Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I only read it for the Guide and the job listings. Not that either has been particularly helpful lately... ;-)

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.

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.

Also good in Guardian: John Patterson re. cinema.

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

"today"

"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."

Yeah, because women have *no* interest in music whatsoever except for sleeping with musicians. What CENTURY is this cretin from?

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).

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

It went downhill after I left.

or were you PUSHED?

http://homepage.mac.com/alexinnyc/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2007-09-02%2015.37.57%20-0700/Image-D15E03FF59A011DC.jpg

heh. (sorry alex, no harm intended)

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/thesportsdesk/images/200607/20060707henrydive_derblog.jpg

xp

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.

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

i couldn't agree less

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.

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

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

why else would you buy a band t-shirt if not as a statement or definition of personality?

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

because you're cold xp

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

the last band t-shirt i bought - robyn!

alan i can't help myself, i know i'm sick and need help.

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

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.

> 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)

It happens to be the only one I've seen of the lot and it was in fact quite good!

lol so tacky "top 20 shows that were in london or at a major bienniale"

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/19/american-airlines-aairpass-golden-ticket

Absolute state of this.

We start with a sympathetic subject.

In 1987, amid a lucrative year as a Bear Stearns stockbroker, my father became one of only a few dozen people on earth to purchase an unlimited, lifetime AAirpass. A quarter of a million dollars gave him access to fly first class anywhere in the world on American for the rest of his life.

For several years, the revenues department at American had been monitoring my father and other AAirpass holders to see how much their golden tickets were costing the airline in lost revenue. After 20 years, it seems, they’d decided the pass wasn’t such a good idea. My father was one of several lifetime, unlimited AAirpass holders American claimed had breached their contracts.

Feel like there might be some clues elsewhere about this

Often he’d leave in the morning for a business trip, fly back, and I hadn’t even known he’d left.

I’m not sure how compelling this is as an argument tbh

A few months later, my father sued American for breaking their deal, and more importantly, taking away something integral to who he was.

I just...am not feeling the loss here.

“Steven got on a plane like most people get on a bus,” says my mom, Nancy Rothstein, who was married to my father for 36 years.

I’m not sure this paints quite the picture of him she’d like

Through it all, he continued flying. Everywhere. Airports and airplanes – they were who Dad was.

So normal!

Ernie Thurmond, a former American employee who handled Dad’s AAirpass contracts, helped with adding some special stipulations. My parents decided early on to take separate planes so that in the unlikely event of a crash, at least one of them would be alive for their three children. So the agreement amendment stated: “If spouse is the companion, the spouse will be allowed to travel separately from Holder, provided that the spouse travels on the flight immediately prior to or just after the flight taken by Holder.” My parents wouldn’t fly on the same plane for at least a decade after that.

I cbf pasting anymore, but seriously.

also being celebrated on the quiddities thread.

'This story originally appeared on the digital storytelling platform Narratively.'

yeah this article is total dogshit - there was a bit of chat about it on the quiddities & agonies of the nyt thread earlier today

just incredible that a sob story about this rich asshole who abused the most environmentally-destructive form of travel is appearing on the same day the grauniad is giving blanket coverage to the climate protests

lol i read quite a lot of that thinking wtf is this. a rambling plea for a stratospherically privileged father who, even on the basis of the article, via the special pleading of his journalist daughter, has clearly fraudulently abused the terms of his ticket. what an utter shitshow.

Outrage is lucrative.

Ty I will look in the quiddities thread!

It’s so tone deaf! Like when she talks about how there’s no difference between economy and first class, or how she was “socialised to fly first class”.

That's exactly why it was published. Not quite clickbait, technically speaking, but…

Same underlying logic as this in some ways:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/sep/20/monogamous-man-in-a-three-way-relationship

There’s even a photo of him in a rickshaw being pulled by another man :-/

Not to defend the piece - not least because it really was a ramble but it was interesting how the abuse of the ticket came this justification via depression and death. It was what kept me for a lot longer than I should have.

"For 20 years, he was one of American’s top fliers, accumulating more than 30 million miles, which he acquired every time he flew, even with the AAirpass."

Does this refer to an AirMiles loyalty reward system kind of thing? Otherwise I don't understand 'which he acquired every time he flew'.

I think so because he was giving the miles to other people.

It's just sad on every level, that poor airline, that poor stockbroker, so many broken lives

That was confusing. Because now if you fly for free you don't accrue miles. They have a thing now where it's based on segments, dollars spent and/or qualifying miles.

meh... I once managed to acquire a 12 month free travel Metro Card when I was working on a contract to fit LED lighting to all the bus stops in w yorkshire #kingofbusmiles

Still reading but "They claimed that his “fraudulent usage” included booking empty seats for his companion feature under “Bag Rothstein” or “Steven Rothstein Jr” (which they had for years condoned, and Mom says was not Dad’s idea), as well as “booking speculative reservations” – ie, flight reservations he was allegedly never planning to actually take."

