Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

possibly. i don't mind that he sets out his reasoning. he still feels different from columnists who are purely thumb on the scales. he allows you to work out where you disagree with him.

_Can we move this thread towards intro-ukpol bullying and away from tw***er before caek comes in and starts talking about how he used to work there, you know!

― barry sito (gyac), Monday, October 31, 2022 5:10 PM (eight minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink_


you can block me if you like? i don't mind.

that's an xpost to mark s. never talking to gyac again tbh.

sounds good.

i've been meaning to complain on here about that fucking BBC doc trailer for a week

amol rajan again?

the musk trailer on the radio is even more annoying than that "if you want to buy a good pressie for your kids before they go away to uni - buy them a tv license!" recurring ad from a couple of months back

Look you know you are a top 200 ilxor of mine

Underrated extremely faint praise. Invisible ink faint.

you can block me if you like? i don't mind.

I think I'm missing something - I've been on this site for 21 years and I didn't know you could block people.

_Look you know you are a top 200 ilxor of mine_


Underrated extremely faint praise. Invisible ink faint.

I was once talking to a posh couple in a pub who were saying he was a genius - you should have seen his ted talk, it was inspirational etc.. they thought I was lying when I mentioned he'd called the divers who rescued the school party "pedo guys".

I can beat this - the other day my therapist brought him up as an example of the power of self-esteem and self-confidence. Motivated by watching that BBC thing of course, ffs.

Guardian EXCLUSIVE - really:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/01/labour-needs-more-coherent-narrative-to-win-election-starmer-told

thoughts about how KS can win, from an unelected person who the admiring report makes clear is a malicious scumbag.

i just ready that twice and there's absolutely nothing of substance in it

Excited by the bold idea of trying to woo voters

_ I was once talking to a posh couple in a pub who were saying he was a genius - you should have seen his ted talk, it was inspirational etc.. they thought I was lying when I mentioned he'd called the divers who rescued the school party "pedo guys"._

I can beat this - the other day my _therapist_ brought him up as an example of the power of self-esteem and self-confidence. Motivated by watching that BBC thing of course, ffs.

please tell me you're finding a new therapist

https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/nov/30/moma-video-games-art

OH NO THE GUARDIAN HAS DAMNDED video games

"… we have a small favour to ask. "

Sorry MOMA,

"I can beat this - the other day my therapist brought him up as an example of the power of self-esteem and self-confidence. Motivated by watching that BBC thing of course, ffs."

the problem for me isn't self-esteem its species-esteem

Lol

The fiercely iconoclastic Private Eye attacking Britain’s only major liberal - never mind left - newspaper for being insufficiently willing to attack the left and transgender charities. Just so we can gauge roughly where median media twunt opinion is here. pic.twitter.com/l2VCOgVgYO

— Flying_Rodent (@flying_rodent) November 2, 2022

Lol @ Private Eye giving Hadley Freeman an op-ed column

'in a scathing farewell letter to Viner, which the Eye has seen'

oh word

OK I had no idea Chiles and Viner were married, now it all makes sense

How much is everyone willing to bet that [noted sex pest] was the writer of that piece?

Probably not much unless they know who that is.

Bananaman Begins is right: this is a kind of publication of opinion from HF - it's giving her airtime. And if HF wrote a private (?) letter to the editor then she shouldn't have leaked it. Not appropriate.

Private Eye share the same kinds of politics with HF (though they come from a different angle).

And she would've been at home in The Observer though that publication has so many transphobes I guess they didn't have any room for her.

xxp lol remember the time when Hislop thought Angus Deayton's sex scandals made him a unfit host of Have I Got News For You

editorially PE's stance on matters cultural-political has always been pissy-prissy-reactionary -- which tbh is kind of normal for the type of magazine it is, which is that it survives and thrives by supplying ruling media-class back-channel gossip to the ruling media-class, including gobbets and glimpses of information speculation spite and beef that the self-importantly serious MSM omertà always edits out (to keep itself looking self-importantly serious)

sometimes this will be fun for the peons and more often it will be enraging; and very very VERY occasionally such as magazine will be run by someone on the actual real left (claud cockburn's the week is probably the best example: everyone knew he was a full-on communist but his sources were so good that the entire establishment subscribed, bcz it was the only way they knew what was going on)

