Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

The article seemed like the right thing to me - there are 67000 hits on Google for "Ryan Gosling" "Laurie Penny", it's still on the front pages of the UK and US news.google entertainment section, the "Oh she's making a big deal out of it" doesn't seem to really match what's happened.

However, I think it's actually completely legitimate for someone to question the decision of the *Guardian* to lionise yet another hoary old famous white dude from the 60s who lionises no one but other old white dudes. I mean, I often feel that "jesus christ, not another article about the 60s, or the Beatles or the Stones, I'm sick to death of white male baby boomers and their white male baby boomer taste" - I think it is completely legitimate and unfortunately still necessary to RMDE at that shit as the columnist is doing.

pretty sure the columnist is questioning blake, not the guardian. personally i agree that i can't be fucked reading about the beatles or the stones or whatever, but equally i find listing successful black people who should have appeared actually comes across weirdly and makes it seem like an entire race is a niche genre of popular culture that people should totally get into more.

i basically don't think making blake's picture is hugely significant of anything, or telling of anything about britain. maybe not being there says something positive about artists from other backgrounds, maybe it says something neither positive nor negative. maybe it says nothing at all.

The piece does specifically say that he shouldn't have included more people from minority backgrounds because he's been bullied into it or for the sake of tokenism - i think it's getting at the idea that there's an inherent assumption on the part of a lot of people, Blake included, that the British cultural establishment is a white one. It's a thought that probably could have done with developing a bit more, and an article that doesn't come across as saying anything particularly incisive, but it's not as bad as i'd expected from the commentary.

Given that the front page of the same Guardian concerned ongoing and pretty horrific racism in the UK - with several inner pages devoted to investigation of same - the piece reads as nothing more than "hey, let's hit an easy target," using the same tactics which in the eighties saw the Labour Party vote and NME circulation pretty much collapse through the basement. Which seems to me endemic of a greater underlying problem with the UK Left in 2012, i.e. a few more people are going to read this, go "OMG the Left wants to SPOIL OUR FUN" and they'll remain unelectable. Or, in the case of Blake, not knowing to leave well alone.

To be honest, it probably says more about the culture of rolling blog pieces than it does about the left. It's something you see a lot of in the US as well - lots of articles looking at the racial dimension to, for example, Game Of Thrones and not so many looking at endemic systematic abuses. It gets people clicking through.

i.e. a few more people are going to read this, go "OMG the Left wants to SPOIL OUR FUN" and they'll remain unelectable.

yeah i don't think anyone who would think this would be voting left in the first place tbh

nah, i personally have cancelled my subscription to the guardian and also the socialist worker on reading that piece

feel about the same w/r/t the blake thing as to the thread about sexism and racism in videogames, actually, that talking about the incidentally offensive aspects of art that is just plain bad and lousy is in some ways a point-missing gesture

also it is semi-public art he was paid by some festival or other to make, not something he did for its own sake, fyi

Meanwhile, was the Top Cat competition all about SEO OR WHAT?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/30/winner-top-cat-2012

i think it was ALL ABOUT CATS and have no problem w that whatsoevs

I overheard a girl in my SU bar say that Laurie Penny was her hero. Ooof. Also, does she still live with Nicholas Lezard? His column in the NS is 'great'/HOW DOES HE GET PAID TO CONTINUALLY WRITE THAT UTTER UTTER SHIT

No, she doesn't live there any more.

He was looking for a new housemate, but the New Statesman column about this seems to have been taken down. Here's the most you can now see of it:

I need a new young, female housemate (not in a pervy way)

you can find the whole column if you put one of the initial sentences into google - i am not surprised they took it down as it's super dull but also makes him sound like even more of a tosser than that guardian article did. and also because he's like 'laurie's away until june, i'd like a new young female housemate until then then please, it's not a sex thing, it's just that young women aren't threatening and won't argue with me'.

When I find it through Google I get a "page not found" when I actually click on it.

yes, but the article's still there in the whole edition on pagesuite professional (whatever that is): http://edition.pagesuite-professional.co.uk/launch.aspx?referral=other&pnum=61&refresh=4c1LxE7081Db&EID=0cf2fdfa-ce26-40cc-9ed0-d8757e6aa675&skip=&p=61

It's been a long time since I hated a columnist that much. And not even writing in the Daily Fail.

omg that bit about University Challenge

Thanks for the link (I think).

who are all these awful, awful people and why do they think we care about them?

