When you look at the state of some ostensibly progressive media organisations these days, it’s hard to understand how their more talented employees find the energy to get up in the morning. Imagine starting your career inspired by visions of Woodward and Bernstein and Pulitzer Prizes, and ending up having to capitulate to a rapist’s preferred pronouns.
Imagine having your painstaking investigative work on the cost-of-living crisis or the Ukrainian war sit alongside a piece called “How I freed myself from inherited gender roles and stopped feeling unworthy of my own womanhood”, written by someone called Jeremy. Or imagine opining critically about the role of “disinformation” in a publication which also accuses mainstream media outlets of using a “technique employed in Nazi Germany to silence trans people”. The brave souls enduring these indignities at the hands of their colleagues are the real journalist heroes. Truly, it must be a slog.
Earlier this week, former Guardian columnist Hadley Freeman gave a revealing interview to Woman’s Hour about her time at the paper, describing it as an initially happy marriage but one in which her partner eventually became a “conspiracy theorist”. A few years ago, while Freeman was away on a work trip, representatives from lobbyist organisation All About Trans — who had a close working relationship with Mermaids at the time — were brought in to talk about “how trans people should be discussed in the media”. In the course of their intervention (the chummy flavour of which presumably can be gauged from this piece about the same group lobbying the BBC Newsnight team in 2016), two relatively innocuous pieces of Freeman’s were presented to her colleagues as examples of transphobia, she said.
From then on, her viewpoint was dismissed by colleagues as “mean”. Editors would repeatedly refuse pitches from her about Mermaids or J.K. Rowling on the flimsiest of excuses, while continuing to publish gushing pieces about child transition. At one point, she said, senior management told her that only journalists with relevant specialities, who also happened to be male, could write about the politics of gender. Books by gender-critical authors were uniformly passed over for review, and only a single interview with one such author made it onto the page (that is, with me — albeit in the education and not the main section, and with a lot of anxiety on the part of the section editor as I recall). Meanwhile, as befits a good and obedient Stonewall Diversity Champion, trans memoir after memoir was puffed in the paper, approved mantras were intoned, and stories of wrong bodies and wrongthink abounded.
Though Guardian management were not prepared to send a representative to discuss the matter, in a prepared response read out by interviewer Emma Barnett a spokesperson explained, as if talking very slowly to toddlers, or to Russian citizens during the Soviet period: “All writers work with their editors to decide the topics on which they write. This is a completely standard practice across the media. That is not censorship. It is editing”. It is perhaps hard to understand how such a venerable and supposedly sophisticated publication could have reached this level of audience infantilisation. It’s almost as if they think their readers are idiots.
Actually, I’ve come to think that they do think some of their readers are idiots — a fact which partly explains progressive policing and censorship around discussion of gender identity, as well as other controversial topics too. One reason why someone might talk to a group of people as if they were stupid is inadvertent: namely, if the person is himself an idiot and simply trying to describe the world as he sincerely sees it. Into this category would seem to fall some of the gender lobbyists generally benighting our institutions and instructing newspapers what to write. Recent court cases in which they have appeared as witnesses have afforded ample opportunity to scrutinise the extent of their knowledge of biology, ethics, and childhood development. Pearls of wisdom offered include: “describing any particular transwoman as male is inherently transphobic and abusive, unless that trans person as an individual has asked you to do so” (Kirrin Medcalf, Stonewall Head of Trans Inclusion), and “I am not clear that children come out of the womb with a sex, to be honest” (Dr Belinda Bell, Chair of Mermaids trustees).
As it happens, I once met the founder of All About Trans, the transactivist body named by Freeman as involved in lobbying the Guardian. Nathalie McDermott, not herself trans, met me for coffee in a hotel near the BBC in January 2019. Our companions were fellow gender-sceptic Graham Linehan and transwoman Ayla Holdom, a patron of Mermaids and consultant for All About Trans. The meeting was initiated by McDermott, who seemed convinced that if only we sceptics could meet the eminently likeable and reasonable Holdom, we would seamlessly extrapolate outwards to anyone else who identifies as a woman for whatever reason, and our strong doubts about things like putting males in women’s prisons or women’s sporting competitions might be quashed.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeTo be fair, any reader who still takes the guardian seriously probably IS an idiot. I occasionally still frequent it out of curiosity but it’s always the same, incredibly overprivileged authors who are desperate to paint themselves as victims (or heroes) with stories that are completely detached from reality and the comment section is no better. It’s truly a pathetic sight to behold.
I was banned by the Guardian so many times they finally wore me out and I gave up commenting – although really because they stopped allowing comments on 99% of the stories because it was increasingly hard to get the outcome they wished. (and I must say I was respectful, and always used, quotes, C and P from good sources, or links to show this was not my opinion, but a proper study, anytime appropriate, and never trolled)
But – the writer here, being a Philosophy professor by trade may not know much of the world fringe, like us anti-vaxers do. The big thing now is to be against all Covid response and the vax – and one of the main names is Matis Desmet, who has the third reason, and the best reason, that Guardian Lies every story, and the readers take it as truth – ‘‘Mass Formation” (psychosis is sometimes added)
Mass Formation gave us a explanation for all the most famous heinous times citizens just went crazy with a charismatic leader and did things like cause WWII. Like how the very good German people, Twice 20+ years, suddenly went crazy and to a war of conquest and slaughter. Mass Formation – all covid was Mass Formation, and also a crime against humanity. It is in his book ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’. It is exactly what has taken the Guardian readers, crazy stuff. As Matias says – it makes no difference if the cause makes no sense, or is obviously lies – none at all, once the Formation has arisen
”The world is in the grips of mass formation―a dangerous, collective type of hypnosis―as we bear witness to loneliness, free-floating anxiety, and fear giving way to censorship, loss of privacy, and surrendered freedoms. It is all spurred by a singular, focused crisis narrative that forbids dissident views and relies on destructive groupthink.
Desmet’s work on mass formation theory was brought to the world’s attention on The Joe Rogan Experience and in major alternative news outlets around the globe. Read this book to get beyond the sound bites!
Totalitarianism is not a coincidence and does not form in a vacuum. It arises from a collective psychosis that has followed a predictable script throughout history, its formation gaining strength and speed with each generation―from the Jacobins to the Na* is and Stalinists―as technology advances.”
https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Totalitarianism-Mattias-Desmet/dp/1645021726/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1670559284&refinements=p_27%3AMattias+Desmet&s=books&sr=1-1+
I had an identical experience at the Guardian.
I too went out of my way to adhere to community guidelines but still, without fail, my account was disabled each and every time within 3 months.
My conclusion was that in such an environment – where the groupthink is so strong – any dissent typically results in an hysterical response from the radicalised readership, so a comment that doesn’t toe the line or actively challenges prevailing persectives *always* provokes people. Myself and others that lend a different point of view can therefore always be accused of trolling and booted off.
The funiest thing though is that historically, the disabling of my account always follows very well upticked remarks that are then deleted post hoc; a spiteful punishment no doubt from the moderators who are tired of having to read things they don’t like or scared of others reading them.
I got banned from commenting on the Guardian for the first time more than three years ago. I believe the combination of my disagreement with their writers (always expressed politely) and the number of upvotes I was receiving was the reason for my first account being disabled, as I somehow represented a threat to their groupthink.
