The Guardian Newspaper is Dreadful
I am constantly amazed at the stupidity of just about everybody who writes for the Guardian. Here’s one Madeline Bunting:
Over the course of the 20th century, as our technological ingenuity made war ever more brutal
What the hell is she talking about? Has she never heard of the Somme – more than 1 million dead in five months – or Paschendaele?
That was the bit which I found particularly irritating. But the whole thing is full of nonsense.
Among Saturday’s demonstrators were New Labour’s natural allies – fair-minded, decent people, the kind who don’t walk on the other side of the street.
Ridiculous. New Labour people are fair-minded, decent fellows. Not like those dastardly Lib-Dems. Okay, I accept that Tories are bastards.
They were beautifully British – patiently waiting when the march ground to a halt, politely apologetic if they bumped into you, and not overly friendly, the reserve only cracking briefly and occasionally.
Egregious rubbish. Absurd national stereotype.
We can now imagine, in a way that no previous generation has done, the families – just like our own – in a Baghdad suburb whose lives are now hanging in the balance.
The arrogance here is breathtaking. Our generation – I’m not quite sure which generation this would be – has an imaginative sensibility about suffering lacking in previous generations (because of Saving Private Ryan, it turns out). Bollocks.
A tragic end to a good prime minister who was swept to power on a promise that “things will only get better”.
Brilliant prediction! (No doubt whenever Blair decides he wants to step down, the (morally bankrupt) anti-war mob will claim that it was their doing; in which case: brilliant, necessarily true, prediction, Madeline!)
Why does the Guardian print this nonsense? It’s an embarrassment to the Left. I’ll tell you something about their working practices. About six months ago they rang me – could they speak to Julian B. said the voice:
No, he’s not around.
Oh, are you Jerry S?
Yup.
Well, you’ll do. Would you write something for us about the ethics of this guy who stole money from an enthusiastic cashpoint machine? We need it by tonight.
No I bloody won’t, said I.
They asked without knowing the first thing about me; I’m not a philosopher; I have no training in ethics; I have no interest in cashpoint machines; yet they would have published any old nonsense which I’d have put together. No wonder the Guardian is dreadful.
Now – the trouble with you, Jerry S, is that you never speak your mind. You’re one of those boring polite ever-so-correct types who can’t ever express a forthright opinion because you’re so worried about offending anyone. I do wish you’d pull your socks up and say something decisive for once.
Ah well, I’m going to start on Crooked Timber next, so be afraid, very afraid… ;-)
Jerry,
Thanks for your timely, balanced and nuanced post on the Guardian. It’s high time someone showed the Guardian how to write: no rants, no ad hominems, no baseless generalities, no quoting out of context. You say that you’re not a philosopher. I’m surprised. You could have fooled me. This is truly a piece worthy of Butterflies and Wheels. Keep up the good work.
By the way, what’s the temperature like where you live? It must be really hot.
“You could have fooled me.”
Yes, I probably could.
“yet they would have published any old nonsense which I’d have put together.”
The Guardian didn’t, but Butterflies and Wheels did.
“but Butterflies and Wheels did.”
Fools that they are (not you OB!)…
“Fools that they are”
I guess it takes one to know one.
You’re a love, aren’t you, Fryslan…
xxx
It’s awfully hot over here :-)
Oh, now I get it. You’re being “ironic”. I admit, that’s a hard concept for me to grasp, but I finally figured it out. All on my own. Still, Jerry, the next time you make such a post could you give us a hint ahead of time, it saves a lot of wasted time on my part. (Not being ironic, though)
Fryslan
Where is over here?
Anyway, you’re not seriously telling me that Bunting’s article was anything other than hopeless, are you?
Notwithstanding my attack on the morality of anti-war protestors – which I admit was a little provocative (though defensible) – I stand by everything I said.
I collect Guardian idiocies – it’s a hobby – I could post a whole lot more. Classic Guardian frontpage headline just after the fuel protests of September 2000 (I’m paraphrasing):
Labour’s poll standing permanently damaged by fuel protest
Hilarious. I can just imagine them coming up with that one; permanently damaged! How could you ever know such a thing?
