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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen 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 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

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

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

six years pass...

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

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


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

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

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

It went downhill after I left.

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

or were you PUSHED?

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

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

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

i couldn't agree less

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

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

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

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

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

because you're cold xp

tissp, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:45 (nine 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 (nine 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?


Masonic Boom, Monday, 3 September 2007 14:46 (nine 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 (nine 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 (nine 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 (nine 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 (nine 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 (nine years ago) Permalink

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

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

> I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them.


> 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 (nine years ago) Permalink

it's wasted several actually p good moves and projects i think -- the money it was losing in the 90s was going towards its transition onto the net, and i think was actually p well spent, potentially a strong investment -- but the next stage of the plan, to become a global rather than a national title≤ has really backfired

mark s, Monday, 12 June 2017 10:32 (one month ago) Permalink

That Middle East Eye piece begins to make an interesting parallel with the graun and new labour, but then doesn't really go anywhere with it.

The Adventures Of Whiteman (Bananaman Begins), Monday, 12 June 2017 10:35 (one month ago) Permalink

is that the david hearst piece? i need to reread that (the first time i read it i was mainly being startled that i'd never spotted he signs himself "david hearst" and "david hirst" abt equally often, which is unusual in such a high-profile writer: i shd perhaps focus on less trivial aspects)

mark s, Monday, 12 June 2017 10:53 (one month ago) Permalink

There's a David Hirst and a David Hearst, no?

Alba, Monday, 12 June 2017 11:14 (one month ago) Permalink

ok lol yes they are different now that i've found a photo of each of them

but google is disinclined to separate them

mark s, Monday, 12 June 2017 11:25 (one month ago) Permalink

Is Google worse than it used to be?

Alba, Monday, 12 June 2017 11:35 (one month ago) Permalink

Is mark s worse than it used to be?

Punnet of the Grapes (Tom D.), Monday, 12 June 2017 11:39 (one month ago) Permalink

is the 'is the guardian worse than it used to be?' thread worse than it used to be when everyone jumps on the 'is x worse than it used to be?' bandwagon?

alcohol aficionado zane lamprey (bizarro gazzara), Monday, 12 June 2017 11:43 (one month ago) Permalink


El Tomboto, Monday, 12 June 2017 12:24 (one month ago) Permalink

i am better than i used to be: be the change i indicate

mark s, Monday, 12 June 2017 12:27 (one month ago) Permalink

Mirror stocks up on this because they'll likely to pay to use mirror presses, so seems like no they can't continue to use theirs.

Barclays analysts on impact for Trinity Mirror (shares up 2%).

— Chris Williams (@cg_williams) June 12, 2017

𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 12 June 2017 14:10 (one month ago) Permalink

Today we’re announcing a significant change to the way you experience the Guardian in print: from early 2018 we will move the Guardian and The Observer to tabloid formats.

Over the past six months, we’ve been thinking hard about how we can continue to deliver great journalism to readers through our print editions. At the same time, we’ve also been examining every cost across our organisation, as part of a three-year plan to make the Guardian financially sustainable.

The introduction of the Berliner format in 2005 was a historic moment for the Guardian, and we won award after award for our world-class design and innovation, including world’s best-designed newspaper twice in three years. It is a beautiful format.

We believe there will be a market for quality print journalism for years to come, but declining circulations mean that printing the Berliner is becoming increasingly expensive. Moving to a tabloid format will allow us to be far more flexible in responding to changing print demand. It will allow us to save millions of pounds each year, helping us to become financially sustainable so that we can keep investing in the most important thing: Guardian journalism.

This plan is the outcome of careful consideration, reader research and planning. Early research with some of our most loyal readers has been positive. We have spoken to print readers who have told us clearly that it is the great journalism, photography, graphics and design that they value, not the shape and size of the newspaper. We are going to create a tabloid Guardian and a tabloid Observer that are bold, striking and beautiful. Input from our readers, members and subscribers will be crucial.

The Guardian has signed a contract with Trinity Mirror, who will take over printing and distribution of our newspapers in the new format. If you are a print subscriber, your subscription service will continue as usual.

