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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen 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 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

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

blue veils and golden sands, Friday, 6 July 2001 00:00 (seventeen 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 (seventeen years ago) Permalink

six years pass...

oh god, ask hadley today is just... tooth-grinding.

Tracer Hand, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"today"

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:17 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

dear teh grauniad - a long time ago/we used to be friends...

CharlieNo4, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:32 (eleven years ago) Permalink

It went downhill after I left.

Dom Passantino, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:33 (eleven years ago) Permalink

or were you PUSHED?

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:35 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Any t-shirt which isn't plain white clearly sucks that's why.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:38 (eleven years ago) Permalink

i couldn't agree less

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:40 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

http://www.astucia.co.uk/images/sce/galibier%20tunnel%20_three.jpg

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:41 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I didn't know it was a band t-shirt okay?

Matt DC, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

because you're cold xp

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

is there a thread for best band t-shirts? must see

blueski, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:56 (eleven 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 (eleven 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 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Tim is correct. This paragraph is disgusting:

Pete Buttigieg, the Democrat who launched his US presidential run on Monday, has also used books to build his brand. He recently shared his 10 desert-island titles, which made for incredibly pretentious reading. He claims two of his faves are The Odyssey by Homer (not exactly a beach read) and James Joyce’s Ulysses. The latter also happens to be a favourite of Jeremy Corbyn and the most insufferable person you knew at university.

the pinefox, Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:36 (one month ago) Permalink

the most insufferable person i knew that university used to write shit like this tbf

Boris Bronfentrinker of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (bizarro gazzara), Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:37 (one month ago) Permalink

Lol I just read the piece and it reads as though it’s an oral transcript of the author ranting until she gets yanked off stage left by a cane

gyac, Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:40 (one month ago) Permalink

insufferable is one of those complaints where as soon as its levelled at someone you have the strong suspicion they are preferable to the complainer

ogmor, Thursday, 18 April 2019 11:46 (one month ago) Permalink

The bit of the Ulysses appreciation I was struggling with was the "a story about what it is to be human", its a bit lazy to say this is a democratic notion (?), and thought he just emphasized democratic because he is a politician. Then again I shouldn't talk, I would only return to the odd chapter myself, and the last chapter always.

Bernie ftw.

xyzzzz__, Thursday, 18 April 2019 12:51 (one month ago) Permalink

if you were going to take 10 books to a desert-island i'd think you'd want complex dense works that repaid numerous readings bc you're abandoned on an island and you're not getting any new books.

Mordy, Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:43 (one month ago) Permalink

like eg the fuck washing a hat thread

... and the crowd said DESELECT THEM (||||||||), Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:03 (one month ago) Permalink

Mordy otm

And according to some websites, there were “sexcapades.” (James Morrison), Thursday, 18 April 2019 23:00 (one month ago) Permalink

Lead article on front page right now is basically an advert for change UK with no actual news content.

mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Saturday, 20 April 2019 15:59 (one month ago) Permalink

i bet it didn't cost that much either.

calzino, Saturday, 20 April 2019 16:01 (one month ago) Permalink

is marina hyde for real

... and the crowd said DESELECT THEM (||||||||), Saturday, 20 April 2019 17:01 (one month ago) Permalink

three weeks pass...

The Guardian front page, Wednesday 15 May 2019: Mordaunt to give veterans amnesty for battle crimes pic.twitter.com/IIvuk3n8rk

— The Guardian (@guardian) May 14, 2019

nice phrasing from these cunts

gyac, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 06:05 (one month ago) Permalink

wth is a battle crime

||||||||, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 06:12 (one month ago) Permalink

"battle crimes" indeed.

there was a program about the menace of US big pharma/the opioid epidemic on R4 last night and guess who ran one of them pseudo-articles with dangerous advertising bluster disguised as an opinion piece for Purdue Pharma. much much worse than they used to be.

calzino, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 06:16 (one month ago) Permalink

tbh I'm presuming it was for Purdue Pharma cos that's mainly who they were talking about, but if it was some other US big pharma -quelle difference.

calzino, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 06:22 (one month ago) Permalink

I also note that the piece says NI would be exempted - so the Guardian just casually betting that its readers won’t care about war crimes committed against Iraqis and Afghans then. Cool!

gyac, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 06:25 (one month ago) Permalink

surely they can come up with some better euphemism than ‘battle crimes’ ffs, they’re getting a much lower class of spin doctor in whitehall nowadays

michael keaton IS jim thirlwell IN ‘foetaljuice’ (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 06:41 (one month ago) Permalink

Lol battle crimes

Bash Street Kids: Endgame (Bananaman Begins), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:16 (one month ago) Permalink

Combat... mischief

Bash Street Kids: Endgame (Bananaman Begins), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:17 (one month ago) Permalink

Armed Unpleasantness

Captain ACAB (Neil S), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:18 (one month ago) Permalink

collateral comeuppances

michael keaton IS jim thirlwell IN ‘foetaljuice’ (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:21 (one month ago) Permalink

The BBC uses the phrase "actions on the battlefield abroad" which seems even more mealy-mouthed if anything, feels like the Guardian has at least taken care to put the word 'crimes' in there. I assume that war crimes committed in prisons, among civilian populations etc are excluded here, let me consult my Ladybird Book of Atrocities.

