, drug-taking and tattooing..keeping up my slightly racy Banger sisters image - but nothing seedy you understand'

-

this is the first thursday in about 15 years when i haven't bought the guardian* - they dropped the technology section. i figured they'd reintroduce the various pieces of it into G2 or the main bit but, aside from one page of games, they haven't. so it's not worth it, to me, to buy a copy.

it also appears to mean that they miss out on adverts from dixons etc

* not quite true - i was abroad some times...

apologies is this is old news, but reading the website though http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian rather than the top-level URL is an effective way of reducing the amount of idiocy. it's effectively just the contents of the print edition (so unfortunately only updated daily)

In our obsession with the economy and celebrity gossip, we are forgetting the deeper questions of human existence

worst standfirst in history of newspapers?

darraghmac

?

(Weirdly, "Gordon Brown is a moron" returns almost 60 million. I don't know what that signifies.)

it signifies lazy journalism and the fact that if you google several words without quotes you'd receive results going to millions? and that parodies of songs incorporating a famous person's name is often popular on the internet? i don't really know what that signifies.

xpost haha yeah noticed that

darraghmac busy this week, what with being the chairman of Peterborough FC as well.

what is it if not profoundly meaningful that googling 'darragh mac is a moron' gives us well over a million results, I ask of ye?

I agree with the fundamental "we should teach philosophy in schools" message there, but it would be nice if it wasn't seated in one of the worst articles ever written.

it's amazing though that gordon brown touches young children gives 113 million results.

113,000,000 for gordon brown touches young children
50,100,000 for tony blair touches young children
56,600,000 for nicolas sarkozy touches young children

597,000 for barack obama touches young children.
6,840 for wen jiabao touches young children

422,000,000 for george bush touches young children.

THAT ISN'T ME

jesus i've been behaving myself lately and everything. i thought all you liberals were big on rehabilitation.

From the Telegraph,Bryony Gordon on 'yuckies'. Includes a nice plug for David Willetts 'fascinating' book.

"Don't call me posh or mad, says the new princess of pop"
"Why we've all fallen for Florence Welch"

So many things about such tired, lazy drivel.....

It seems to have gotten lazier in their journalism and quite reactionary sometimes and kind of remind me of the mum in Mean Girls who is a 'cool mum'

i think the guardian could be better subbed a lot of the time

some of their articles are kinda muddy compared to something like the times

and the middle class-iness of it bugs me

im not sure if thats a kind of classism but hey

it would be nice to see their arts content reflect the arts in the same way their news content reflects the world so diversley but i dont see it happening, just cos of the type of people that work at the company. and i like weekend but its always the same sort of shit in there - columns from tim dowling that are just pointless and bumbling (how do these people get columns?). and the guide seems to be mainly written for tossers in hoxton and is not nearly as funny as it thinks it is with its 'irreverent' features.

i also find it annoying when i see stupid features like 'hideously diverse' britain in g2 considering this is meant to be a liberal paper. yes i know even the guardian should get to take the piss too but then you dont see the sun taking the piss out of its editorial tone do you?

i don't even understand the 'hideously diverse' rubric

(lol -- save this for when it works, but "puts the RUBE into RUBIRC".)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jan/08/hidesously-diverse-britain-student-islam

like wtf has this to do with diversity?

it doesnt even make sense, i cant tell what the tone of it is, or the point theyre trying to make. i think its meant to be a 'witty satire' on diversity (basically a way for guardian types to get away with taking the piss out of diversity initiatives, or 'embracing diversity', so they basically get to act like theyre all liberal while at the same time being able to 'jokingly' dislike the concept) but half the stuff thats written about doesnt even fit the remit, nor is it mocking. its sort of like a lighter, less scathing, gentler daily mail column, guardian-ised.

the article i linked to wasn't joking at all tho. it was saying, "ignore the scare stories, ucl's islamic society totally doesn't host jihadi speakers."

i don't think it's new that the guardian has an upper-middle class outlook on the world that, though outwardly liberal in certain respects, conceals a strong social prejudice

don't think it's news

basically.

its definitely not new, but when you read stuff like this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sustainability/blog/diversity-inclusion-corporate-social-responsibility
i just think its all a bit hollow.

it was saying, "ignore the scare stories, ucl's islamic society totally doesn't host jihadi speakers."

I think it was saying the opposite:

The answer from the union emerged this week. Nothing doing. "Of course it is going to be difficult and I am sure we will get some stick, but we are going to defend the Islamic Society and its right to hear from controversial speakers

One member of staff commented in the staff survey that "GNM tries hard as an organisation to be inclusive and encourage diversity but there is a significant challenge due to the highly networked nature of the culture."

Some staff are more cynical. One wrote: "There is a liberal 'façade' presented to the outside world but indoors it feels coldly conservative on this issue (diversity) and it's agonising and very painful to be so unrepresented at senior management in this company."

all seems a bit futile anyway. they get black columnists in to write shit like hideously diverse britain!

not really onimo because hugh muir doesn't call the guy he interviewed on his shit, or interview anyone else. ucl has hosted some right rotters, which would never have happened in the 'no-platform' 1980s.

true that the article is not explicit about how the daily mail and telegraph are wrong to suspect anything. but what do you make of the tone?

