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)

Back from the dead - could AI end grief?

questions to which the answer is ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

LOL

The Guardian Londoncentric? Never!

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/oct/18/halloween-isnt-some-frightful-us-import-its-origins-are-celtic

the Manchester Guardian is a staunch defender of the Red Wall

thick Fabian middle class cunts

Admittedly every year I have to explain to English people in London that Halloween was not invented by Americans.

i wd like to apologize for my drunky classism but fuck yes Tom high five

my Tory buds are less Tory than these cunts

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/nov/13/the-guardian-no-longer-post-on-x-twitter-elon-musk

Imagine striking over the fucking Observer

https://pressgazette.co.uk/publishers/nationals/guardian-observer-tortoise-strike-december-2024/

downing tools until they receive assurances that the observer’s institutional transphobia will remain ironclad under new ownership

not hearing many cries of "solidarity with Toby Helm(et)!"

Thread from Observer editor. Really enjoying the suffering of this Transphobic hack

Here's why I think the proposed sale of the Observer to Tortoise would severely damage the reputation of the Scott Trust and threaten the future of the world's oldest Sunday newspaper, which I edited until last weekend 🧵

— paul webster (@paulfwebster) November 21, 2024

if only there was a celebrity transphobic millionaire who could step in

Paul, is there any sense that the Guardians relatively new and extremely 'woke' US and AU offshoots have applied pressure to offload Observer which bravely refused to toe certain party lines with the Grauniad?

— Mar of the House Vickers 🇺🇦 #32740 (@mar2vickers) November 22, 2024

looking forward to the woke guardian au & us (which are genuinely quite decent generally) forcing the sale of the guardian uk next

Guardian feminism going all out to defend our first woman chancellor.

I claimed I spent a decade working as an economist at Woolworths, Little Chef and elderly nursing home nightshifts. pic.twitter.com/LfQBvqAJey

— Samplo Corvodina (@TreborRhurbarb) November 27, 2024

If she was born in Putin's Russia and trying to pass herself of as the country's leading economist with the appropriate learning and experience to be the national minister of finance, then it came out this was all based on bullshit claims and she's a total fucking idiot. Then she'd end up falling out of an umpteenth storey window. And this would be a fair and measured response imo.

Simon Jenkins, fucking idiot.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/02/joe-biden-pardon-hunter-biden-trump-allies-america-president

He is, but I'm kinda with him on this one

they changed the subheading, it was sth like "now Biden has done this thing Trump will feel free to do it too!"

it's pretty obvious that Biden wasn't taking a principled stance about rule of law, it was just politically awkward to pardon his crack-smoking brat while all the various, now absolutely dead in the water, Trump cases were still ongoing. It's well established by now that he's an amoral lying genocidaire and all round scumbag piece of shit, but y'know "when they go low..." yeah whatever.. lol. I fucking despise the old cunt.

For once I am lacking in solidarity with ppl striking.

Guardian and Observer journalists are striking tomorrow & Thurs for 1st time in 53 years. I love my work, & feel incredibly sad that it's come to this. But I also feel so proud of my fellow journos who've united to resist the plan to "sell" the Obs to a loss-making startup✊🏽✊✊🏿

— Simon Hattenstone (@shattenstone) December 3, 2024

Jobs will be lost sure, but The Observer is fucking scum.

A few ilxors are participants in the strike, fwiw.

just as a big thank you for all their transphobic bigotry, and the vile slur campaign that was ran against Corbyn for 5 years, the Labour leaderships are allowing their MPs to express solidarity and stand on the picket line with these striking journalists.

My bus was on diversion this morning and passed the Guardian building and they were out picketing. Next time I might get off the bus and walk past and hope that one of them comes over so I can tell them to get tae fuck.

'editorial' pieces on inane cultural detritus are v strange

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2024/dec/04/the-guardian-view-on-a-new-wave-of-biographical-films-creative-risks-that-redefine-history

lol what the hell

Maybe one of the work experience kids had a dissertation due

One thing that stands out is that both The Guardian and the BBC have finally decided to admit that Mohammed is the most common boys' name in the UK.

I remember this article from 2018, where The BBC strenuously argued that Mohammed was not the most popular name for boys, on the technicality that "Muhammad, Mohammed, Mohammad, Muhammed, Mohamed, Mohamad, Muhamad, Muhamed, Mohamud, Mohummad, Mohummed, Mouhamed, Mohammod and Mouhamad" are all different. Which glides over the fact that they're Anglicisations of the same name, and that they're literally named after the same person. And if you add them together it has been the most popular boys' name for a decade or more.

I don't care at all about Britain's demographics in two centuries' time. It's just that it was transparently obvious that the writer, or the editor, had been told to spin the name away because they were scared that the BNP - or whatever existed in place of the BNP circa 2018 - would run scare stories about Muslims taking over Britain, or something. It was a little glimpse into the BBC as a guiding hand rather than a news organisation.