My subsequent accounts got deleted after only a handful of months until I too simply gave up and went over to the Daily Mail instead (I had similar issues with the Independent’s comment sections, and the Mail seems to actively desire bickering within their comments sections, so offers a far less censorious space so long as you ignore the sidebar of shame and the excess of stories on royals and celebrities).
Of course- it was your extraordinary popularity that got you banned. That’ll definitely be it.
Personal delusion aside, I’ve been banned twice from Cif, and I’m an evil Lefty. It is indeed very easy to get moderated there- being ‘off-topic’, mild abuse, excessive sarcasm are all disallowed, excessively so. As is scientific disinformation, a fact that drives ‘The planet is getting cooler’ and ‘vaccines are chips implanted by Bill Gates’ types hysterical.
But its a self-serving myth that dissenting voices per se are banned. For example, the comments below two recent articles about Just Stop Oil were around three to one in favour of driving SUVs over the vile, “middle class” bodies of these desicable “virtue-signallers”- hardly the Guardian line.
Sorry to interrupt the free-flowing of the mutual narrative here, but there you go.
I was banned merely for linking a scientific peer-reviewed paper on the dangers of sexual reassignment surgery. The problem with the Guardian is that it presents its opinion pieces as inarguable facts. I disagree with many of your lop-sided comments here but I wouldn’t want to see you banned.
What is Ci f?
Comment is free. It’s the Guarniads umbrella term for all comment, both journalist and reader.
No , the Grauniad does not believe in freedom of speech and expression . I’ve know the paper for many decades and it was not too bad once but for years now it has gone full on Marxist .
No , the Grauniad does not believe in freedom of speech and expression . I’ve know the paper for many decades and it was not too bad once but for years now it has gone full on Marxist .
Comment is free. It’s the Guarniads umbrella term for all comment, both journalist and reader.
Let’s try the Nuffield report on why people voted for Brexit. The one that also noted that people who voted remain had failed to understand peoples reasons for voting leave.
Presumably you would consider that scientific misinformation?
Demonstrably untrue . The Guardian doesnt allow comments from anyone on much of its output.
I was banned merely for linking a scientific peer-reviewed paper on the dangers of sexual reassignment surgery. The problem with the Guardian is that it presents its opinion pieces as inarguable facts. I disagree with many of your lop-sided comments here but I wouldn’t want to see you banned.
What is Ci f?
Let’s try the Nuffield report on why people voted for Brexit. The one that also noted that people who voted remain had failed to understand peoples reasons for voting leave.
Presumably you would consider that scientific misinformation?
Demonstrably untrue . The Guardian doesnt allow comments from anyone on much of its output.
You’ve obviously found your “intellectual”home.
Of course- it was your extraordinary popularity that got you banned. That’ll definitely be it.
Personal delusion aside, I’ve been banned twice from Cif, and I’m an evil Lefty. It is indeed very easy to get moderated there- being ‘off-topic’, mild abuse, excessive sarcasm are all disallowed, excessively so. As is scientific disinformation, a fact that drives ‘The planet is getting cooler’ and ‘vaccines are chips implanted by Bill Gates’ types hysterical.
But its a self-serving myth that dissenting voices per se are banned. For example, the comments below two recent articles about Just Stop Oil were around three to one in favour of driving SUVs over the vile, “middle class” bodies of these desicable “virtue-signallers”- hardly the Guardian line.
Sorry to interrupt the free-flowing of the mutual narrative here, but there you go.
You’ve obviously found your “intellectual”home.
I got banned from commenting on the Guardian for the first time more than three years ago. I believe the combination of my disagreement with their writers (always expressed politely) and the number of upvotes I was receiving was the reason for my first account being disabled, as I somehow represented a threat to their groupthink.
My subsequent accounts got deleted after only a handful of months until I too simply gave up and went over to the Daily Mail instead (I had similar issues with the Independent’s comment sections, and the Mail seems to actively desire bickering within their comments sections, so offers a far less censorious space so long as you ignore the sidebar of shame and the excess of stories on royals and celebrities).
Worth noting, Bill and Melinda have paid the Guardian off.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2020/09/inv017377
And they still have the big yellow banner which claims:
“This kept us fiercely independent, free from shareholders or a billionaire owner.”
The Guardian today is all about promoting Marxism and misinformation , sorry , lies about conservatives .
The Guardian today is all about promoting Marxism and misinformation , sorry , lies about conservatives .
Snap! They Banned me from posting. For posting a Comment on a Gushing Article about Hillary Clinton after she effectively stole the DNC Nomination from Bernie Sanders… my post: “Well done Murica… you just put Trump in the Whitehouse!” Haha, admittedly that was a bit cheeky. But, I had very good reasons for posting that comment and indeed was in time proven right. The comment received getting on 300 responses of vile abuse aimed at me. And then banned me… Since Alan Rusbridger left, the Guardian has become insufferable.
Well your comment was correct – it did put Trump in the White House. One poll of people who said they would vote Trump said that 37% had serious doubts about him. It was just the other choice was so awful.
The reason that such a large % of folk had grave doubts about him was because almost all of the corrupt media was and still is extreme left and to win anything while fighting against that lot is truly an accomplishment ! And that is why Pres.Trump had such a hard Presidency , the media was telling lies about him right from the beginning , it’s called TDS remember and the lefty media did exactly the same to him in the UK where before the election he was actually a very popular man . They just lied and lied and continue to lie , shamelessly .
The reason that such a large % of folk had grave doubts about him was because almost all of the corrupt media was and still is extreme left and to win anything while fighting against that lot is truly an accomplishment ! And that is why Pres.Trump had such a hard Presidency , the media was telling lies about him right from the beginning , it’s called TDS remember and the lefty media did exactly the same to him in the UK where before the election he was actually a very popular man . They just lied and lied and continue to lie , shamelessly .
To be honest Gol I was never very impressed with Rusbridger either .
Well your comment was correct – it did put Trump in the White House. One poll of people who said they would vote Trump said that 37% had serious doubts about him. It was just the other choice was so awful.
To be honest Gol I was never very impressed with Rusbridger either .
I was targetted and banned by them years ago , community guidelines are nonsense and they just allow the young Marxist censors to ban anyone immediately they find they are conservative . We mustn’t be allowed to upset free run at recruiting every teenager into Marxism by filling their heads with lies about conservatives .
I had an identical experience at the Guardian.
I too went out of my way to adhere to community guidelines but still, without fail, my account was disabled each and every time within 3 months.
My conclusion was that in such an environment – where the groupthink is so strong – any dissent typically results in an hysterical response from the radicalised readership, so a comment that doesn’t toe the line or actively challenges prevailing persectives *always* provokes people. Myself and others that lend a different point of view can therefore always be accused of trolling and booted off.
The funiest thing though is that historically, the disabling of my account always follows very well upticked remarks that are then deleted post hoc; a spiteful punishment no doubt from the moderators who are tired of having to read things they don’t like or scared of others reading them.
Worth noting, Bill and Melinda have paid the Guardian off.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2020/09/inv017377
And they still have the big yellow banner which claims:
“This kept us fiercely independent, free from shareholders or a billionaire owner.”