More people than ever before are reading and supporting the Guardian’s journalism. Today’s announcement further cements our commitment to produce the Guardian and The Observer in print for the foreseeable future – but there’s no doubt that this is a significant moment in our history. The print industry continues to evolve, and we must keep evolving with it.

Katharine Viner, editor-in-chief, Guardian News & Media
David Pemsel, chief executive, Guardian Media Group

sktsh, Tuesday, 13 June 2017 18:15 (one month ago) Permalink

It's a shame, but I never, if ever, buy the print version anymore.

Looking forward to seeing the design changes though.

Chewshabadoo, Wednesday, 14 June 2017 10:45 (one month ago) Permalink

Gibson, now editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed UK, declined to comment for this story


stet, Wednesday, 21 June 2017 15:40 (one month ago) Permalink

Covering America for the world, including Americans.

good slogan but could be clarified a little further and more commas would help. how about "A British paper, in America, covering America, for the world, including Americans, and of course British people, welcome to Guardian America - home of the Guardian in the USA."

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Wednesday, 21 June 2017 15:48 (one month ago) Permalink

also available in Australian

André Ryu (Neil S), Wednesday, 21 June 2017 15:51 (one month ago) Permalink

Oh, it’s The Guardian. I see.

— SimonNRicketts (@SimonNRicketts) June 21, 2017

Full-page Leader from the Mail railing against the Guardian for being the REAL fascists

stet, Wednesday, 21 June 2017 23:30 (one month ago) Permalink

Just fucking ridiculous. And I "look forward" to having to hear this regurgitated at the next family sunday lunch.

Shanty Brunch (stevie), Thursday, 22 June 2017 09:07 (one month ago) Permalink

I just hope this is the death throes of a malignant force in UK culture realising its days are sorely numbered.

Shanty Brunch (stevie), Thursday, 22 June 2017 09:08 (one month ago) Permalink

I know you are but what am I.

cajunsunday, Thursday, 22 June 2017 09:14 (one month ago) Permalink

that cartoon sounds terrible, poor form to get all butthurt over it

pray for BoJo (Noodle Vague), Thursday, 22 June 2017 09:16 (one month ago) Permalink

The Mail going merrily down the alt-right route I see.

Duncan Disorderly (Tom D.), Thursday, 22 June 2017 09:23 (one month ago) Permalink

The Daily Mail or the Mail Online?

Alba, Thursday, 22 June 2017 09:37 (one month ago) Permalink

"The Mail Online - a totally separate entity that has its own publisher"

— Dean Burnett (@garwboy) June 22, 2017

André Ryu (Neil S), Thursday, 22 June 2017 09:44 (one month ago) Permalink

deano rehabilitated in nakhers' absence

imago, Thursday, 22 June 2017 11:04 (one month ago) Permalink

Street artist Sabo shot to fame during the 2016 US election with his politically incorrect approach.

Nope, never heard of him until this article.

nashwan, Thursday, 22 June 2017 13:09 (one month ago) Permalink

nice photos but jesus christ @ this trite piece and its unearned sentimentality.

i just ranted about it on twitter, that's my mental exercise for the evening:

Pretty much all the worst sins of writing are in this piece: "A hot summer night in London – photo essay"

— Ronan Fitzgerald (@rmkf) June 22, 2017

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 22 June 2017 18:15 (one month ago) Permalink

The photos are worth the while tbh. But the writing is dire, I agree.

Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 22 June 2017 18:29 (one month ago) Permalink

should have just gone with photos, their quality exposes the poor writing even further.

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 22 June 2017 18:44 (one month ago) Permalink

Absolutely. They do not need dim 'bylines' by an overly enthusiastic writer thinking he/she's D.H. Lawrence.

Le Bateau Ivre, Thursday, 22 June 2017 18:55 (one month ago) Permalink

I was going to ignore it after yr tweet because have no time for school writing but the pictures are def worth it

stet, Thursday, 22 June 2017 19:12 (one month ago) Permalink

Laura Barton has long been the worst. Excruciating always.