If you want more examples, check out these posts:
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=117
http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/notesarchive.php?id=79
The Guardian is a terrible newspaper. Everyday there are examples of this kind of rubbish.
I have no intention of being nice about it.
Like I said : you showed them how to write.
All we have to do is follow your enlightened example.
“I collect Guardian idiocies – it’s a hobby”
Strange hobby. I guess different strokes for different folks. Do you collect from other sources as well? Do you ever have time left then?
“you showed them how to write.”
But that’s a useless argument.
I don’t make any claims for my writing ability; I’m not even a hack. But, as a result, I turn down opportunities to write for the press, to appear on television, etc. I know the level that I’m at.
I have no problem with people being useless. I have a problem with people being useless on mass circulation newspapers.
“Do you collect from other sources as well?”
Yes. For example, I have just about every copy of the Sun newspaper from the 1983, 1987 and 1992 election campaigns. If you like I could scan you a cartoon from their 1987 coverage where they dressed Neil Kinnock in a dunces hat, and claimed that by any standards he was an ignorant man.
But this has no bearing on the fact that the Guardian is largely hopeless.
*Your* discussion is about the Guardian. Fine. My discussion is about rants, your’s being a perfect example. Truly B & W material.
“Fine.”
So what’s your complaint?
You know that you haven’t actually said where I’m substantively wrong about Bunting’s piece?
If I was cruel – and really I’m lovely – I might suggest that your posts have pretty much all been ad hominem; small rants, if you like.
Not that I mind; I like ad hominem arguments.
Well of course it is. B&W is full of rants – especially N&C. We’re hardly impartial! We have a point of view. We can back it up, but we have it.
“We can back it up”
Speak for yourself! ;-)
Oops, crossed. Said the same thing though (except about the lovely part, which of course is just silly), so that’s all right.
cackle
Very well, I can back it up. Except when I can’t.
Oh look, I’ve found the fuel protests story (not bluffing, you see, Fryslan):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,,383661,00.html
Okay, so it doesn’t have the headline, as it did in the newspaper, but classic first sentence! :-)
Well shove it in Nonsense File then.
How about I just shove the Guardian web site in the Nonsense Files?
That should cover it… :-)
OB,
“Well of course it is. B&W is full of rants – especially N&C. We’re hardly impartial! “
Does being partial mean you have to make your case by making rants? It just seems such a weak way of winning an argument.
No, it doesn’t mean you have to, but we like to amuse ourselves, you know! And Jerry S isn’t arguing there, obviously, he’s just pitching a fit. So?
OB,
“No, it doesn’t mean you have to, but we like to amuse ourselves, you know!”
How convenient: Don’t take us seriously folks, but, then again, please do.
Sorry, but I won’t.
“And Jerry S isn’t arguing there, obviously, he’s just pitching a fit.”
IMHO, Jerry *is* arguing.
First, he makes a claim :
“The Guardian Newspaper is Dreadful”
Then, he goes on to make his case.
I call that arguing.So?
“Jerry *is* arguing.”
It’s polemic. I’m right about the Guardian, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to write a thesis on the subject. So I write polemic.
But you *still* haven’t said why you think I’m wrong. All you’ve said – or implied – is that you don’t like rants. So what?
The Guardian is a bad newspaper; the worst of it is the people it employs to write comment.
Jerry,
OK, we agree on one point: you’re doing polemics.
And, no, I don’t have to argue the Guardian’s case.
“It’s polemic. I’m right about the Guardian, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to write a thesis on the subject. So I write polemic.”
There are more choices than either “polemics” or “writing a thesis”.
“But you *still* haven’t said why you think I’m wrong. All you’ve said – or implied – is that you don’t like rants. So what?”
All you’ve given is a negative view regarding the Guardian. As an impartial observer, I have no reason to take that as a sufficient basis to make any judgement on my part. As far as I’m concerned, your “style” and one-sidedness undermines the credibility of your argument. That’s what. But if you want to rant on, be my guest; I’ll just pass over your posts in the future.
“I have no reason to take that as a sufficient basis to make any judgement on my part.”
Well of course you don’t!
“I’ll just pass over your posts in the future.”