Snap! They Banned me from posting. For posting a Comment on a Gushing Article about Hillary Clinton after she effectively stole the DNC Nomination from Bernie Sanders… my post: “Well done Murica… you just put Trump in the Whitehouse!” Haha, admittedly that was a bit cheeky. But, I had very good reasons for posting that comment and indeed was in time proven right. The comment received getting on 300 responses of vile abuse aimed at me. And then banned me… Since Alan Rusbridger left, the Guardian has become insufferable.
I was targetted and banned by them years ago , community guidelines are nonsense and they just allow the young Marxist censors to ban anyone immediately they find they are conservative . We mustn’t be allowed to upset free run at recruiting every teenager into Marxism by filling their heads with lies about conservatives .
Yes, I force myself to read it a couple of times a month. It’s f*****g difficult.
But hilarious too – they are just so deluded.
I must try this
I must try this
I just can’t any more.
But hilarious too – they are just so deluded.
I just can’t any more.
I go through phases where I comment on Guardian articles on FB…. Something akin to lobbing a hand grenade into the midst from afar, then retreating from the fray completely. Just a bit of fun because they are so stuck in the basket of ideas that they have signed up for and are oh so earnest.
interestingly I did comment yesterday on what I think of Haz and Megs and Netflix and it has been super well received in the main. Gotta think about that one. It looks like the basket of ideas has a tiny bit of fraying at the edges.
That unexpected response is a bit like the Washington Post to which I subscribe in order to get insights into American progressives – almost always on the woke side but just sometimes you see readers reacting against woke. The readers berated any criticism of the Queen by the WaPo for example.
“..berated any criticism of the Queen..”
So being ‘unwoke’ involves free opinions about the monarchy being unacceptable and not allowed?
Are we still complaining about the `Guardian being closed-minded and intolerant? Help me out here…
I agree you need help. The readers disagreed with WaPo’s woke position on the monarchy and the Queen. That doesn’t make them closeminded. How is that intolerant? I doubt any of those readers said anything about negative opinions of the monarchy being “unacceptable and not allowed.” Not very clever.
No, it was READERS berating the criticism of the Queen. Very different from the media banning or deleting dissent. Try and keep up feller.
Thanks – maybe I wasn’t clear enough!
Thanks – maybe I wasn’t clear enough!
I agree you need help. The readers disagreed with WaPo’s woke position on the monarchy and the Queen. That doesn’t make them closeminded. How is that intolerant? I doubt any of those readers said anything about negative opinions of the monarchy being “unacceptable and not allowed.” Not very clever.
No, it was READERS berating the criticism of the Queen. Very different from the media banning or deleting dissent. Try and keep up feller.
“..berated any criticism of the Queen..”
So being ‘unwoke’ involves free opinions about the monarchy being unacceptable and not allowed?
Are we still complaining about the `Guardian being closed-minded and intolerant? Help me out here…
my husband does much the same.
…fraying at the edges..”
Not really- given that the official`guardian review of the programme described it as “sick-making”, and not in a good way.
That unexpected response is a bit like the Washington Post to which I subscribe in order to get insights into American progressives – almost always on the woke side but just sometimes you see readers reacting against woke. The readers berated any criticism of the Queen by the WaPo for example.
my husband does much the same.
…fraying at the edges..”
Not really- given that the official`guardian review of the programme described it as “sick-making”, and not in a good way.
Anyone who reads the Guardian is either stupid or evil. Usually both.
That’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, but I’m guessing you are not being 100% serious
You’d only know that if you’ve read the Guardian.
Do you mean “anyone who believes it”? I read it to see what modern national socialists think. We all have some contact with the public sector even if we minimise it. The grauniad is a sacred text to many of them like the writings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal are to his followers. Their neurolinguistics display the texts’ central tenets. So you can tell the true beleivers from those hanging on for the ride after the Kool Aid wore off. Whilst both are dangerous the latter are not complete automata and some human connection with them is possible. I accept we are all capable of some evil and stupidity sometimes but the “true believers”, whatever their beliefs, always seem to get the high scores.
Very true David, decades ago it used to be OK but for years now it is an evil propaganda sheet for the Marxists .
That’s an absolutely ridiculous thing to say, but I’m guessing you are not being 100% serious
You’d only know that if you’ve read the Guardian.
Do you mean “anyone who believes it”? I read it to see what modern national socialists think. We all have some contact with the public sector even if we minimise it. The grauniad is a sacred text to many of them like the writings of Ahmad ibn Hanbal are to his followers. Their neurolinguistics display the texts’ central tenets. So you can tell the true beleivers from those hanging on for the ride after the Kool Aid wore off. Whilst both are dangerous the latter are not complete automata and some human connection with them is possible. I accept we are all capable of some evil and stupidity sometimes but the “true believers”, whatever their beliefs, always seem to get the high scores.
Very true David, decades ago it used to be OK but for years now it is an evil propaganda sheet for the Marxists .
I am increasingly unable to tolerate the Guardian.
Think of it as a challenge. You rage you loose.
*lose
*lose
Don’t then , or do you just mean it’s very existence ? I would agree with that if I didn’t believe in freedom of speech .
Think of it as a challenge. You rage you loose.
Don’t then , or do you just mean it’s very existence ? I would agree with that if I didn’t believe in freedom of speech .
I see the NYT, the New Yorker, The Boston Globe, LA Times and the New Yorker in much the same way.
Just not worth the time anymore.
Funny, did you watch the Munk Debate on whether the Mainstream Media is to be trusted? The “No” side won by a record margin.
I pay a bundle for Substacks by Taibbi, Weis and others. Probably $300 a year in total. Plus I pay here. Canceled my cable because I wont waste time on CNN, FOX or MSNBC and I get everything else from streaming services. The NYT is always sending me emails offering me cheap subscriptions for like a dollar a week or such. Never once been tempted to sign up.
At some point you have to think that the economics of people bailing on them is gonna smack them in the head and cause them to wake up, but I have my doubts.
THOUGH, I wonder about what is going on at CNN.
I’d be willing to bet they’d find funders in the elite who value the corporate press’s narrative-forming function in that case, if it’s not already happening
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2020/09/inv017377
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2020/09/inv017377
CNN actually feels like it’s become a bit less woke recently.
Do you believe it ? They came under new ownership but has the boss kept his promise yet , is there any reputation to salvage ?
Do you believe it ? They came under new ownership but has the boss kept his promise yet , is there any reputation to salvage ?
The most interesting thing about the excellent Munk debate was that the prior vote was highly in favour of trusting the media but this was reversed by the post
I’d be willing to bet they’d find funders in the elite who value the corporate press’s narrative-forming function in that case, if it’s not already happening
CNN actually feels like it’s become a bit less woke recently.