Eyeball Kicks, Thursday, 22 June 2017 22:19 (one month ago) Permalink

There's something so crass about it that annoys me more than is worth the effort. The default need to find false pathos, the terrible mixture of sadness and joy, neither feeling real or distinct from each other. The patronising attitude towards the poor.

The use of text to accompany the photos is insulting enough in itself, but the text is horrendous. I'm sure I've seen these "the streets by night" assignments before and all they do is show how much every project needs a top line.

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 22 June 2017 23:27 (one month ago) Permalink

Who on earth are these ubiquitous btl posters? Thegreatronraffterty, the Thunderbirds avatar guy, several others who are first to comment? I don't understand how they can live their lives and post and post and post. I mean it's not easy to be the first commenter so I just do t understand the logistics never mind the mentality.

This has probably already been asked and answered.

Heavy Doors (jed_), Saturday, 24 June 2017 01:22 (one month ago) Permalink

I mean, as an addicted person it makes me feel a wee bit better to see others' posts. It's the logistics of it that I don't understand.

Heavy Doors (jed_), Saturday, 24 June 2017 01:27 (one month ago) Permalink

There was an article yesterday on what books to bring to Glastonbury. Heh I wonder has the writer even been to a music festival, you're not going to get much reading done

Well bissogled trotters (Michael B), Saturday, 24 June 2017 03:25 (one month ago) Permalink

hey garda whats ur fave

r|t|c, Thursday, 29 June 2017 19:08 (four weeks ago) Permalink

Jesus dunno if I can watch these...

Bein' Sean Bean (LocalGarda), Thursday, 29 June 2017 19:53 (four weeks ago) Permalink

48% nation lol

The Adventures Of Whiteman (Bananaman Begins), Friday, 30 June 2017 09:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

A L Kennedy's is genuinely great, I think. The language is wonderful. There's something almost Shakespearean about it. And Scott Reid is terrific, IMO.

Heavy Doors (jed_), Saturday, 1 July 2017 00:47 (three weeks ago) Permalink

two weeks pass...

In favour, I'm massively in favour of people exploring alternative living spaces, but the tone of this article...

One day in early 2016, Ashim spotted a contract as a locum psychiatrist in a hospital in Bermuda. We let out our house, arrived in April, and for six months I drank a lot of rum swizzle, and Ashim had one of the world’s most beautiful commutes. It got us thinking: there is a shortage of senior psychiatrists everywhere, and locum jobs pop up in the most interesting places. ]’m turning my PhD (on the influence of sculpture on contemporary British ceramics – a guaranteed conversation-stopper) into a book, so can work anywhere. We could live a rich life, in lots of different places. And we decided to do it in a caravan.

We leave Cork in August, and after a trip in the van to France and Spain, we are planning to head to New Zealand for the winter. We will have to abandon our van on Ashim’s sister’s drive, but we’re not done with tiny homes. We are learning to sail and are hoping to live on a boat for our next posting. After our 17ft van, we won’t know what to do with the space.

Luna Schlosser, Sunday, 16 July 2017 09:53 (one week ago) Permalink

LOL fuckin' bawbag.

weird echo of the falsies (Tom D.), Saturday, 22 July 2017 18:28 (five days ago) Permalink

has there ever been anyone who did this open letter to my younger self thing without seeming like a complete twat?

calzino, Saturday, 22 July 2017 18:59 (five days ago) Permalink

Mary Bell

In Search of the Turricle's Navel (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 22 July 2017 19:00 (five days ago) Permalink

Did she make a killing with the sale of her London house? Oops, getting her mixed with a smug graun hack!

calzino, Saturday, 22 July 2017 19:08 (five days ago) Permalink


jk rowling obituary thread (darraghmac), Saturday, 22 July 2017 20:47 (five days ago) Permalink

'When good TV goes bad: how Game of Thrones became a throng of dire old vice'

that's appalling

kinder, Monday, 24 July 2017 16:31 (three days ago) Permalink

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