It just gets stranger and stranger.

In G2 today, a confused piece by Barney Hoskyns about Southern rock (i.e. Allmans, Skynyrd) which basically says that Southern rock is great but actually it's not because of the area's history of racism. Great logical thinking there.

I don't get either why the Grauniad has suddenly decided to have a downer on Amazon. Lots of drivel both in print and on the website about poor benighted booksellers being put out of business by Amazon, it stops new writers coming through EXCUSE ME! Haven't I had a book out for the best part of a year? And who is stocking it in their shops? Precisely one in central London and it's not just me either - all you see when you go into Waterstones is the same old bullshit, celebrity kitchen nightmares and lots of loss-leader discounts. Take away the discounts and you have Daunt Books. Whereas Amazon actually stocks my book and that's where nearly all my sales have come from. If places like Waterstones were serious they'd tell their Finance & Marketing departments to go take a hike and actually take chances on stocking books by new or unknown writers. Rave reviews in The Wire and Mojo, called the best music book of 2011 in the Telegraph of all places - but none of that means anything to the chains - finance say shit, Waterstones jump on the shovel.

So I don't actually give a toss about how much tax Amazon are or aren't paying; they sell new writers, and bookshops do not, and until that changes bookshops have no right to have a go because they should be doing a hell of a lot more for the likes of us.

they sell new writers, and bookshops do not

not out of altruism, but because they make a healthy profit off those writers, and should pay tax on that. can't get with this "don't tax the job creators"-esque angle, i'm afraid.

being honest, tG is the only online newspaper that i would ever want to give space to my blog.

the fact that this has now happened means i can now make my parents read a page on the guardian website which is a massive result.

link pls mark e!

thought that broke the hardcore rules of ile !

but hey as you asked :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2012/mar/26/blog-jam-ireallylovemusic

excellent stuff, mark!

More anti-Amazon rubbish in yesterday's paper; Tim Waterstone, who's got a cheek, and some vested interests on the letters page.

Of course, if Amazon were to go under (extremely unlikely), that would make life much easier for the online Guardian Bookshop.

Elsewhere in yesterday's paper, Deborah Orr appears to confuse current Labour Party policy with socialism. From childhood onwards, we do what we do because deep down we expect a reward for doing it. That's a fundamental part of human behaviour and until/unless 200 ft OMG ZING robots are built to run things, it's not going to change.

Worst was the fawning piece on Green Party London mayoral candidate Jenny Jones where the writer just drops in casually the information that "one of her daughters is a senior editor at the Guardian." FFS. If you're going to set yourself up as the antidote to News International and Associated Newspapers then you should have higher standards and not indulge in the same common nepotism. Otherwise as a newspaper you're not going to be trusted.

And another thing - and this also applies to Labour, the Lib Dems, the BBC and too many other people - never sell out your heartland. If you insist on attracting the ficklest of audiences you'll find that they're the hardest audience to keep. In the meantime, your "heartland" of readers, tired of being taken for granted, will move on, and abandon you.

As far as Amazon, new writers and taxes are concerned; no the situation isn't ideal, but where is the alternative? Where's the figbtback on the part of bookshops? Narrow margins? Lack of shelf space? If they took all the Tesco/WH Smith stuff and 3 for 2 crap out of the shop they'd have more space for new writers, and if they were really clever, or better still grew a pair, they'd use their big sellers to help subsidise the rest of their stock, and because that would attract more punters into the shop, their profit margins would increase. It happened in the seventies; it can happen again. At the moment too many "independent" booksellere are "characters" who think it's still 1912 and books should be hoarded rather than sold. Your business is to sell books, so get on with it and sell them. Never mind how much you paid the distributor in 1978, forget it and get the book out of the shop.

(sp: "booksellers")

i think you misunderstand me. i think it's great that amazon support new writers, and keep such a large amount of books in "stock". i don't think it's so great that they shouldn't pay taxes on the profits they make.

OK, so you don't want to talk about Amazon's tax avoidance.

