Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

I must have missed this! I don't think I've come across this fellow before.

Is DB controversial himself?

nah not really. nakhers regarded him as profoundly insipid with decent cause but he's almost certainly got admittedly easy target hari and the guardian bang to rights here

Oh, I have come across The Cosmic Shambles Network in the past.

nakh was often a twat for getting annoyed at x for not being some rigorous thinker to the nth degree like he thought he was, no need to parrot that. I remember reading Burnett's piece at the time as a really good write-up.

You get daily reminders of media class behaviour on twitter from them straight, never mind testimony like this.

This is some ridiculous lib framing.

The Trump era wasn't all bad. We saw progress – thanks to social movements | Rebecca Solnit https://t.co/4Hlwna5j33

— The Guardian (@guardian) January 23, 2021

what's a non-ridiculous non-framing

what's a non-ridiculous non-liberal framing

(might be a less incoherent version of the question lol)

?

Rebecca Solnit now a confirmed accelerationist.

"what's a non-ridiculous non-liberal framing"

It's not exactly an answer from me but to look at Trump and say that his presidency pushed these movements onwards, where part of the problem is the inadequate response for what went on before in the Obama-era. That's part of the story which is only hinted at BLM's beginning being dated to 2014.

What would you see as the difference between the Trump era and the Trump presidency?

I am using these terms interchangeably. What's the issue?

andrew's Q wd have rather more force as a gotcha if this guardian hed wasn't extremely deliberately exploiting a (fairly obvious) ambiguity to give a plain statement a frisson of hot-take contrarian perversity

viz (to belabour the point and hammer home the obvious) if the hed read: "the trump presidency wasn't all bad" this wd be unalloyed spiked-style hot-take contrarian perversity

but in fact -- despite the exact temporal overlap of the trump era with the trump presidency -- not everything undertaken during the trump presidency issued from trump adminsitration, or at its behest or indeed with its imprimatur, hence the argument that some things that took place during the "trump era" were not in fact bad bcz trump is NOT a spiked-style take but statement of business as usual in a politics where different forces can clash (which is all politics lol)

for maximum clarity imagine when reading that bcz trump is somehow marked off via punctuation or some other printed signal from what follows it

this is why i am not allowed to write my own heds and straps probably

viz i am too clever and funny

andrew's Q

Didn't see that twist coming!

i thought this bump would be about the guardian article on rolling stone wanting to "shape the future of culture" with "thought leaders"

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/23/rolling-stone-magazine-culture-council-publication

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advertorial

^^^new (and also silly) name for a long-standing (and also dodgy) mainstream practice

ha, kinder

I mean, in the long history of media and commerce the word is pretty new, but the first paragraph in the Wikipedia entry says it's nearly as old as you, mark!

"advertorial" goes back to the 1940s at least, yes (and hence has been a nuisance my entire professional life): the new and silly name for it is "thought council"!

Ah okay sorry!

okay, i browsed that wiki, mark

i see what you're saying, but i will say that this sounds even worse, as the articles will be paywalled

so you're essentially paying a fee to read advertisements

welcome to the 21st c.?

That actually makes it better, because then I won't accidentally read any of it.

i think more sinister than advertorials are those bill and melinda gates foundation pro-eugenics/development issues pieces

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jan/27/covid-lies-cost-lives-right-clamp-down-misinformation

This is completely nuts.

in what way?

Politically, legally and pragmatically.

The idea of applying 'trading standards' to the 'marketplace of ideas' is clearly an immensely dangerous precedent to attempt to set, irrespective of how time-limited and expert-led Monbiot imagines it to be. It's illegal to lie to customers, it's not illegal to lie to your neighbours and, clearly, it should not be.

There's also a conflation between lying and 'spreading misinformation'. 5G truthers aren't cynically trying to gain a pecuniary advantage, they genuinely believe what they're saying and think that there's a conspiracy to stop them. Starting from a position that they should be fined or jailed for saying what they believe, incorrectly, to be true, would be immensely counterproductive.

Monbiot positions only the most ridiculous COVID misinformation as worthy of criminal sanction (eg. "COVID doesn't exist") but flags half way through that the bigger problem is with mass-media pundits, who he imagines to be exempt from the laws. If we're looking at public utility as the overriding interest, fining @COVIDTRUTHER69 for saying "Bill Gates wants to inject you with a microchip" on Twitter but trying to argue persuasively against Allison Pearson telling 1m+ people every week that COVID is no big deal and more people will die because of delayed cancer treatment, makes absolutely no sense.

" It (the BBC) thrills to the sound of noisy, ill-informed contrarians."

at least he got one thing right! I think the Monbiot got the Rona himself recently. Lol @ the idea that Hitchens can be reasoned with.

Yeah, he's not wrong about the complete lack of responsibility displayed by the BBC and others, and that the format of combative opinion driving news is dangerous.

The Beeb have been inviting idiots to speak their brains on national/local TV and radio for decades, this is hardly a new situation

The Cancer Act is an interesting comparator. You occasionally see homemade flyers promising to cure all cancer ills from some local medicine man but they are (notionally) dealt with by the Advertising Standards Agency. I'm sure there's loads of word-of-mouth and blogs about curing cancer with orange juice or something but I'd imagine they fly just the right side of 'we can't say this will definitely cure you but come and see us to discuss your holistic curated plan'. But otherwise I'd say (based on no data whatsoever) it's been fairly successful at what it set out to do. I wonder if you could even bring any equivalent in now?

SV otm - it's all the misinformation and more subtle dogwhistling, that you couldn't legislate against. Plus this current near-insistence that on any issue you fall into one 'camp' or another and must remain loyal to that camp. Media literacy and critical thinking is more important than ever.

Good points all round, but I definitely wouldn't call this "completely nuts" since it's a position that's been around at least since Walter Lippmann

Have you ever read 1994 Harris being utterly bewildered by Aphex Twin? It's glorious. pic.twitter.com/IE1bk1v4LK

— Mr Demos of Pnyx (@gem_ste) January 30, 2021

an exquisite vintage from the JH archive

He is such a witless tosser and the perfect voice of a sizeable chunk of the Graun's readership

John Harris United Kingdom The Guardian Journalist Writer, united kingdom, author, news, moustache png

https://w7.pngwing.com/pngs/820/137/png-transparent-john-harris-united-kingdom-the-guardian-journalist-writer-united-kingdom-thumbnail.png

He uses "trendy" as a noun in that review, classic sign of a cunt

is that a transparent background or is he back at the mod club?

Everything about him is transparent.

mark s would give him a kicking for using "wondrous" as well!

can't believe it took me until last week to find out he has an Oxford PPE

proper prick?

Can see why he loves proper working class folk and their music then

it's been a very successful grift for nearly 30 years, and he doesn't have a backup grift to fall back on?

This list has lots of people I expected to see, and also plenty I didn't.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_University_of_Oxford_people_with_PPE_degrees

Strong argument for nuking Oxford

Non-UK Politicians is where that really kicks off imo

oh wait hang on it subsequently kicks off even more. Will Self!

oh shit actually all the architects of doom are there. my god

Self may be the least objectionable person on that list