The most interesting thing about the excellent Munk debate was that the prior vote was highly in favour of trusting the media but this was reversed by the post
“All the virtue signaling that’s fit to print “
I was banned by the Guardian so many times they finally wore me out and I gave up commenting – although really because they stopped allowing comments on 99% of the stories because it was increasingly hard to get the outcome they wished. (and I must say I was respectful, and always used, quotes, C and P from good sources, or links to show this was not my opinion, but a proper study, anytime appropriate, and never trolled)
But – the writer here, being a Philosophy professor by trade may not know much of the world fringe, like us anti-vaxers do. The big thing now is to be against all Covid response and the vax – and one of the main names is Matis Desmet, who has the third reason, and the best reason, that Guardian Lies every story, and the readers take it as truth – ‘‘Mass Formation” (psychosis is sometimes added)
Mass Formation gave us a explanation for all the most famous heinous times citizens just went crazy with a charismatic leader and did things like cause WWII. Like how the very good German people, Twice 20+ years, suddenly went crazy and to a war of conquest and slaughter. Mass Formation – all covid was Mass Formation, and also a crime against humanity. It is in his book ‘The Psychology of Totalitarianism’. It is exactly what has taken the Guardian readers, crazy stuff. As Matias says – it makes no difference if the cause makes no sense, or is obviously lies – none at all, once the Formation has arisen
”The world is in the grips of mass formation―a dangerous, collective type of hypnosis―as we bear witness to loneliness, free-floating anxiety, and fear giving way to censorship, loss of privacy, and surrendered freedoms. It is all spurred by a singular, focused crisis narrative that forbids dissident views and relies on destructive groupthink.
Desmet’s work on mass formation theory was brought to the world’s attention on The Joe Rogan Experience and in major alternative news outlets around the globe. Read this book to get beyond the sound bites!
Totalitarianism is not a coincidence and does not form in a vacuum. It arises from a collective psychosis that has followed a predictable script throughout history, its formation gaining strength and speed with each generation―from the Jacobins to the Na* is and Stalinists―as technology advances.”
https://www.amazon.com/Psychology-Totalitarianism-Mattias-Desmet/dp/1645021726/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1670559284&refinements=p_27%3AMattias+Desmet&s=books&sr=1-1+
Yes, I force myself to read it a couple of times a month. It’s f*****g difficult.
I go through phases where I comment on Guardian articles on FB…. Something akin to lobbing a hand grenade into the midst from afar, then retreating from the fray completely. Just a bit of fun because they are so stuck in the basket of ideas that they have signed up for and are oh so earnest.
interestingly I did comment yesterday on what I think of Haz and Megs and Netflix and it has been super well received in the main. Gotta think about that one. It looks like the basket of ideas has a tiny bit of fraying at the edges.
Anyone who reads the Guardian is either stupid or evil. Usually both.
I am increasingly unable to tolerate the Guardian.
I see the NYT, the New Yorker, The Boston Globe, LA Times and the New Yorker in much the same way.
Just not worth the time anymore.
Funny, did you watch the Munk Debate on whether the Mainstream Media is to be trusted? The “No” side won by a record margin.
I pay a bundle for Substacks by Taibbi, Weis and others. Probably $300 a year in total. Plus I pay here. Canceled my cable because I wont waste time on CNN, FOX or MSNBC and I get everything else from streaming services. The NYT is always sending me emails offering me cheap subscriptions for like a dollar a week or such. Never once been tempted to sign up.
At some point you have to think that the economics of people bailing on them is gonna smack them in the head and cause them to wake up, but I have my doubts.
THOUGH, I wonder about what is going on at CNN.
“All the virtue signaling that’s fit to print “
To be fair, any reader who still takes the guardian seriously probably IS an idiot. I occasionally still frequent it out of curiosity but it’s always the same, incredibly overprivileged authors who are desperate to paint themselves as victims (or heroes) with stories that are completely detached from reality and the comment section is no better. It’s truly a pathetic sight to behold.
The Guardian is trusted by millions of earnest – but often naive – mildly left-leaning readers who haven’t noticed or understood the ideological transition it has made from being a newspaper on the rational liberal left to a critical social justice theory propaganda rag.
For me, “Peak Guardian” was in 2015, with the publication of a story about how George Osborne and his budget ruined some columnist’s Yoga retreat:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/22/george-osborne-ruined-yoga-retreat
You must admit that a ripple or two in your expensive serenity would be a tad annoying?
I wondered why anyone on a yoga retreat would be accessing the outside world for the duration, so his/her/its own fault, really.
Peak? It’s positively Himalyan. These self-regarding, privileged Guardian writers have no shame.
You must admit that a ripple or two in your expensive serenity would be a tad annoying?
I wondered why anyone on a yoga retreat would be accessing the outside world for the duration, so his/her/its own fault, really.
Peak? It’s positively Himalyan. These self-regarding, privileged Guardian writers have no shame.
I think “millions” might be overdoing it a little.
Ha! Ha! Maybe.
I notice their online articles being shared a lot by US based people on social media. So they possibly have millions of people glancing at their shallow signalling – but not paying the subs.
As long as eyeballs hit the screen, they collect $.
As long as eyeballs hit the screen, they collect $.
In their own minds maybe !
Ha! Ha! Maybe.
I notice their online articles being shared a lot by US based people on social media. So they possibly have millions of people glancing at their shallow signalling – but not paying the subs.
In their own minds maybe !
Not sure they have millions of readers anymore. Judging by the ever expanding size of the begging letter at the bottom of the website, I’m not sure its even hundreds of thousands now.
The last time that the Guardian released circulation figures was in 2020 (since then they say that they will no longer be releasing circulation figures). In 2020 it was 0.13M. For comparison The Telegraph was 0.36M, The Times 0.37M, the Financial Times 0.16M, the Daily Mirror 0,45M, the Daily Mail 1.17M.
I often avail myself of one of the Graun’s very decent cryptic crosswords, but only visit the ‘news’ bit so I can see those plaintive cries…
I think you’ve sussed it Andrew .
The last time that the Guardian released circulation figures was in 2020 (since then they say that they will no longer be releasing circulation figures). In 2020 it was 0.13M. For comparison The Telegraph was 0.36M, The Times 0.37M, the Financial Times 0.16M, the Daily Mirror 0,45M, the Daily Mail 1.17M.
I often avail myself of one of the Graun’s very decent cryptic crosswords, but only visit the ‘news’ bit so I can see those plaintive cries…
I think you’ve sussed it Andrew .
Indeed. Most newspapers used to contain news articles dealing with events along with an editorial that presented the Editor’s opinion about what those events mean to the reader. The Guardian started shading its reporting some time ago, relying on named contributors to strengthen the Editorial opinions.
And now… most newspapers have become more editorial. The Guardian used to assert that ‘Facts are sacred’ but in practice ‘Opinions are cheap and easy’.
The same thing happened with the NYT. But this has one-sided journalism has been the strategy for several years now. Only cater to your side. There is no honest reporting anymore. Or at least I have not found any that merely report what happened vs. tell me what I should believe happened.
Mildly left ?
Yes. The ‘useful idiots’ who accept the Trojan horses.
Yes. The ‘useful idiots’ who accept the Trojan horses.
For me, “Peak Guardian” was in 2015, with the publication of a story about how George Osborne and his budget ruined some columnist’s Yoga retreat:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/22/george-osborne-ruined-yoga-retreat
I think “millions” might be overdoing it a little.
Not sure they have millions of readers anymore. Judging by the ever expanding size of the begging letter at the bottom of the website, I’m not sure its even hundreds of thousands now.
Indeed. Most newspapers used to contain news articles dealing with events along with an editorial that presented the Editor’s opinion about what those events mean to the reader. The Guardian started shading its reporting some time ago, relying on named contributors to strengthen the Editorial opinions.
