Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

not the grau but why does david mitchell STILL have an observer column? h8 having to see his smug, sententious face every week.

i accidentally read it this week too, cuz on the mobile guardian site it just gives the headline of the piece, not the author. s0 unfunny and uninsightful. we should be burning comedians at the stake, not giving them public platforms for their inability to be funny.

can't stand mitchell.

Picked up the Mitchell and Webb book for a quid last month cos I can't help reading bad comedy books, they interest me as historical artefacts as much as anything. They really aren't very funny at all.

would it be frowned upon to c&p an entire thread to 'first world problems'?

Never read the Observer, don't read newspapers at weekends

This is Mitchell's serious column though: he's not trying for the lols, this week anyway. I thought it was ok - picking up on some of Cameron's messages. It could have ben a bit more insightful e.g. how much Cameron continually borrows from Tony Blair.

I've probably avoided Mitchell fatigue though by not watching 10 o'clock live.

conservative slams into Conservative. great.

"The International Atomic Energy Authority website appears to have suffered a meltdown amid a surge in traffic..."

great work chaps

some kind of web 3 Mile Island presumably?

"Unable to cope with the flood of requests, its server literally died"

when I worked for MLB we were expressly forbidden from using any violent metaphor to describe the action of a game, i.e. "Blue Jays erupt in fifth inning" or "Royals explode for sixteen in Tampa" or "Bucs whip Bosox". It may have been a post-Sep 11 thing or it may have been to avoid unintended juxtapositions like the above. In retrospect I think it's just good practice.

Constantly describing people, sports teams, organisations etc. as "stunned" also falls into that category.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/11/1299865906886/Steve-Bells-If-.-.-.-008.jpg

Really classy stuff here.

I get it, he misheard Cameron when Cameron said "go home!" Ha! Ahaha! Hahahaha! Hahahahahahahahahaha!

why is cameron's head a condom?

Steve Bell needs a lie down :(

Judging by many recent headlines I've noticed, perhaps this thread should be called "Are the Guardian worse than they used to be?"

can't stand steve bell...that cartoon is a new low though.

would anyone pay to read the guardian if they decided to drop a paywall?

I'm not sure I wouldn't actually. would the guardian ever do it tho?

I probably would pay. The website loses a huge amount of money at the moment, as far as i am aware, but i'm not sure whether a paywall would generate any more than advertising revenue does.

maybe the website would lose less money if say, they sack all the shit writers from it?

I paid for the app without even thinking about it.

to read articles that were written in a similar way

glad the hackney tourist board is so keen to pony up but i'm not, seem to remember some smug article abt how paywalls are bad

http://www.iwradio.co.uk/newscentre/national-news/wootton-bassett-cartoon-sparks-outrage-15954542

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2011/3/16/1300318427436/Steve-Bell-17.03.11-001.jpg

I think I get it now.. is cameron's head a condom because he's a dickhead??

Or because Bell can't draw him?

are his eyes not in the condom?

Bell explained it as stemming from Cameron being presented as a 'Safe' Tory.

dreadful

it's because he wants to keep out the jonny foreigners

Not even Bell would use that joke

that's where bell ends and where i begin

Is that a bellend reference?

I think I saw something about it evolving from Bell noticing his curious shiny smoothness when he met him.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox told the Sun: "It's tasteless and offensive. It shows a total lack of respect for our fallen.

"It's cowardly and bad taste which stands in stark contrast to the pride of the people of Royal Wootton Bassett."

i actually agree it's offensive. it also isn't even that cutting, it's a fairly confused message.

the subject is fair

cartoon is typically shit

i don't get it tbh

i think it's potentially fair except the lack of a clear punchline or meaning just makes it seem gratuitous. plus you know, d-cam didn't start that war, much and all as i think he's a total cunt.

x-post otm...can anyone explain directly what it means?

the 'war on language' bit applies to the nhs poster, sort of, but... not the other thing. does it?

Cameron has a condom on his head cos he is head of the condems geddit?

Cameron has a condom on his head cos he is pretending to be one of our mates geddit?

it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

it's a ruddy disgrace!

http://i.imgur.com/eL3bY.jpg

hahahaha he looks like a chimp! lol! steve bell for prime minister! charlie brooker as chancellor!!!

http://img863.imageshack.us/img863/5316/ffsp.png

HURRRRRR

yeah im not going to click that