"Before long, they were facing a clamour – generated via the web – for the Islamic Society to be closed, or at least reconfigured so as to shield its members from anyone who might conceivably be construed as a radicaliser."

I like the books section, that's always pretty okay the comments section is always amusing but I agree with this
"There is a liberal 'façade' presented to the outside world but indoors it feels coldly conservative on this issue (diversity) and it's agonising and very painful to be so unrepresented at senior management in this company."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/andrew-clark-on-america/2010/mar/03/toyota-automotive-industry

And I wonder how many Japanese toddlers have been crushed under the chassis of a poorly driven Hummer?

- And I wonder how many Japanese toddlers have been crushed under the chassis of a poorly driven Hummer? Ahhhhhhhh.
- No, not "Ahhhhhhhh"!

hahahahaha

Rod Liddle is repping for Laura Barton and Petridis.

The horrible irony is that it possesses great writers – Laura Barton, Alexis Petridis, Sam Woolaston, Vikram Dodd and the wonderful Marina Hyde, even Tim Dowling; yet they are largely hidden away in its little pockets and niches, and not allowed to alter the feel of the whole, which is the feel of a Boden catalogue boot stamping on a etc etc

what a horribly formed "irony". i don't think he's wrong about the gaurdian but apart from the harmless music critic alexis petridis, all of those people* are exactly what's wrong with the guardian. laura barton is the world's worst writer; sam woolaston is as thick as pigshit; *i don't know who vikram dodd is so; marina hyde is not wonderful; and tim dowling is... that really unfunny comedy guy, right?

He's right about Toynbee though.

all of those people* are exactly what's wrong with the guardian.

I mean, I'm not sure this is true. We tend to focus on the pointless fluff here but there are worse crimes committed in the main newspaper on a daily basis.

dowling = bad column in the weekend bit; their worst tv writer (woolaston is actually better than he reads i think)

petridis would be better if editor would tell him 'no, cut the prickish joke here and actually engage' on bits where he is doing prickish jokes instead of engaging

xposts

what are the worse crimes committed in the main section today, for the sake of argt.? (n.b. haven't had a chance to do more than glance at it yet)

Polly Toynbee. Jackie Ashley. Seamus Milne. Madeline Bunting. Peter Preston. All worse than the above, mostly because they're writing about issues of substance.

(Sorry, not today's edition, but you get what I mean...)

ha i was gonna say ...

Marina Hyde isnt wonderful, shes just another overly smug idiot trotting out yet more celeb fluff but under the guise of hating celeb fluff. not bad looking though. id smash. Tim Dowling used to make me laugh a bit, but now he just seems to be on autopilot. both those weekend columns are pointless and deserve to be hidden away. preferably in another paper. wollaston's tv columns are never insightful. theyre just dull and muddy. like most of their g2 tv reviewers actually.

liddle was kinda otm except for the writers he named.

stilll, i dunno what other papers to read.

The Guardian is a lot like ILX, actually, You think it's tedious, smug, hypocritical, poorly written and badly thought out, full of pompous windbags flapping their predictable opinions - until you go around and check out the alternatives, and you realise that really, it's not half as bad as you think it is by comparison.

true

all of those people* are exactly what's wrong with the guardian.

I mean, I'm not sure this is true. We tend to focus on the pointless fluff here but there are worse crimes committed in the main newspaper on a daily basis.

― Matt DC, Friday, March 5, 2010 4:54 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

Polly Toynbee. Jackie Ashley. Seamus Milne. Madeline Bunting. Peter Preston. All worse than the above, mostly because they're writing about issues of substance.

― Matt DC, Friday, March 5, 2010 5:00 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark

alright ok, i can get behind this. im more likely to read the pointless fluff. i guess reading it online nothing is "tucked away" so marina hyde feels like a more visible presence than madeline bunting, who i never read. toynbee is "just there". i don't think jackie ashley is bad exactly; like martin kettle it's kind of interesting to get an idea of what the labour big shots are talking/arguing about behind the scenes.

seamus milne is a menace and an idiot imho

We're now taking Liddle's opinions seriously? Might as well start quoting Nick Griffin next.

Categorising Liddle as a racist is reductive and unhelpful and true.

The Guardian is a lot like ILX, actually, You think it's tedious, smug, hypocritical, poorly written and badly thought out, full of pompous windbags flapping their predictable opinions - until you go around and check out the alternatives, and you realise that really, it's not half as bad as you think it is by comparison.

Very much otm. I know it's not really a comparison, but the quickest way to send my blood pressure through the roof of a morning is to have a read through the comments on the Guardian blogs. By comparison to the incessant clusterfuck idiocy there, the Graun's actual writers are like dear and cherished friends to me.