And now… most newspapers have become more editorial. The Guardian used to assert that ‘Facts are sacred’ but in practice ‘Opinions are cheap and easy’.
The same thing happened with the NYT. But this has one-sided journalism has been the strategy for several years now. Only cater to your side. There is no honest reporting anymore. Or at least I have not found any that merely report what happened vs. tell me what I should believe happened.
Mildly left ?
The Guardian is trusted by millions of earnest – but often naive – mildly left-leaning readers who haven’t noticed or understood the ideological transition it has made from being a newspaper on the rational liberal left to a critical social justice theory propaganda rag.
I stopped reading the Guardian in 2020 having been a regular reader for decades and contributed as a freelancer quite a bit. It was partly the idiocy you describe – treating people as idiots makes the treater sound daft too – but more than that it was the sense of there being a line combined with an attitude of overwhelming superiority. For me, the stance on Covid was the last straw, but when I thought about it, the editorial condescension went much further back. One particular example springs to mind: I’d had a piece commissioned on Lebanese refugees in Britain in 2006. It was spiked by Katherine Viner as section editor because their comments didn’t conform to what she’d expected: she clearly had a view of people and events in that part of the world that was entirely at odds with reality, one that was stereotypical and sensationalised for anyone who knew anything about it. Much later, in the Albanian capital of Tirana, I learnt how a Guardian piece aligned with what was the official political narrative – local contacts had offered a wider view that was completely disregarded. So all this to say that the problem with the Guardian is much bigger than the trans issue – it’s about having a ‘correct’ view of the world that must be imposed on readers. It’s ideological detachment from reality par excellence.
“…having been a regular reader for decades and contributed as a freelancer quite a bit”
So what is your excuse?
No idea why you got all those downvotes for your mild tongue-in-cheek comment.
And no one felt strongly enough to leave a comment.
Also, the Guardian has always beyond the pale.
Those people who are now recanting, well its a bit like saying I used to be into porn but it has all gone a bit too far now.
And no one felt strongly enough to leave a comment.
Also, the Guardian has always beyond the pale.
Those people who are now recanting, well its a bit like saying I used to be into porn but it has all gone a bit too far now.
No idea why you got all those downvotes for your mild tongue-in-cheek comment.
“…having been a regular reader for decades and contributed as a freelancer quite a bit”
So what is your excuse?
I stopped reading the Guardian in 2020 having been a regular reader for decades and contributed as a freelancer quite a bit. It was partly the idiocy you describe – treating people as idiots makes the treater sound daft too – but more than that it was the sense of there being a line combined with an attitude of overwhelming superiority. For me, the stance on Covid was the last straw, but when I thought about it, the editorial condescension went much further back. One particular example springs to mind: I’d had a piece commissioned on Lebanese refugees in Britain in 2006. It was spiked by Katherine Viner as section editor because their comments didn’t conform to what she’d expected: she clearly had a view of people and events in that part of the world that was entirely at odds with reality, one that was stereotypical and sensationalised for anyone who knew anything about it. Much later, in the Albanian capital of Tirana, I learnt how a Guardian piece aligned with what was the official political narrative – local contacts had offered a wider view that was completely disregarded. So all this to say that the problem with the Guardian is much bigger than the trans issue – it’s about having a ‘correct’ view of the world that must be imposed on readers. It’s ideological detachment from reality par excellence.
My son is a trans man, Kathleen, and I am one of your biggest fans. I think it’s trans people’s internalized self contempt (and the contempt for trans people that the activists are so desperate to hide) that has fueled the insane attacks against you and other GC feminists.
My son is an adult human female with sex dysphoria. There is no cure for this, so he has had to settle for palliative care in the form of medical transition, (which is extremely risky and will probably shorten his life). As his mother, this terrifies me, and I can’t imagine anyone allowing their minor child to go through this.
My son is not represented by the nutjob TRA’s who claim to represent him. He accepts his female sex, and has no interest in erasing female biology from reproduction. He jokes that “you have to really be secure in your masculinity when you have a vagina.”
My son is happy, loved, and self accepting, which I believe is WHY he has no issue with the fact that trans men are trans men, and trans women are trans women.
SEX MATTERS! If it didn’t, why would anyone transition? Why would homosexuality exist?
I despise trans activists for making people like my wonderful son look hysterical and vicious.
I also despise them for the danger they put my son in by denying biological sex: can you imagine the horror of putting a trans man in a men’s prison? Trans men have vaginas, and they are smaller than biological men. It would be an atrocity. But TRA’s are silent on this issue.
Anyway, when those bastards attack you remember there are thousands of people like me cheering you on.
Your courage is inspiring.
Also – I used to read the Guardian religiously and now it isn’t fit to line a bird cage.
That’s a brave and illuminating post. Great respect to you.
Very insightful and helpful for those struggling to understand the issue.
Great post, Penny. Good luck to you and your son.
Kudos for your parenting and love for your child.
My only quibble, and it is a serious one, is the distortion of language, particularly when it comes to proper nouns being no longer labels but classifiers, and pronouns being no longer substitute classifiers of proper nouns, but now common nouns as classifiers.
So as Andy Lewis says, This is not … an exerciser in “chang[ing] what words mean – expand meanings, perhaps contract meanings, reject prior meanings, embrace new ones.” This is an exercise in changing language so that we can avoid meanings and privilege wishes.
https://medium.com/@lecanardnoir/the-humpty-dumpty-wonderland-of-transgender-language-e0cbbecedcbc
Total twaddle
A biological woman who wishes to live as a man, and feels internally masculine in some sense, is entitled to their feelings and should be treated with dignity. They should not be mocked or mistreated in any way. This is a free society.
But words have meaning. The integrity of language is the basis for every law, and every legal freedom and right, that we are lucky enough to have inherited.
I do not believe that others should feel compelled to say, believe, or pretend that a biological woman “is a man” (or vice versa) based on that person’s subjective experience or claim. A person experiencing gender dysphoria can be respectfully described in numerous ways that do not subvert the meaning of words and concepts that are central to our biological nature as human beings.
That’s a brave and illuminating post. Great respect to you.
Very insightful and helpful for those struggling to understand the issue.
Great post, Penny. Good luck to you and your son.
Kudos for your parenting and love for your child.
My only quibble, and it is a serious one, is the distortion of language, particularly when it comes to proper nouns being no longer labels but classifiers, and pronouns being no longer substitute classifiers of proper nouns, but now common nouns as classifiers.
So as Andy Lewis says, This is not … an exerciser in “chang[ing] what words mean – expand meanings, perhaps contract meanings, reject prior meanings, embrace new ones.” This is an exercise in changing language so that we can avoid meanings and privilege wishes.
https://medium.com/@lecanardnoir/the-humpty-dumpty-wonderland-of-transgender-language-e0cbbecedcbc
Total twaddle
A biological woman who wishes to live as a man, and feels internally masculine in some sense, is entitled to their feelings and should be treated with dignity. They should not be mocked or mistreated in any way. This is a free society.
But words have meaning. The integrity of language is the basis for every law, and every legal freedom and right, that we are lucky enough to have inherited.
I do not believe that others should feel compelled to say, believe, or pretend that a biological woman “is a man” (or vice versa) based on that person’s subjective experience or claim. A person experiencing gender dysphoria can be respectfully described in numerous ways that do not subvert the meaning of words and concepts that are central to our biological nature as human beings.