Matt DC, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:25 (one month ago) Permalink

"shooting non-christians" would appear clean enough

deemsthelarker (darraghmac), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:27 (one month ago) Permalink

i dunno, our brave boys have some form in extrajudicially executing christians too tbf

michael keaton IS jim thirlwell IN ‘foetaljuice’ (bizarro gazzara), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:30 (one month ago) Permalink

"extracurricular tomfoolery" = killing Iraqi civilians 'fer the lark.

calzino, Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:33 (one month ago) Permalink

xp yes but NI is to be exempt from

wait a sec

non-voters, thats it.

deemsthelarker (darraghmac), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 08:37 (one month ago) Permalink

Pretty sure that, for the Johnny Mercers of this world, this is mostly about NI. After all, Iraqis Afghans, the Irish, what's the difference?

Ned Caligari (Tom D.), Wednesday, 15 May 2019 09:11 (one month ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

Don't know if it's just me, but when I read a front page banner article called "Peterborough prepares for byelection that could elect first Brexit party MP" I want to know something about this fuck who is about to be elected, not yet another Brexitland safari. They don't even mention his name.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jun/02/peterborough-prepares-for-byelection-that-could-see-first-brexit-party-mp

mfktz (Camaraderie at Arms Length), Sunday, 2 June 2019 17:09 (two weeks ago) Permalink

Guardian's deputy editor @paul__johnson joined state censorship D-Notice committee (run by MOD) after Snowden revelations in sop to British spooks. In board minutes, they thank him for being "instrumental in re-establishing links" between UK mil/intel and Guardian. Explains a lot pic.twitter.com/kN27T0QoMm

— Matt Kennard (@DCKennard) June 11, 2019

ogmor, Wednesday, 12 June 2019 14:29 (five days ago) Permalink

when they become subservient bootlickers to the secret services it can't be called the 4th estate anymore, it smells like the turd estate if anything.

calzino, Wednesday, 12 June 2019 14:38 (five days ago) Permalink

Look I know the title of this thread is rhetorical. But still. Still!

Absolutely unbelievable pic.twitter.com/WKHtcPkuao

— Running Dog (@benton_dan) June 15, 2019

stress tweeting (gyac), Saturday, 15 June 2019 11:23 (two days ago) Permalink

god bless our traditionally unbiased gutter press... grrr.. well until the last few weeks damn them!

calzino, Saturday, 15 June 2019 11:35 (two days ago) Permalink

The article itself isn't as egregiously bad as that tweet makes it out to be:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/15/tory-leadership-boris-johnson-westminster-media

pomenitul, Saturday, 15 June 2019 11:41 (two days ago) Permalink

Ha. Wrote this Guardian preview in a kind of blind fury before emailing it off; thoroughly expecting them to ask me to tone it down. They didn't change a word. Good on 'em. pic.twitter.com/IF0g1FVJl9

— Ali Catterall (@AliCatterall) June 15, 2019

Chewshabadoo, Saturday, 15 June 2019 17:00 (two days ago) Permalink

There's a columnist for Guardian Australia, Brigid Delaney, whose every fucking column is "I don't understand how basic human interaction works and also I did something massively stupid with obvious catastrophic consequences and wah poor me", and even just seeing the titles of her pieces are enough to drive my up the fucking wall.

And according to some websites, there were “sexcapades.” (James Morrison), Monday, 17 June 2019 00:46 (sixteen hours ago) Permalink

Brigid Delaney was the 'Tiny Train World' woman also

Bash Street Kids: Endgame (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 17 June 2019 08:57 (eight hours ago) Permalink

The article itself isn't as egregiously bad as that tweet makes it out to be:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/15/tory-leadership-boris-johnson-westminster-media

― pomenitul, Saturday, 15 June 2019 Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol

xyzzzz__, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:31 (seven hours ago) Permalink

You may (rightly) take issue with her ridiculous vision of the past, but the whole point of her piece is that it is absurd to assume the UK is utterly foreign to the kinds of abuses we routinely attribute to 'other', less 'civilised' countries, so it is less awful than what its title implies, yes.

pomenitul, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:37 (seven hours ago) Permalink

we they routinely attribute to 'other', less 'civilised' countries...

calzino, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:39 (six hours ago) Permalink

It also has rhetorical value: the average reader is likelier to accept this argument than if the article started with a sentence such as 'Britain has always been a racist, genocidal empire'.

pomenitul, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:40 (six hours ago) Permalink

I think that's exactly what the subtitle implies ?

ogmor, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:41 (six hours ago) Permalink

also there is no average reader

ogmor, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:41 (six hours ago) Permalink

Everything is awful and immoral, sorry.

pomenitul, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:47 (six hours ago) Permalink

but the whole point of her piece is that it is absurd to assume the UK is utterly foreign to the kinds of abuses we routinely attribute to 'other', less 'civilised' countries, so it is less awful than what its title implies, yes.

Who is she disabusing of this assumption? Even Guardian readers are aware of how much the media is owned by the oligarchy and publish points that are in their interest. People saying 'we aren;t as bad as Italy' isn't as much of a thing.

xyzzzz__, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:49 (six hours ago) Permalink

well there is the small matter of Murdoch picking our PM's for the last 4 decades as well!

calzino, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:50 (six hours ago) Permalink

afaik there is no morality just a screaming mass of pure being

ogmor, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:52 (six hours ago) Permalink

You forgot nothingness.

pomenitul, Monday, 17 June 2019 10:53 (six hours ago) Permalink

I am a parmenidean on this point

ogmor, Monday, 17 June 2019 11:00 (six hours ago) Permalink

There's nothing quite like something.

pomenitul, Monday, 17 June 2019 11:06 (six hours ago) Permalink


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