FFS!

I won't finish reading that, but does it explain anywhere why this retired stockbroker can't just use his fucking money to fly everywhere all the time now?

I couldn't finish it either. It's off the chain.

It's the obvious question, isn't it.

guardian literally ripping off youtuber content now are they

i.e. there was a wendover productions/half as interesting video on this very topic...yesterday? maybe a total coincidence idk

I think the piece was initially published on Narratively in July.

I finally finished this. The guy seems to always have had massive problems that money could hide. So cringey that he would call the reservations number to chat for an hour and then feel compelled to make a reservation to hide it. His entire life was so delusional, thinking you are having authentic experiences while traveling first class, staying first class and buying peoples' gratitude and adulation.

curious as to why they are doing 21st century arts roundups in september of 2019. why now?

I thought the same!

They know something about the Mayans that we don't.

well, most of us

*knowing postapocalyptic nod*

unacceptable that airlines are limiting my right to all the gold tophats tickets i might want

It would've been cheaper for American to just have hired a therapist the reservation number could've routed his calls to.

how many gold tophats does it take to exceed your baggage allowance?

Have you booked a free seat under the name of your fictitious son or not?

it's not hand luggage if it's on yr head tappingtemple.gif

Matt D’Ancona sacked by The Guardian, reportedly for not being sufficiently right-wing.

announce guido

They'll call him back when Ruth Davidson becomes PM

No really, I'd do the gig, for my usual rates.

— Guido Fawkes (@GuidoFawkes) September 22, 2019

He’s like those never trumper columnists in the US. Constituencies of, at most, dozens of people but massively over represented in the op ed section of liberal papers. They allow centrists to feel warm and fuzzy about there being adults in the room on “both sides” and nothing changes. 100% fine with him being fired and replaced with someone whose views are consistent with modern mainstream conservatism (I a headbanger).

A week late, but the tale of the man with his unlimited air pass reminded me a bit of this:
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2019/sep/14/starting-a-business-has-made-me-a-lot-more-frugal

It's a piece on lawyer and campaigner Steve Wardlaw.

"I might be what some might call “wealthy” but bizarrely I’ve become a lot more frugal since starting my own business a few years ago. I’m more conscious that money has to last. I’m also trying to make sure other people are provided for. I want my nieces to go to university and the cost of that will fall to me.
...
Our Kent property is a converted oast house, which has three chimneys and looks like a cross between a hobbit house and a Disney princess’s castle. It’s lovely, you open the back door and you see nothing but fields. I bought it for £610,000 and it’s probably worth north of £1m now. We spent about £200,000 renovating it, which involved moving a few walls, adding a dog-friendly shower room, and a new staircase.
...
(My partner) also collects Doctor Who memorabilia and Egyptian artefacts. For our wedding we each bought a picture for the other – two of a set of 50 by the artists Jake and Dinos Chapman, who took a series of original Goya etchings and over-painted them to look like grotesque cartoons. My mother hates them!"

If this was the internet I would arrange the text into one of those 4Chan "Mr Bones' Wild Ride" montages with DOG-FRIENDLY SHOWER ROOM repeated several times.

"100% fine with him being fired and replaced with someone whose views are consistent with modern mainstream conservatism (I a headbanger)."

How is this a good thing?

I’m also fine with him fired and not being replaced.

I believe caek’s point is that replacing “moderate conservatives” who have no audience other than hate-readers with actual frothing bigots is at least honest.

Right. If the token conservative is there to “represent the other side” they should at least hold the other side’s views. And the particular views dacona holds are not only representative of almost no one (and wrong), they are also especially comforting and unchallenging to centrists who don’t themselves hold these views.

Fair enough. I think the other side is so deranged on some issues that to even see it argued in respectable pages is to see it normalised. Ancona at least pretended to be socially liberal.

Otm. Guardian is a fucking mess for even caring about publishing more right wing opinions tbh, when most right wing publications will never publish anyone left of Hugo Rifkind.

the "comforting carbon monoxide leak" vibe that center right commentators give off to center left people is a huge practical problem in the US (where i live now). it's perhaps a bit less of a problem in the UK, and the danger of platforming the further right opinions might be more salient in that context.

"comforting carbon monoxide leak"

^ this is in quotes because i said it. sorry i can't write.

the "comforting carbon monoxide leak" vibe that center right commentators give off to center left people is a huge practical problem in the US (where i live now). it's perhaps a bit less of a problem in the UK, and the danger of platforming the further right opinions might be more salient in that context.

― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek),

Its a big problem in UK and a major contributory factor in fracture between public and media. Over-representation of "Tory Remainers", or socially liberal / economically conservative, or whatever you call them - inverse of actual centre ground. Illusion of this group being larger than is actually the case, and having to cater to it, this

Its like the creation of a 'palatable opponent' that you can have polite disagreement with, but to what end? what is the point of this? Give us the real deal or don't bother