My son is a trans man, Kathleen, and I am one of your biggest fans. I think it’s trans people’s internalized self contempt (and the contempt for trans people that the activists are so desperate to hide) that has fueled the insane attacks against you and other GC feminists.
My son is an adult human female with sex dysphoria. There is no cure for this, so he has had to settle for palliative care in the form of medical transition, (which is extremely risky and will probably shorten his life). As his mother, this terrifies me, and I can’t imagine anyone allowing their minor child to go through this.
My son is not represented by the nutjob TRA’s who claim to represent him. He accepts his female sex, and has no interest in erasing female biology from reproduction. He jokes that “you have to really be secure in your masculinity when you have a vagina.”
My son is happy, loved, and self accepting, which I believe is WHY he has no issue with the fact that trans men are trans men, and trans women are trans women.
SEX MATTERS! If it didn’t, why would anyone transition? Why would homosexuality exist?
I despise trans activists for making people like my wonderful son look hysterical and vicious.
I also despise them for the danger they put my son in by denying biological sex: can you imagine the horror of putting a trans man in a men’s prison? Trans men have vaginas, and they are smaller than biological men. It would be an atrocity. But TRA’s are silent on this issue.
Anyway, when those bastards attack you remember there are thousands of people like me cheering you on.
Your courage is inspiring.
Also – I used to read the Guardian religiously and now it isn’t fit to line a bird cage.
Is The Guardian sowing disinformation?
The answer has been ‘yes’ for a long time. The Guardian has always presented its views from a political viewpoint, and sometimes facts have been bent, spindled or mutilated to suit the viewpoint.
What is relatively new is the hectoring tone and suppression of debate. The Guardian may view some of its readership as stupid, some of it as needing encouragement to care about the ‘right things’, and the remainder as willing to march in lock step to a distant Utopia.
I rather suspect that the Guardian likes Authoritarianism and hopes to earn a place in the sun by supporting it.
Here’s a wonderful example of how the Guardian gently guides its readers….
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/01/knowsley-country-safest-labour-seat-cuts
This article spends a large amount of time telling you how poor Knowsley is. How the schools are terrible. How there’s no A levels taken there. How they are almost 100% white… urrggghhh! How stupid the people are… they even think 25% of people who live in Knowsley are foreigners.. when it’s actually 2%… the stupid bigoted thickos. And then the Guardian slip in the message they really want you to get…. Knowsley voted brexit.
Do you get it?? Only white, thick, bigoted poverty-stricken morons vote brexit. People who vote remain have degrees, drink fair trade and buy organic.
Of course, Polly omits the fact that only 51.5% voted leave, with the other 48% voting remain, which closely tracked the national vote, but nevermind all that fact nonsense. Thick white people are dangerous and can’t be trusted to make decisions of national importance. That must be left to the enlightened ones… presumably those employed by the Guardian slush fund.
Indeed. “the stupid bigoted thickos. And then the Guardian slip in the message they really want you to get…. Knowsley voted brexit.”
However, it’s just as valid to conclude that the least intelligent, most racist, are also the largest labour supporters in the country.
Of course, both conclusions are, or would be, extremely lazy. But then “effort” is not a word I’d use to describe Guardian journalism.
Haha.. that gave me a chuckle! Yes, the Guardian certainly lacks the qualities one would expect of a journalist… honesty, integrity, intelligence, nuance, insightfulness, a degree of self-awareness…. yet for the Guardian… there’s just a barren hectoring wasteland of wokeness.
And the newspapers that do represent these values are….?
The “Free Press”–used to be “Common Sense with Bari Weiss”. It’s a Substack with 260,000 readers and numerous writers. Give it a try!
The “Free Press”–used to be “Common Sense with Bari Weiss”. It’s a Substack with 260,000 readers and numerous writers. Give it a try!
And the newspapers that do represent these values are….?
Haha.. that gave me a chuckle! Yes, the Guardian certainly lacks the qualities one would expect of a journalist… honesty, integrity, intelligence, nuance, insightfulness, a degree of self-awareness…. yet for the Guardian… there’s just a barren hectoring wasteland of wokeness.
Polly’s been writing the same article for at least 20 years. I bet that you could take all her weekly articles, chop them in to sentences and run it through a computer and get an AI to auto-generate a Polly’s Weekly Rant that would be indistinguishable from the real thing.
https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/2021/03/its-a-significant-pity-polly-toynbee-sold-that-place-in-tuscany-umbria-wherever/
That is surely what she does…generated by Toynbots perhaps on an automated basis
You have to imagine the Toynbee sour, critical and self righteous facial expression when reading her stuff,,,,,,,come to think of it that applies to most of the Grundida op ed pieces
McGill students who ran a satire newspaper did this with the main student newspaper’s editorials when I was there about 30 years ago. They entered all the editorials into a database and then had a program parse them into phrases and then auto generated an editorial. The result was fantastically funny even without AI help.
“Why is the McGill daily?”
Asked the pessimist sourly
Replied the optimist gaily,
“Thank god it isn’t hourly.”
“Why is the McGill daily?”
Asked the pessimist sourly
Replied the optimist gaily,
“Thank god it isn’t hourly.”
https://www.continentaltelegraph.com/2021/03/its-a-significant-pity-polly-toynbee-sold-that-place-in-tuscany-umbria-wherever/
That is surely what she does…generated by Toynbots perhaps on an automated basis
You have to imagine the Toynbee sour, critical and self righteous facial expression when reading her stuff,,,,,,,come to think of it that applies to most of the Grundida op ed pieces
McGill students who ran a satire newspaper did this with the main student newspaper’s editorials when I was there about 30 years ago. They entered all the editorials into a database and then had a program parse them into phrases and then auto generated an editorial. The result was fantastically funny even without AI help.
I was struck by the reference in a recent Guardian review of Peter Kay to “dead-end jobs”. By which the reviewer meant being an usher at Manchester Arena, or anyone working at a petrol station, cinema or shop. He must have felt confident that no such dead-end person could possibly be reading the Guardian.
I don’t think the overtly right-wing press have as much class bias as the Guardian.
Absolutely. The modern left/progressives are vastly more snobbish than the most caricatured upper class Eton educated toff.
Absolutely. The modern left/progressives are vastly more snobbish than the most caricatured upper class Eton educated toff.
The funny thing is, despite your insistence on some crazed anti-white, anti-working class tirade, almost the entire article is about Conservative government financial cuts to schools and infrastructure.
How you get from that to your personal inner shouty voices about evil Lefties hating poor white people I don’t really know.
Indeed. “the stupid bigoted thickos. And then the Guardian slip in the message they really want you to get…. Knowsley voted brexit.”
However, it’s just as valid to conclude that the least intelligent, most racist, are also the largest labour supporters in the country.
Of course, both conclusions are, or would be, extremely lazy. But then “effort” is not a word I’d use to describe Guardian journalism.
Polly’s been writing the same article for at least 20 years. I bet that you could take all her weekly articles, chop them in to sentences and run it through a computer and get an AI to auto-generate a Polly’s Weekly Rant that would be indistinguishable from the real thing.