Sure. People say this kind of thing; that what they really want to read is well-thought out, well reasoned, measured stuff. But they’re kidding themselves.
After all, just look how many people spend their time over at Crooked Timber…
Ooops. There I go again.
Anyhow, this kind of meta-discussion gets tedious after a while, so feel free to have the last word on the matter, if you wish!
Besides…
“But if you want to rant on, be my guest”
Well, no, not really. More like the other way around, actually.
“People say this kind of thing; that what they really want to read is well-thought out, well reasoned, measured stuff.”
I never say that kind of thing. All I ever want to read is the bus schedule for the 45 bus.
I guess that this is the real B&W slogan:
What they really want to read is well-thought out, well reasoned, measured stuff. But they’re kidding themselves.
– Jerry S.
No, the real B&W slogan is ‘Maxwell House, good to the last drop.’
I’ve always been partial to “Too much pork for just one fork,” myself.
Did they really call you Julian B and Jerry S or are you just not using your surnames here for some reason?
Personally I think the Guardian is a bit like democracy, sort of the least-worst British newspaper. Particularly when you bear in mind the fundamental truth that most columnists are no more qualified to comment than anyone else, and quite probably less qualified to comment than many.
I mean seriously, what are you gonna replace it with? I used to find myself vacillating between the Independent and the Guardian, never sure which one’s smugness irritated me more, eventually the Guardian won by being a bit more lefty. What else is there? The Times practically has no comment, the Telegraph is too right wing for me. You want to watch what you wish for, you don’t want the Guardian comments pages ending up like some watered down Prospect – now there’s an overly worthy and incredibly dull read.
But then I find myself ranting at articles in TPM, its unfortunate that not everyone is as intelligent and well informed as I am.
And oi! What’s all this constant blogging by OB about the perils of assuming the views of large disparate groups of people and then calling the anti-war people morally bankrupt?! I admit the piece is nauseating, particularly (for me) the underlying assumption that these were nice normal protestors and not nasty smelly lefty types (whoch of course means we need to reconsider our views of the anti-fuel and countryside protests). Also, WTF did that insipid film Saving Private Ryan tell us about civilian suffering in war?
“Did they really call you Julian B and Jerry S or are you just not using your surnames here for some reason?”
If people already know our surnames, then fine; but I’m slightly uneasy about associating TPM with B&W (since TPM doesn’t have a viewpoint, whereas B&W does), so prefer that people who don’t know have to do at least a little work to find out (assuming that really they’re not going to care enough to be bothered!).
“The Times practically has no comment,”
I prefer no comment, really. Precisely for the reason you state; most columnists are not qualified to comment.
“then calling the anti-war people morally bankrupt?”
I’m just reversing the accusation which is frequently thrown at us pro-war types!
And actually, I might not be entirely in agreement with OB about groups; I’m a sociologist, after all, and sociology is all about groups. The caveat here, of course, is that it is necessary to think very carefully about exactly what it is one is doing when one makes statements about groups (in other words, you can’t shift up and down levels of abstraction just any old how).
I haven’t got a copy of it here, but I seem to remember an article in TPM in recent memory claiming that identical twins could serve as a test of physicalist theories of mind – don’t remember if it was meant entirely seriously but still, move over Madeline Bunting!
“that identical twins could serve as a test of physicalist theories of mind”
Yes, I remember that one! :-)
I assumed it wasn’t meant seriously (wasn’t it part of the series called “Provocations”?).
But I’m not the editor of TPM…
I can’t remember if it was provocations or maybe Matthew Iredale’s sci-phi series – but just pointing out that we can all find annoying things in even the most sparkling of publications ;-)
But back to my original dig – sodding Prospect, like the worst of the Economist and New Statesman edited by Melvyn Bragg – I reckon that’s where your uardian comments page would end up if you tried to inject some intellect.
See, I can’t even write Guardian without spelling it wrong – its sodding catching!
“we can all find annoying things in even the most sparkling of publications”
When Julian and I first started TPM we used to proof read it together. We gave this up after a couple of issues, because inevitably we’d spend all our time ranting about the articles we published!
“I reckon that’s where your Guardian comments page would end up if you tried to inject some intellect.”
