Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

seems a million years ago

The RAEF era morelike

What is Raef?

Tool of our times.

there's nothing wrong with loving roy o, surely?

that vanity lair pogramme is hideous, odious, reprehensible.

of course there's nothing wrong with it: I just don't think it makes you hip

it does if you look like alexa chung

this is the interview mentioned in the ... interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XzaJoIUV57E

OK, the band seem rubbishy, stupid and complacent, and Chung (without having to do anything) thus comes off slightly better than them - but my goodness, Laura Barton's idea of her impishly 'correcting their grammar' = ... she says 'any', rather than 'either', once. ... That's ... it.

lol insipid

ha, the chung article was the 'most read' on the website yesterday.

why do we even bother

I'm not sure if there's much point in endlessly picking at lifestyle fluff when there's so much worse than gets printed in the main section of this and the Observer. Max Hastings on Boris being the latest offender.

'OMG HERE'S A FEMALE JOURNALIST WRITING ABOUT HER HOLIDAY BURIED ON PAGE 7 OF THE SUPPLEMENT WHAT HAS BECOME OF THIS FINE OLD INSTITUTION?!"

Women shouldn't write

^^^real talk

OK, DC: endlessly pick at other, worse things.

Well, Hastings on Johnson is exactly what anyone would expect him to have written, and nothing more than I would expect from a canting, ranting rightwing rag like the Observer.

Whereas you were expecting maybe Pulitzer prize winning journalism from Laura Barton interviewing Alexa Chung?

Matt's point is a good one.

I haven't read "The Observer" in over a year. I don't know why anybody would read it, it's BORING.

"Dear Mariella" is always v. v. good. Basically because she invariable tells whinging men to pull their socks up and don't be such cunts. She'd sort the boys on this thread out, straight away.

there's fluff and fluff, entertainment journalism and entertainment journalism. an interview with chung is what it is, but laura barton is less good at it -- certainly less guardian-y, if that means anything now -- than she ought to be, given how much she is asked to churn out. maybe that's the real issue, the sheer amount of crap.

which i half-read and link to lol.

xpost

Like she sorted Jobbers out? (xp)

Well we all know how she got where she is today...

The question is why the Guardian should be interviewing a nonentity like Chung in the first place.

the boys on this thread

where?

She likes the boys in this thread/She said that I'm her all-time favourite

Remember, ILxors: Frostrup thinks you're scum.

I don't know, DK - KtS seems interested in them

in a way, Chung (or: the interview with her) maybe does represent something bad - the too-easy victory of looks and (intellectual) laziness. it's one thing for such a person to get gigs on TV, but a long Guardian interview is granting her a kind of credibility or substance that (as it proves) she doesn't have.

she doesn't deserve to be picked on and abused any more than anyone else, but she doesn't deserve to be fawned over, treated as though her opinions are interesting, etc, either.

Alexa Chung is not a nonentity, she co-hosted a highly successful satirical TV show with Sir Ben Elton!

Top Tory comedian!

looking forward to the George "pineahpul onna peetzah yor avin a larf shabbbabaaaa" Lamb interview

Is that a transcription of genuine Estuarine Straggle?

George Lamb - Eustonist With Attitude

xpost No, "we" don't know how Mariella got where she is today. Enlighten us?

BTW I always thought the invective of the andro half of the chattering classes directed at Polly Filla-style columnists or journalists but not their male counterparts was institutionalized sexism, pure and simple. It never suggests to me the critic has a better idea of what to write about. At the very least it's the parcelling off of personal shortcomings onto some blameless working woman, especially where the aspirant hacks among you are concerned. Estimation of writing skills is purely subjective, and when you learn most editors would rather get in copy on time that doesn't need to be vastly subbed, and would rather get it from someone who isn't a social retard and their readers have heard of (or who could help them in their own networking). Also, for the bonus ball, if a zillion butthurt people write in moaning that a writer sucks or whatever, the editors are going to commission again due to Heated Debate Factor.

You. Cannot. Win.

Certainly I can't think of any males writers who attract zingage from ILM or E.

We should bump that 2,000 post "Martin Samuel is always pleasant to read and look at" thread.

People are generally unstinting in their praise of A. Petridis and J. Harris, for instance

http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/img/samuel_and_parkinson.jpg

"Are we allowed a croissant?"

In the same way that if I submit a book manuscript for consideration I would rather have someone read it and give me a firm decision about publication and/or appropriate advice regarding editing, style and so forth, rather than someone who takes the manuscript away, sits on it for two years, offers me paltry excuses and drops out.

I. Cannot. Win.

"Dear Mariella" is always v. v. good. Basically because she invariable tells whinging men to pull their socks up and don't be such cunts. She'd sort the boys on this thread out, straight away.

Heh - this is exactly what happened a few years ago when my friend since school wrote in with a '40 years old and gay, what shall I do with the rest of my life?' question - and got short shrift.

He was really offended by the answer which suggested that he had a selfish outlook on life and that he should think about having a child.

"Mariella Frostrup does loads of voiceovers and nothing much else yet she seems to get buy..."

"Beautiful Liar" best thing on this thread so far, tbh.

Certainly I can't think of any males writers who attract zingage from ILM or E.

-- Dom Passantino, Tuesday, April 1, 2008 12:37 PM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

free passes all round

He might have received a more helpful response from a qualified counsellor rather than some crappy Norwegian waitress who fucked her way towards a position of pseudo-authority.

He was really offended by the answer which suggested that he had a selfish outlook on life and that he should think about having a child.

... with Mariella Frostrup

question is why laura barton is someone "readers have heard of", rather than the other somewhat more off-base gubbins.

Oh, haven't you read Offbase Gubbins' column yet? He's very talented.

Anyway, the only Guardian writers that don't get the ILx gasfaceare Marina Hide, Nancy Banks-Smith, and that one dude that killed that guy.

i've said nice things about marina hyde!

other than "would smash" i mean

I usually like Marina Hyde's column in the sports section, the G2 one can be good as well. Kevin McCarra does alright as well but I suppose we're not really talking about Guardian sports here are we?