I was struck by the reference in a recent Guardian review of Peter Kay to “dead-end jobs”. By which the reviewer meant being an usher at Manchester Arena, or anyone working at a petrol station, cinema or shop. He must have felt confident that no such dead-end person could possibly be reading the Guardian.
I don’t think the overtly right-wing press have as much class bias as the Guardian.
The funny thing is, despite your insistence on some crazed anti-white, anti-working class tirade, almost the entire article is about Conservative government financial cuts to schools and infrastructure.
How you get from that to your personal inner shouty voices about evil Lefties hating poor white people I don’t really know.
This doesn’t apply solely to the Guardian. Many organizations are going this way: schools, universities, publishers, social media, governmental bodies, scientific societies, activist groups, toy and gaming companies, academic journals, law firms, the military, movie studios etc, etc. They’re busy creating a false morality system to replace inconvenient and obstinate Christianity and other Western values, hence the anti-white and anti-Western rhetoric we are often subjected to.
Wokeism, for lack of a better word, has been the perfect tool with which to browbeat and demoralize the masses. It’s basically institutional bullying at a monstrous level. All are engaging in it in the hopes of becoming a major power broker in the Neo-feudal system they envision for us.
We need to monitor all the institutions and individuals involved in this cultural-putsch and hold them accountable for the role they’ve played in trying to ‘colonize’ us.
The last generation of “journalists” didn’t take up the trade for anything other than changing the world. You don’t change the world by merely reporting on stories, but creating them.
Here’s a wonderful example of how the Guardian gently guides its readers….
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/01/knowsley-country-safest-labour-seat-cuts
This article spends a large amount of time telling you how poor Knowsley is. How the schools are terrible. How there’s no A levels taken there. How they are almost 100% white… urrggghhh! How stupid the people are… they even think 25% of people who live in Knowsley are foreigners.. when it’s actually 2%… the stupid bigoted thickos. And then the Guardian slip in the message they really want you to get…. Knowsley voted brexit.
Do you get it?? Only white, thick, bigoted poverty-stricken morons vote brexit. People who vote remain have degrees, drink fair trade and buy organic.
Of course, Polly omits the fact that only 51.5% voted leave, with the other 48% voting remain, which closely tracked the national vote, but nevermind all that fact nonsense. Thick white people are dangerous and can’t be trusted to make decisions of national importance. That must be left to the enlightened ones… presumably those employed by the Guardian slush fund.
This doesn’t apply solely to the Guardian. Many organizations are going this way: schools, universities, publishers, social media, governmental bodies, scientific societies, activist groups, toy and gaming companies, academic journals, law firms, the military, movie studios etc, etc. They’re busy creating a false morality system to replace inconvenient and obstinate Christianity and other Western values, hence the anti-white and anti-Western rhetoric we are often subjected to.
Wokeism, for lack of a better word, has been the perfect tool with which to browbeat and demoralize the masses. It’s basically institutional bullying at a monstrous level. All are engaging in it in the hopes of becoming a major power broker in the Neo-feudal system they envision for us.
We need to monitor all the institutions and individuals involved in this cultural-putsch and hold them accountable for the role they’ve played in trying to ‘colonize’ us.
The last generation of “journalists” didn’t take up the trade for anything other than changing the world. You don’t change the world by merely reporting on stories, but creating them.
Is The Guardian sowing disinformation?
The answer has been ‘yes’ for a long time. The Guardian has always presented its views from a political viewpoint, and sometimes facts have been bent, spindled or mutilated to suit the viewpoint.
What is relatively new is the hectoring tone and suppression of debate. The Guardian may view some of its readership as stupid, some of it as needing encouragement to care about the ‘right things’, and the remainder as willing to march in lock step to a distant Utopia.
I rather suspect that the Guardian likes Authoritarianism and hopes to earn a place in the sun by supporting it.
I have long considered Guardian readers idiots and the rag itself risible (or a clever parody). I am pleased very clever people of a left-wing persuasion like Professor Stock have finally worked it out too.
I have long considered Guardian readers idiots and the rag itself risible (or a clever parody). I am pleased very clever people of a left-wing persuasion like Professor Stock have finally worked it out too.
Over the past twenty years this country has witnessed the largest upward transfer of wealth in its history. Metropolitan Guardian readers have been among the main beneficiaries of the housing bonanza and the collapse in real wages. Why would they not want to change the subject?
We should never forget that it was a middle class Labour government that changed the way that RPI is calculated in order to conceal from its owner voters just how damaging it’s policies had been for them.
I don’t recall the change in RPI except when it was replaced by CPI and, although this was for reasonable reasons, it does, even more than RPI overlook house price inflation.
Indeed you are right there has been a shift in wealth to the laptop classes, an unwarranted and unfair shift.
I say this and I regard myself as being on the right for economics. I think for decades, our governments have protected some I the guise of protecting the poor.
I don’t recall the change in RPI except when it was replaced by CPI and, although this was for reasonable reasons, it does, even more than RPI overlook house price inflation.
Indeed you are right there has been a shift in wealth to the laptop classes, an unwarranted and unfair shift.
I say this and I regard myself as being on the right for economics. I think for decades, our governments have protected some I the guise of protecting the poor.
Over the past twenty years this country has witnessed the largest upward transfer of wealth in its history. Metropolitan Guardian readers have been among the main beneficiaries of the housing bonanza and the collapse in real wages. Why would they not want to change the subject?
We should never forget that it was a middle class Labour government that changed the way that RPI is calculated in order to conceal from its owner voters just how damaging it’s policies had been for them.
The newspaper business is particularly difficult right now. Give it five years, and I suspect the Guardian / Observer will no longer be around. There was a time I would have regarded this as a small tragedy, but not any more. There is precious little to hang on to now. Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman saw the writing on the wall, and have moved on to new pastures, wherein exercising their critical faculties is less likely to be censored as ‘unkindness’. I dare say a few more – Sonia Sodha most obvious among them – will follow suit before the end. Which leaves Owen Jones and his crew of gender identity misogynists, to whom I say: good riddance – the end can’t come soon enough.
The newspaper business is particularly difficult right now. Give it five years, and I suspect the Guardian / Observer will no longer be around. There was a time I would have regarded this as a small tragedy, but not any more. There is precious little to hang on to now. Suzanne Moore and Hadley Freeman saw the writing on the wall, and have moved on to new pastures, wherein exercising their critical faculties is less likely to be censored as ‘unkindness’. I dare say a few more – Sonia Sodha most obvious among them – will follow suit before the end. Which leaves Owen Jones and his crew of gender identity misogynists, to whom I say: good riddance – the end can’t come soon enough.
Seems to me that the media generally and papers like The Guardian in particular have concluded that their job is NOT to inform but to indoctrinate.
They no longer see themselves as providing information the public needs or wants but rather they see themselves as advocates for their own version of “right think”.
Seems to me that the media generally and papers like The Guardian in particular have concluded that their job is NOT to inform but to indoctrinate.
They no longer see themselves as providing information the public needs or wants but rather they see themselves as advocates for their own version of “right think”.
The begging bit under the Guardian’s on line articles refers to their fearless journalism.
Nothing fearless about it any more. Its terrified of the trans lobby and never dares print anything even handed or truthful about trans issues..