You could be right. But the trouble is that the fact that it could be worse isn’t, in and of itself, a justification for the fact that it is awful now.
The trouble with the Bunting article isn’t that it annoys me – lots of well-written stuff annoys me – it is that it is full of nonsense. And I just don’t buy the proposition that nonsense is simply a matter of perspective.
“You could be right. But the trouble is that the fact that it could be worse isn’t, in and of itself, a justification for the fact that it is awful now.”
Well, a serious question, and one, coincidentally, I’ve been wondering about for a while now, how exactly does one become a newspaper columnist?
“how exactly does one become a newspaper columnist?”
Well a lot of these people are journalists – so they will have gone down the traditional journalism root.
But the other way is to get your name known for other things (like editing a philosophy magazine!). Then there’s a chance you’ll get asked to write something. If you say yes – and I never do – then, if you’re keen, the opportunity is there to write further stuff.
I’ll tell you another story, to show how absurd it all is. During the build up to the Iraq War I was phoned by ITN News. I don’t know how they got my name, I suspect through TPM Online.
The conversation went like this:
Them: You know a whole load of bishops have just released a statement attacking the government’s policy on the Iraq War.
Me: Yes.
Them: Would you come into the studio to record something for the news tonight.
Me: Err. But I don’t have anything I want to say about it.
Them: Please. We’re really short of time.
Me: No. I don’t want to.
Them: But we’ll send a car to pick you up!
Me: No. Go away.
Seriously. That is absolutely how the conversation went. But it is utterly ridiculous. They would have flagged me up as being some kind of “expert”, but they didn’t give a bugger about whether I was or not.
Something I always like on TV is ‘Professor So-and-so, Cambridge University’ underneath someone’s name – I’m always thinking ‘Professor of what? Theology?’ – I guess it all stems from seeing one of my undergraduate tutors on TV talking absolute bollocks about something he knew nothing about and later on listening in to a call from a TV station to an eminent but nutty neuroscientist (I was there trying to blag a job) as they practically begged him to come and talk some rubbish about consciousness for their discussion show.
“I guess it all stems from seeing one of my undergraduate tutors on TV talking absolute bollocks about something he knew nothing about”
Yup. This is exactly how it works. An eminent philosophy professor at a London University once told me that he never said no to requests from the media because, with a little preparation, he was able to talk about anything. Unfortunately, he was wrong about this.
I don’t want any part of it, so I say no to everything (the most amusing being GMTV, where Julian had to go on by himself to talk about one of our books, after I refused point blank).
Bloody hell, GMTV – that’s like the big time in our scary topsy-turvy world. I hope he didn’t go all Alain de Botton.
“that’s like the big time in our scary topsy-turvy world.”
Well, it was a Sunday morning slot; about 6.00am! So I don’t suppose there were too many watching!
But even so, we were a little surprised they were interested in the book.
“I prefer no comment, really. Precisely for the reason you state; most columnists are not qualified to comment.”
Uh oh. There goes Notes and Comment then…
For the record, I think I marched that day, not with the polite and reserved and not at all smelly British, but with the even more polite and reserved and even more scentless Finns. Nonetheless, I agree that the article in question is atrocious:
“This was a protest with no leaders and with little to say; it was not interested in debate. The “little” it had to say, was NO. It was as simple as that.”
“NO” has, as far as I know, not stopped any war, much less toppled any government. It’s quite symbolic of the ideological impotence, if you will, of the anti-war movement. With nothing to say, and no interest in debate, the field is left wide open for the Saddam apologists; an all too easy target for proponents of the war to pounce on, and any hope for independently formulating a position on such questions as, say, Kurdistan, is gone.
How Madeleine Bunting came to see infantile apoliticalness as empowerment is beyond me.
“With nothing to say, and no interest in debate, the field is left wide open for the Saddam apologists;”
This is how I would frame my moral bankruptcy argument. There were anti-war types who did have an idea about how to proceed. Peter Tatchell, for example. But the vacuity at the heart of a lot of anti-war argument is striking.
Ok I’ll bite – what is the issue with Crooked Timber?