Maybe one could talk about their union busting activities (yeah, bog standard for a post globalised world, right) or their appalling record on workers rights, health and safety violations, all of which has been documented pretty extensively in Mother Jones - a paper I'm not aware of having any bookshop of their own or being in direct competition with Amazon...

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2012/02/mac-mcclelland-free-online-shipping-warehouses-labor

... but you know, who gives a shit about workers rights and being treated humanely or even *safely* so long as they stock *your* books, right? Amazon are simply *uncriticisable* so long as I'm alright, Jack. Socialism at its finest there.

This was pretty dire. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/apr/07/copenhagen-really-wonderful-reasons

Jenny Jones is the Green Party candidate for London mayor. That's a Guardian heartland story. That her daughter works at the Guardian was declared in the piece. Do you really think the Guardian should ignore her because her daughter works there? It's hardly Rebekah Brooks going riding with David Cameron, is it?

Of course, if Amazon were to go under (extremely unlikely), that would make life much easier for the online Guardian Bookshop.

?!?

Online Guardian bookshop is a tiny part of Guardian business. Generates about 10 bob, and I'd bet it's run through a partner (might even be Amazon, as with the links to buy CDs on album reviews) - there's no Guardian warehouse full of books. The Guardian's reports about Amazon are not generated by some big commercial push to take over the online book retail market.

We'll see about that.

Meanwhile Potty Toynbee says every UK citizen's tax details should be open to public scrutiny: "when we look back, we will view privacy as the cheat's charter." Also "taxes are the price you pay for civilisation." Eh? Civilisation has to be paid for?

i.e. "the only people who want privacy are those who have something to HIDE."

Murdoch and Syria would love her, and Labour are out of power for 20 years minimum.

We'll see about that.

cynical, or just being honest?

xp, she's talking about privacy with regard to taxation, rather than privacy in the more general sense though, isn't she? That's standard practice in Finland, Sweden and Norway. I'm reasonably sure Assad's elites wouldn't want the rest of the country knowing how much they make.

Marcello continues the great ILE/Guardian crossover:

Letters: From Harley St to Fred the plumber – transparency and tax returns

Aw, I thought it was going to be about the Guardian bookshop's imminent coup against Amazon.

Barbara Ellen

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/03/barbara-ellen-kick-out-stay-at-home-kids

Such a nasty piece to write in the middle of an economic downturn/depression. The Observer should boot her out pronto.

It's 100% true to form, unfortunately. With David Mitchell turning increasingly reactionary in recent weeks, their comment section has been alarmingly close to the Telegraph's at times.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79qX7l4y-q4

can't believe Barbara Ellen is the Happy Shopper Julie Burchill

tbf Burchill was saying exactly the same thing back in the NME in '83.

I've never known the Observer not to be a carbuncle of rightwing douchebaggery but Graham Norton did a similar rant on his radio show last week. I suppose it saves having to think about inconvenient things like causes.

(Actually, Norton's a totally reactionary old queen; yesterday he carpeted guest David Baddiel for daring to ask for a relatively obscure track from the BBC archives. He was all "how dare you, that's not what we're about, RIGHT?" Actually, Graham, that IS what it's all about, otherwise Radio 2 might just as well be LBC or Magic FM and take advertising rather than protection money from licence payers, decimating your music library to subsidise Mr Norton's lifestyle)

p bad
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/lostinshowbiz/2012/jun/07/ridiculous-name-jay-electronica?newsfeed=true

serious question: is Tim Dowling the most infuritaingly unfunny 'funny' writer in the UK?

what 'funny' writers are actually funny though?

Marina Hyde obv (though she's not a LOL writer in any case)
Caitlin Moran (though - whisper it - less and less these days)
I guess Grace Dent but I don't care about TV so rarely care about her writing
and uhhhhh

basically there's no excuse for anyone to act like a comedian or a FOOL as they were once known

i really like tim's pieces, tbh. alex, yr nutso!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2012/jun/22/glastonbury-2012-live-coverage?intcmp=ILCMUSTXT9383&CMP=EMCMUSEML1647

a ha hahaha ha ha hah ha ha oh dear.

Lucy Mangan might be twee as hell but I still get a smile more often than not from her writing. Marina Hyde is such a fantastic writer that it seems unfair to compare against her.