meanwhile, as with all journalism since the beginning of time, the drives at work include nosiness and schadenfreude and mischief-making: an *entirely* principled investigative journalist will almost certainly be a p bad journalist, bcz at some point part of the job will entail betraying someone who helped you get a story (and if you spike the story for this reason you may be a good person but yr letting down yr readers)

i'm not sure if PE is actually worse since the advent of the internet -- which is a massive leak machine -- or if it comes across as worse by comparison; it doesn't help that its senior figures have been in place for 40+ years lol

cf also i.f.stone's weekly

Wheen is stepping down, and surely The Octopus's days there are numbered, maybe this will lead to some improvement.

My comments here don't relate to PE's politics as such (which might be awful or not), more just to the poor journalistic ethics of leaking a private letter to be published somewhere as another vent for your own tendentious opinions. As far as I can see, in a formal, procedural sense it stinks, leaving aside the content of HF and PE's views.

chiles is a far better columnist than hf in any case.

sneering at chiles while acting under the assumption that people revere the columns of HF is uh not well-judged

Chiles' columns are all elaborate acrostics concealing dangerous revolutionary sentiments MI5 won't let Kath Viner print iirc

Good tweet.

Listen: Zoe Williams has come unstuck in time. pic.twitter.com/4BJtTaVEiu

— Elvis Buñuelo (@Mr_Considerate) November 10, 2022

There is now a mentality – popular in some progressive circles – that to give someone “a platform” (ie, interview them) means you endorse them. But this is only true if you write puff piece interviews, whereas I like to have what Mrs Merton used to call “a heated debate”, or what I call a conversation.

hadley freeman in her last piece being so disingenuous it's not funny.

quoting a comedy persona to vindicate your bigotry and the both-siding style of hack journalism is it?

Freeman can go have a heated debate in the bin.

Well, she’s going to the Times: same thing.

What attracted you to the millionaire Rupert Murdoch

I never watched Mrs Merton much at the time, but wasn't there sort of an unfiltered bigot playing for laughs element to her character?

No cos she very explicitly insulted bigots, see eg the Bernard Manning interview. Her character was waspish and blunt but not bigoted

The truly strange thing about soccer writer Jonathan Liew is that his writing is a pastiche of Barney Ronay.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2022/nov/26/blandest-of-displays-proves-england-are-still-far-from-top-of-the-food-chain

This could be Ronay, word for word. Liew must know this. Ronay must know this. And yet they work for the same newspaper.

If I imagine turning up for work and performing a specialised task in exactly the way that another colleague was well known for doing, in front of that colleague - the idea seems excruciatingly embarrassing.

And yet I get the impression that Ronay actually approves of the fact that he has a colleague who has copied his quite distinctive manner, down to the smallest rhythms and phrasings.

Separately: why does Liew state that ENG vs USA was 'fey'? If there is one thing it was not, that is ... 'fey'.

i don’t think he knows what that word means tbh.

he was quite good on cricket before he joined the guardian, and maybe after he joined too; i’m not an assiduous reader. i found out the other week that a close colleague lived with him for a while. “abrasive, but not in a bad way” was the summary.

Funnily enough he is really good on trans rights.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/blog/2022/jun/28/nadine-dorries-offers-the-illusion-of-easy-choices-while-trans-athletes-pay-the-price

assume he'll be sacked soon then

That Amelia Gentleman article about transitioning teens, arrrrrrgh.

That Amelia Gentleman article about transitioning teens, arrrrrrgh.

fey (adj.): https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=fey

"of excitement that presages death," from Old English fæge "doomed to die, fated, destined," also "timid, feeble;" and/or from Old Norse feigr, both from Proto-Germanic *faigjo- (source also of Old Saxon fegi, Old Frisian fai, Middle Dutch vege, Middle High German veige "doomed," also "timid," German feige "cowardly"), from the same source as foe. Preserved in Scottish. Sense of "displaying unearthly qualities" and "disordered in the mind (like one about to die)" led to modern ironic sense of "affected"

i didnt watch the match so i wouldnt know either way, but hats off to him if he was going for "of excitement that presages death (feeble, cowardly)"