One day I’m going to write something serious about Crooked Timber (I realise that next to nobody will read it, of course), but for now let’s just say the Blog is not exactly replete with self-deprecation…
“How Madeleine Bunting came to see infantile apoliticalness as empowerment is beyond me.”
There’s a lot of that kind of thing around. It’s just the same with difference feminism, for instance – how that came to be seen as empowering is way beyond me.
I thought Tatchell’s stunt with the placards about palestinian authority human rights abuses was pretty damn stupid.
I mean, yes, make the point, but don’t carry big placards saying ‘Palestine Stop Persecuting Queers’ on a demonstration to ‘Free Palestine’. And then getting all sanctimonious about it when he knew perfectly well it would detract from the message of the march, and, lets face it, that he did it to stir up trouble.
PM
Ah, we we fundamentally disagree about Tatchell, then. I thought that was an excellent protest.
He has no money, so he needs to cook up stunts in order to generate publicity. More power to him, I reckon.
I’ve always been a big fan of Tatchell and Outrage.
Yes, but he was being disingenuous in his faux-shock at people being annoyed with him. Essentially he was making a point, don’t brush other human rights abuses and particularly dodgy beliefs by Muslim groups, under the carpet in the name of solidarity. But he made out that he was just joining the protest for Palestinian solidarity, when in fact he was protesting -against- the Palestinian solidarity movement, and ‘Palestine’ (presumably the Palestinian authority).
So personally I was annoyed both by his disrupting a protest that had good aims (i.e. it wasn’t the time to be doing it), and also for his pretending that wasn’t what he was doing. Oh, and he’s a Green, that’s practically Lib Dem in lefty eyes.
But this is all tactics; faux-shock – it makes a point.
Anyway, there is something shocking about Arab/Muslim homophobia, even if it isn’t surprising.
And yes, that’s a generalisation about a group of people!
And also yes, there are plenty of homophobic non-Muslims.
Shame about the Green thing, I admit.
“So personally I was annoyed both by his disrupting a protest that had good aims (i.e. it wasn’t the time to be doing it)”
I agree with about 95% of what you post on B&W, and if I find myself disagreeing, I will spend a bit longer reviewing my own stance on the matter at hand. That said, I disagree with the above. It was exactly the time to be doing it, because any other time it would not have got the attention it did. It was also very apt to use a demonstration about oppression of palestinians, to bring to light a bit of their own oppression of others. The palestinians make it hard enough for many to support their (just) cause by their blowing themselves and Isreali civillians up. It is also hard to feel sorry for people that claim they are being persecuted, when they are perpetrators of persecution as well.
Come on chaps, we’re getting off message. There’s acres more slagging off the Guardian to be covered. I’ve been buying it for over fifteen years, and frankly it changed after Labour victory 1997 from being a sober, occasionally dour but critically acclaimed enunciator of certain non-establishment views, largely Labour supporting, but conservative in delivery, but most importantly priding itself as being a vessel for acute and impartial reportage, and strong editorial.
It has latterly become part fluffy romp through popular culture, part ‘politics as lifestyle’ magazine, and the odd bit of serious reporting tacked on. The op-eds are increasingly predictable in their right-on, reality-ducking lunacy (recently we were told how a recent exponential increase in homicidal homophobia in Jamaica is the fault of – you guessed it – the English!)
It has become a much more refined ‘product’ in that sense; the Guardian Media Group (which also owns the chronically loss making Observer) have defined their demograph as largely old lefties and ‘middle class’ trendy suburbanites between 19 and 35. It is towards second demograph that the shop-bought, ill thought out assumptions about geo-politics and political culture are aimed. But the reality is that the intelligent readership are regularly insulted by the intellectual baseness of it’s vastly overpaid contributors and silly, smug, columnists, who seem to have nothing to offer than the lazily arranged set of pigeon-holes in which to put down anyone who doesn’t buy their new-age, simplistic, posturing, privileged, hypocritical chattering-class twaddle.
One fears that the news content is becoming biased also, in that it is editorialised towards those same sets of lazy assumptions, for the sake of a more cogent ‘product’. The Independent is a budget version of this. The Guardian is like the Times with an added ‘coolness’ barometer to check that your opinions are correct about anything to do with gender, geo-politics, race, etc. A great tool to arm yourself before an important North London dinner party, no doubt, but little use to most of us.