Insert something about The Guardian here. While I'm infested with right-wing brain worms, every day The Guardian runs a "pictures of the day" piece, and every day there's a comedy photo from North Korea, and a photo from the Tex-Mex border of refugees, and a series of photos from Lebanon and Belize and Haiti of people being killed and rioting and being truncheoned by police - and there's also a lovely shot of some people visiting an art gallery in China. Or visiting a park in China. Or doing something nice in China. Today it's a giant panda in a zoo. On Monday it was a panda exhibit and a giant cat. Before that horses in the countryside and a folk music festival.

I don't recall ever seeing anything bad, or even e.g. a building on fire or a natural disaster. Obviously the newspaper has to rely on on-the-spot photographers who are presumably censored so hard that they shit blood, but running photographs from them without pointing this out is basically propaganda.

My bus was on diversion this morning and passed the Guardian building and they were out picketing. Next time I might get off the bus and walk past and hope that one of them comes over so I can tell them to get tae fuck.

will you make a video of it?

The sale of the Observer, the world’s oldest Sunday newspaper, to Tortoise Media has been agreed in principle.

The announcement by the Scott Trust, the ultimate owner of the Guardian and Observer, came as it also revealed that it would invest in Tortoise to become a key shareholder and take a seat on both the editorial and commercial boards of the media company.

The Trust said the new ownership model would “protect the Observer’s future, championing the voice of liberal values and investing in exceptional journalism while building its digital offering”.

“We knew we needed the right combination of resources and commitment to build a new platform for the Observer,” said the Scott Trust chair, Ole Jacob Sunde.

“It required an ally to be sufficiently funded, long-term in nature and respect editorial independence and liberal values. I believe we have found this in Tortoise Media. We are looking forward to being part of the next phase in the Observer’s journey.”

The deal, now agreed in principle, will result in £25m of new investment in the Observer, with a commitment to print on a Sunday and a plan to build it into a digital brand. The Scott Trust will join new and existing investors it said were committed for the long term.

Staff have been told there will be no job losses as a result of the deal. Observer staff have been told they can also opt to take voluntary redundancy on enhanced terms. If they transfer to Tortoise, their existing terms and conditions will be honoured.

great news lads, sonia sodha's national platform remains assured

They'll be finished in five years. Frankly this is p good news.

The Guardian is terrible but The Observer have been a lot worse (its not a distinction I picked up till twitter about five years ago)

It's just that it was transparently obvious that the writer, or the editor, had been told to spin the name away...

To be fair, they were following the Office for National Statistics' official data - and the BBC page does attempt to give some coverage of the issues raised by combing spellings for names.

Does the bizarre lack of comprehension of obvious anger at an inhuman system make sense? Only in The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/dec/11/us-healthcare-brian-thompson-death

That column seems a not-totally-unreasonable response to the Thompson assassination and the context of US "health insurance", what about it is objectionable? It's definitely a clumsy headline!

it is mostly the headline, but the text repeatedly says the reaction is bizarre and surprising, and also that last paragraph spoils any positives when it says

None of this has anything to do with a very troubled 26-year-old allegedly making a decision to commit murder. Thompson wasn’t to blame for US healthcare, and Mangione isn’t an American folk hero.

yeah I agree that's a stupid ending given what has come before

If you want some amusement/chagrin, search Emma Brockes Norm Chomsky.

haha oh dear, seems like Emma was a bit out of her depth there!

No, the text says it "may look <...> bizarrely joyous" once (she is writing for a Guardian audience), and doesn't say surprising at all. And it does seem notable - not unwelcome, but I can't think of any obvious precedent.

None of this has anything to do with a very troubled 26-year-old allegedly making a decision to commit murder. Thompson wasn’t to blame for US healthcare, and Mangione isn’t an American folk hero.

Yeah, I read that in the article, and when you excerpted it earlier.

Excellent.

https://www.tortoisemedia.com/2024/12/18/tortoise-signs-deal-to-buy-the-observer

Do we take bets on whether GMG will launch a Sunday Guardian?

Their Best Books lists for this year are awful

You can get a substack and make bank I'm sure.

The Guardian is cancelling my contract after 19 years continuous employment with no pay-off so totes happy to go to the Indie to continue my investigation into Evgeny’s dad, the ex-KGB spy.

The UK media: so many fine choices.https://t.co/bqifjUzuJW

— Carole Cadwalladr (@carolecadwalla) December 22, 2024

She can get a job playing an investigative reporter at The London Dungeon's new Brexit Experience.

another one I've got zero sympathy for after all the lies and garbage she wrote about Corbyn. Get on universal credit, lass, and tell them you are only applying for top journalism jobs at the parts of the UK press with respectable owners, hah hah!

Truly one of the worst writers and thinkers to ever operate vaguely on some sense of being "on the right side". Does more damage than good. Also massively indulged. Her most recent articles will open with a fifteen-clause sentence referring to her past work and what "was found then" or whatever.

Completely pernicious, it feels like someone made up by her enemies to discredit the things she tries to shine a light on.

Also like sorry Carole but a certain amount of people just voted for shit you/we hate because they are dicks, not because they're all dense and you're a genius who found out what the word algorithm might mean circa a decade ago.