Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

The reaction of the trans lobby reminded me very much of those wretched inner-city kids who shoot another inner-city kid dead in a fast-food shop for not showing them enough "respect".

Wretched.

Inner city kids love their fast food shops

It makes me so fucking annoyed that they keep hiring her back

I know there's a shared website, but she's not been hired back by the Guardian – she writes for the Observer. Completely separate editors.

Amazing that back in 2001, this could run without even having the justification of her fighting for a friend:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2001/jan/20/weekend.julieburchill

That one is really hateful, it goes so deep into hatred and prejudice - amazing an editor didn't stop it.

I know there's a shared website, but she's not been hired back by the Guardian – she writes for the Observer. Completely separate editors.

You're absolutely right. The Guardian has generally been quite good on trans issues. I thought she was at the Observer before as well but possibly not.

She really doesn't like the black and white mistrels, does she?

With friends who say things like that while purporting to defend her, Suzanne Moore doesn't need enemies. Twitter's already turned into The Birds over this, and I don't think CiF have turned on the comments on JB yet. Until quite recently, I had no idea (beyond Germaine Greer) that old school feminists-with-transphobia was a thing, but apparently so? One of the hardest parts about being a (public) feminist is how you handle the way the discourse moves on from what it was when you first engaged with feminism, and how that newer form of feminism reacts to the relative privilege of older feminists (whether or not they are figureheads for anything).

Anyone who wants to lodge a complaint about the Burchill piece should take it up with John Mulholland, the Observer's editor - or take it to the Observer's Comment editor, who is most likely the commissioner of the article and the person who let it run. Their Readers' Editor is also a good person to contact.

Comments were turned on about twenty minutes ago. 108 so far, "mostly wtf were you thinking in running this?"

Yeah - saw that. Was writing post before 11, didn't hit submit until well after.

Burchill has always flaunted her ugly prejudices and people keep hiring her back. She isn't actually a particularly good writer and she comes across as a terrible person at virtually all times.

the "defending a mate" bit makes it even worse, imo.

i mean, for the cringey story of their silly lives as much as anything else.

I didn't feel sorry for Suzanne Moore at all, after seeing what she'd written on Twitter. I was genuinely shocked to see people I follow on Twitter defending her, but I suppose that and the fact this article was published, show that casual transphobia really isn't a big deal to many supposedly liberal people.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BAfod4nCYAAKcX-.png

Steaua owner, MP and ex-MEP Gigi Becali, asked by Romania TV about his appearances in Said & Done: "God inspires me to say what I say, the British have no idea. It's just some crazy Brits from the Guardian [who quote you] if you talk about sex, prostitutes, tits … They're a satanic newspaper. They ridicule all that's pure and holy."

reverse ferret http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/14/1

Charlie Brooker sent out a tweet this morning making clear his column was submitted last week and therefore had nothing to do with Julie Burchill.

The Observer is a paper which prides itself on ventilating difficult debates and airing challenging views.
How does letting Julie Burchill air what was basically a string of insults aimed at trans men and women come even close to this? You could get any old bigot off the street to do this. it's the very opposite of a challenging view.

guys guys guys "The Guardian Australian Digital Edition" is coming

yar

highly significant because (a) melting-candle-slash-shitbag-warmonger rupert murdoch controls 70% of the press here and (b) notable greens supporter graeme wood is a founding investor

What can you tell me about him? He's this mystery benefactor to us.

'melting-candle'?

link bcz hueg: http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/sites/default/files/images/rupert%20murdoch%204353453.jpg

What can you tell me about him? He's this mystery benefactor to us.

he gave the australian greens party its largest donation ever for the 2010 federal election campaign, and he also gave theglobalmail.org enough funding for five years of revenue-free operation iirc

'melting-candle'?

his face, as per sic's link

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/jan/17/radiohead-thom-yorke-david-cameron

I know the Guardian can't ignore such an obvious hits-bullseye, but FFS this is such a grimly on-target story.

Yorke really doesn't have a very adult view of the world around him does he?

not sure there's an answer to the question (as I assume it was posed to him) which avoids the possibility of looking naive or undeveloped

He's said a lot of fairly paranoid and childish shit over the years but yeah that was pretty obviously a question pitched right at him. It's an entirely reasonable response although possibly not realistic in a court of law.

granted it's not the same thing and relatively zero-risk but it is kind of funny how, immediately after getting their fingers burned by their credo of 'it doesn't matter how shit and worthless an article is as long as lots of people read it', the Guardian jump right back into doing the same thing

is it the same thing or not? vote in our poll and comment below

Worthless but harmless really.

it has to be said that Yorke's never really addressed the irony of being an anti-capitalist in a big stupid popular rock band in the same way that say the Preachers did while Richey was still alive

460 comments for a story that appears to be been lazily pulled out of an NME interview in five minutes flat.

it's almost as if a huge majority of people is forced to spend the day in some sort of glass and steel boredom factory, with 15 tabs open at once.

truth cluster bombs

"I can't believe he'd like The King of Limbs much" is probably OTM though. I mean, no one likes it much.

it's such a stupid question, like if it were going to happen or if it did happen it would be anything other than some lazy junior person fucking up

easier to ask than 'why wouldn't david cameron like your boutique alternative rock?'

Bit like the annual, always amusing Tory Party Conference sideshow of Bobby Gillespie going mental at 'Rocks' having been played somewhere before realising it was actually a song by the Dandy Warhols.

it's such a stupid question, like if it were going to happen or if it did happen it would be anything other than some lazy junior person fucking up

aren't there so many "events" during a campaign that anything could end up being used?

yeah conceivably, but it wouldn't be like george osborne and grant shapps sat around deciding which high and dry b-side would best accompany an announcement about benefit freezes

yeah, agreed. think i read years ago about norman cook hearing somebody playing his track at a tory event in a shopping centre, and asking them to turn it off. is it even illegal?

I believe they give that job to Danny Alexander.

"I can't say I love the idea of a banker liking our music"

this is even more risible imo

what if his music makes the banker feel really guilty?

what if it is a good banker

not an evil one