ChrisM,
Well, for a start, I think you can make a distinction between Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority, just as you can between Israelis and the Israeli Government (although I guess with the latter, being more democratic, it is not as clear).
And I totally concede that it ws effective at bringing about its goal. But it achieved that goal at the expense of the Palestinian Solidarity movement. Now if Tatchell thinks that is the right order of priorities, then fair enough, but he doesn’t say that, he claimed that they were just along to support the campaign. That is what i don’t like more than anything, if you’re going to do aomething like that at least have the decency to admit it, not get all sanctimonious.
“It is also hard to feel sorry for people that claim they are being persecuted, when they are perpetrators of persecution as well.”
Oh come on, fuck the Black people they don’t like the Asians?! That is not the way to go about things.
Nick
Needless to say, I agree with all you say.
ChrisM, I think I probably disagree with you, but this isn’t the place to discuss the Palestinian-Israeli conflict methinks.
As for the anti-Semitism, Palestinian connection, I was making an analogy between defending oppressed groups (as in the Black/Asian thing as well), like Jews and Palestinians as an unconditional thing, while also trying to oppose any beliefs or practices that they may practice/favour/support such as oppressing Palestinians or gay people respectively.
“but this isn’t the place to discuss the Palestinian-Israeli conflict methinks.”
I agree!
Sounds as if we need a good article on How the Guardian has Changed Over Time.
“I was making an analogy between defending oppressed groups (as in the Black/Asian thing as well), like Jews and Palestinians as an unconditional thing”.
In principle, I agree with the above. However, in reality if a cause wants to attract supporters, it has to market itself. Afterall it is after the time and/or other resources of people. A cause whose beneficies have their own record of repression is likely to put off some people who have plenty of other worthy causes to choose to support.
Re the Isreali Palestinian thing. Don’t bother taking anything I have to say on that too seriously. I flip-flop and change my mind on that one on a daily basis. FWIW, I’ll keep sctoom on it from now on.
Yeah…that thing about defending oppressed groups as an unconditional thing is one that needs careful thought, it seems to me. That’s where the left so often goes bonkers these days, surely – via unconditional support for groups that are in some sense oppressed but that are also oppressive. If the support really is unconditional, why, then it just supports further oppression.
“is one that needs careful thought”
That’s because it is a nonsense prinicple! There must always be thoughts about particulars here.
A very simple thought experiment shows why:
Oppressor A mistreats Oppressor B mainly by expropriating its labour. Harm to B = 20 harm units. Oppressor B mistreats Oppressed C. Harm to C = 60 units. In the absence of the oppression of B, Oppressor B will mistreat Oppressed C to the tune of 120 harm units.
There is no moral requirement here to unconditionally defend Oppressor B.
And the trouble is that it is all too easy to imagine that this kind of calculus has real world equivalents…
“surely – via unconditional support for groups that are in some sense oppressed but that are also oppressive. If the support really is unconditional, why, then it just supports further oppression.”
Not really, because I was talking about defending these people from oppression as being unconditional, versus ChrisM wanting them to be a bit more sympathetic before he made the effort (crudely paraphrasing here ;-)).
“There is no moral requirement here to unconditionally defend Oppressor B”
But, since we’re talking particulars here, given Israeli oppression of Palestinians has bugger all to do with their oppression of gay people, your thought experiment doesn’t apply.
I’m not universalising, I was talking about unconditionally “defending oppressed groups…like Jews and Palestinians”, the key word here being ‘like’, the BNP doesn’t get my sympathy.
“given Israeli oppression of Palestinians has bugger all to do with their oppression of gay people, your thought experiment doesn’t apply.”
It applies because the point of the thought experiment is demonstrate that you have to attend to particulars; you have to do something like this kind of calculus.
It is precisely for this reason that I’m not at all convinced that we should be supporting groups like Palestinian Solidarity. To put it crudely, I’m not convinced that defending the rights of the Palestinians is the way to go about sorting out the Middle East crisis.
“Not really, because I was talking about defending these people from oppression as being unconditional, versus ChrisM wanting them to be a bit more sympathetic before he made the effort (crudely paraphrasing here ;-)).”
I haven’t the time to unconditionally support all causes. (If you assume support to be something more than saying “I sympathise with your plight”). That being the case, I will give of my precious time, to those who are oppressed themselves, but do not oppress others (as best I know). Thankfully Apartheid is over. However, if it was still here and I had a choice between supporting that struggle or the Palestinian one, my time would be given to the AA movement.
“I’m not universalising, I was talking about unconditionally “defending oppressed groups…like Jews and Palestinians”, the key word here being ‘like’, the BNP doesn’t get my sympathy. “
Why not? They are an oppressed group who (given the choice at least) would oppress others. The key word “like” is a bit vague to be key.
I haven’t put the boot in to The Guardian yet in all this excitement. I have nothing new to add to the superb rants against it, but I would like to say that I agree with just about every bad thing said about The Guardian. Then again, I cannot think of a single newspaper I do like. (I’m a BBC.co.uk and B&W person myself ;-).
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. We can be sure the BNP thinks of itself as ever so oppressed. (That’s one problem with victimology – it’s a game anyone can play. And does.)
See? Rants are a good thing.
I feel a bit of a dim Yank with all this Guardian stuff – I quite like the bits I read (and link to). But they tend to be in Books and Education.
There’s our new slogan, to replace the Maxwell House one – ‘B&W, better than the Guardian’
“We can be sure the BNP thinks of itself as ever so oppressed.”
They do; and, in certain ways, they are. But, of course, that’s a good thing.
Just so. Reminds me of a shrewd observation a friend of mine once made – what a good thing repression can be.
Maybe we ought to start a ‘Perverse Aphorisms’ section. ‘Oppression is good’ etc.
Jerry
– I just looked at those links. Bad journalism appears to be universal, even in a newspaper which often carries excellent news reporting. Of course, there’s a reason why Private Eye run Hackwatch…
OB
My bad uncle used to say ‘Schlafen Macht Frei’.
“Of course, there’s a reason why Private Eye run Hackwatch… “
If I may add a recommendation along those lines. http://www.spinsanity.org/ is a superb site which aims to identify, and hold up for ridicule, spin and bias in the media. The posts could be a bit more frequent, but what there is, is very good.
Bad as the guardian is, B&W does seem to be quite good at identifying the few nuggets of good journalism that it occasionaly forgets to remove from its pages.
That is so true. I discovered this site (B&W) through Guardian Unlimited Books talk page (I’m not British), and then I discovered the whole Guardian newspaper thing through links on B&W.
And I have to say that I quite I enjoy the Special Reports it gives on my own country- which is Iran. Much more analytical and critical, than the oh-so-impartial bbc.co.uk articles on Iran.
In fairness to the Guardian, it isn’t The Mail at least. Which only isn’t the worst newspaper because it isn’t a newspaper. More a racist, homophobic rag full of internet scare stories.
“More a racist, homophobic rag full of internet scare stories.”
The Daily Mail is the worst of the lot. Have you seen its headline today – scaremongering about vaccinations. Bastards.
Worse – it is by far the most successful UK newspaper currently…
“Have you seen its headline today – scaremongering about vaccinations. Bastards.”
Sadly yes. Hope they feel pleased when they are partially responsible for the next epidemic of these diseases.
I also saw last week the scare stories about “Manhunt” (the computer game with graphic violance) they were running. It turns out that it was the VICTIM, not the MURDERER, who owned the game anyway. I have yet to see a correction in the Mail.
The Luddites only got themselves a website a few months ago.
Nick S. Is it more sucessfull than the Sun now? Please say no. I prefer the Sun even to that wretched organ.
I certainly know that bewilderingly, it is the most popular newspaper with women. The level of misogyny in that paper is boggling. Recently it had a article in its ‘Femail’ section (which is a true font of fashionable nonsense, quite at odds with its hectoring, explicitly christian tone elsewhere) in which it profiled celebrities and compared their true age with their ‘body’ age or some such, based on selecting unattractive features to conclude that ‘yachtswoman Emma Richards may have achieved great things by circumnavigating the globe, but her dumpy frame makes her look 52!’ (Not exact quote).
The Mail resemble to me a frosty, embittered maiden aunt who seeks to destroy everything around her – a grumpier and dynamic Miss Havisham.
Chris, no, you’re right. It’s the fatsest growing and has the most cash; the Sun moves a few hundred thousand more numbers however.
“the Sun moves a few hundred thousand more numbers however.”
The Sun isn’t as bad.
It’s dreadful on asylum, crime and Europe. But (largely) sensible on Blair, Iraq, race (with caveats – but, for example, a recent headline was B(loody) N(asty) P(arty)), vaccinations(!), etc.
The Mail is awful on everything.
What Evie says is interesting.
“And I have to say that I quite I enjoy the Special Reports it gives on my own country- which is Iran. Much more analytical and critical, than the oh-so-impartial bbc.co.uk articles on Iran.”
It seems to me some of the stuff in their Thpecial Reporting is pretty good – but I haven’t read all that much of it. Am I batty?
Polite Right Wing Bastard that I am, I won’t comment on Jerry S’s ex cathedra statement that ‘The Mail is awful on everything’, although it certainly sucks where health scares are concerned. However, to return to our sheep, let me say one thing in favour of the Guardian (as compared, say, with my beloved Telegraph):
At this writing, there are a total of 391 Guardian online articles which contain the word ‘blog’, while The Telegraph has a mere 16. In other words, the blog-awareness of The Guardian is 24 times higher than that of The Telegraph. Which means also that most readers of The Telegraph must be totally unfamiliar with the blogosphere – and, no doubt, with Butterflies and Wheels.
Just think of all those potential converts, if only The Telegraph would draw attention to your existence …
“Polite Right Wing Bastard that I am…”
“…(as compared, say, with my beloved Telegraph):…”
Actually, although I would not consider myself right wing, I would rate The Telegraph as the best read too. The writing is better than most other papers, and the columnists generally very good as well. Even the science stories are often semi-scientifically literate (and sometimes more than that even).
Very true.
Mind you, the Sunday Times mentioned us once.
But that’s nothing compared to the amount of exposure we’ve had via the Guardian. They’ve republished articles of ours several times – four or five I think. Which just goes to show how impartial not to say foolhardy we are, munching on the hand that – well it doesn’t feed us, but it does pay attention to us.
I was misquoted in the Sunday Telegraph once… ;-)
Actually, come to think of it, that’s another funny story about how journalism works.
They phoned me up to ask whether I would comment on the fact that the BBC were running so many repeats. Some BBC spokesperson had said that repeats weren’t repeats for anybody who hadn’t seen the programme the first time around. They wanted this deconstructed or something.
Anyway, as is my policy, I said that no, I didn’t want to comment, but that I knew somebody who would. However this person’s phone number was on my computer which needed booting up. Whilst I was waiting for it to boot, I said something banal about what the BBC had said. And the guy on the other end of the phone said: “That’s great, thanks”, and put the phone down. Lo and behold, there I was misquoted in the next Suday’s paper.
So journalists are not to be trusted is the moral of that – not so funny, after all – story.
Actually, that story is pretty damn funny. At least, it certainly caused me to give a loud cackle.
I’ve been misquoted in a newspaper too (she said proudly). It was just the local rag, though, not a national paper, or even a pseudo-national paper like the NY Times or Washington Post or LA Times or Boston Globe.
“It seems to me some of the stuff in their Thpecial Reporting is pretty good – but I haven’t read all that much of it. Am I batty?”
Well, it depends how interested you are in, say, the view of a journalist who’s been kicked out of your country because of reporting on the frustration of the Bam (you know- the earthquake?) people at slow / non-aid arrival.
What’s with the “Thpecial…”? Irony? remember I’m non-British- I don’t always get the “British humour” bit.
Very interested, that’s how. I linked to some articles on Bam a long time ago, I think, when B&W was new. About the local mullahs giving some sort of dispensation to builders to ignore building codes – with the bad results we know about.
I’m not British either. Yes ‘thpecial’ is irony. It’s a sort of woolly word…