C.P. Snow would be turning in his grave at this Guardian policy of destroying women’s rights.
The begging bit under the Guardian’s on line articles refers to their fearless journalism.
Nothing fearless about it any more. Its terrified of the trans lobby and never dares print anything even handed or truthful about trans issues..
C.P. Snow would be turning in his grave at this Guardian policy of destroying women’s rights.
The really worrying thing is that The Guardian is the most read paper in Academia. Academics are teaching this unbalanced stuff to students.
“unbalanced stuff”
You spelled “sh*t” wrong.
I use the more factual articles in teaching (ones on income inequality, housing, the NHS etc.) but always advise my students to critically interrogate everything they read and to be especially mindful of editorial political positions (in fact, a student recently asked me what I thought of the Guardian and I told her it publishes some useful pieces but has a ‘sanctimonious’ air that I find irritating).
“unbalanced stuff”
You spelled “sh*t” wrong.
I use the more factual articles in teaching (ones on income inequality, housing, the NHS etc.) but always advise my students to critically interrogate everything they read and to be especially mindful of editorial political positions (in fact, a student recently asked me what I thought of the Guardian and I told her it publishes some useful pieces but has a ‘sanctimonious’ air that I find irritating).
The really worrying thing is that The Guardian is the most read paper in Academia. Academics are teaching this unbalanced stuff to students.
Exactly; this is classic, authoritarian ‘bigotry of low expectations’. See also Jacinda Ardern’s chilling “We will continue to be your single source of truth”, and the more recent “We own the science” declaration by the UN’s Melissa Fleming at the WEF.
am here in new zealand and what has happened here in terms of human rights is terrible. the guardian is a shameful rag. i read it, like our nz press, to keep an eye on what the enemy is thinking.
I’m here too. What rights have I lost? Specifics, please. Vaccination was not forced, you could opt out. It’s just that employers were not prepared to then put other workers at risk because of your personal opinions. Still have freedom to vote, move, associate, and speak. So, specifics please: what rights have I lost?
You were locked down and in like an animal… just for starters.
Please, do continue to explain to me how it was in my country.
Please, do continue to explain to me how it was in my country.
I’m here as well :_ Sorry, the totalitarian direction is clear.
Freedom to vote? The government removed our right to petition for referenda on the basis for local authority voting.
Covid vaccination does not reduce transmissibility, Pfizzer didn’t claim it did and never tested for that. That didn’t stop the government oppressing the un-vaxxed with enforced loss of jobs for vaccine refusal. Many of those people are still barred from working despite supreme court decisions that this was an unjustified assault on our human rights.
Freedom to speak? In the works is anti free speech legislation. The proposed restrictions may have been dialled back (for now) but the intention is clear; this government wants to control what you think and say with the criminalisation of speech and the development of their totalitarian “disinformation” projects.
“That didn’t stop the government oppressing the un-vaxxed with enforced loss of jobs for vaccine refusal. ”
That’s just the government refusing to mandate the decisions of private businesses and medical experts. Who saw a risk to their business and staff and patients and acted within their rights.. without government interference. The other points you make I am not aware of, but we can still initiate citizen’s referenda. And given that Labour looks guaranteed to lose the next election, their sinister plan to hold on to power at all costs seems to have run into the old problem of “Democracy”.
Mostly what I see is people whining about the loss of their “right” to make people listen to their crazy conspiracy theories, and their “right” to not be humiliated in public by actual experts. Neither of these things are rights.
“That didn’t stop the government oppressing the un-vaxxed with enforced loss of jobs for vaccine refusal. ”
That’s just the government refusing to mandate the decisions of private businesses and medical experts. Who saw a risk to their business and staff and patients and acted within their rights.. without government interference. The other points you make I am not aware of, but we can still initiate citizen’s referenda. And given that Labour looks guaranteed to lose the next election, their sinister plan to hold on to power at all costs seems to have run into the old problem of “Democracy”.
Mostly what I see is people whining about the loss of their “right” to make people listen to their crazy conspiracy theories, and their “right” to not be humiliated in public by actual experts. Neither of these things are rights.
I don’t know why your questions were down voted. Surely answering them would stimulate dialogue and put information out there for consideration?
Well, I had a few comments on this piece.. which I largely agree with, BTW, big fan of Doc Stock…. but they appear to have been deleted. Oh, the irony.
Edit: actually, the comments are there, I just missed them. Apologies Unherd.
Well, I had a few comments on this piece.. which I largely agree with, BTW, big fan of Doc Stock…. but they appear to have been deleted. Oh, the irony.
Edit: actually, the comments are there, I just missed them. Apologies Unherd.
Wait I see one of the disconnects here – You didn’t get the update. Turns out the vaccines don’t prevent transmission and everyone is going to be exposed to COVID no matter what their work colleagues do. This was clear from the data by early to mid 2021. It has since been admitted by Dr Fauci and every other public health official.
You were locked down and in like an animal… just for starters.
I’m here as well :_ Sorry, the totalitarian direction is clear.
Freedom to vote? The government removed our right to petition for referenda on the basis for local authority voting.
Covid vaccination does not reduce transmissibility, Pfizzer didn’t claim it did and never tested for that. That didn’t stop the government oppressing the un-vaxxed with enforced loss of jobs for vaccine refusal. Many of those people are still barred from working despite supreme court decisions that this was an unjustified assault on our human rights.
Freedom to speak? In the works is anti free speech legislation. The proposed restrictions may have been dialled back (for now) but the intention is clear; this government wants to control what you think and say with the criminalisation of speech and the development of their totalitarian “disinformation” projects.
I don’t know why your questions were down voted. Surely answering them would stimulate dialogue and put information out there for consideration?
Wait I see one of the disconnects here – You didn’t get the update. Turns out the vaccines don’t prevent transmission and everyone is going to be exposed to COVID no matter what their work colleagues do. This was clear from the data by early to mid 2021. It has since been admitted by Dr Fauci and every other public health official.
I’m here too. What rights have I lost? Specifics, please. Vaccination was not forced, you could opt out. It’s just that employers were not prepared to then put other workers at risk because of your personal opinions. Still have freedom to vote, move, associate, and speak. So, specifics please: what rights have I lost?
Yeah, kiwi and biologist here. The ardern quote is true but out of context. The context was covid, that’s the “information” she was talking about, and at the time there really was a surge of absolutely batshit information going around that, if believed by enough people, could have caused our health system to collapse. I did not vote for her, reasonable people can have reasonable reasons why they don’t like her, but anyone who thinks she has done a bad job overall is massively overdoing it.
Similarly your comment. I am very surprised you have been downvoted for merely posting your observations.
I was surprised too, but I’m beginning to understand that my sub to Unherd was a mistake, because the site suffers from the same problems it claims to oppose.
The downvotes just mean that more people disagree with your opinions than agree with them. Nobody here is suggesting you shouldn’t have or express your opinions. In fact, most are probably very interested in hearing about the situation in NZ from your perspective. Facts and specific concrete details are generally preferred over opinions, but both are welcome. People might disagree with you, that’s all.
The downvotes just mean that more people disagree with your opinions than agree with them. Nobody here is suggesting you shouldn’t have or express your opinions. In fact, most are probably very interested in hearing about the situation in NZ from your perspective. Facts and specific concrete details are generally preferred over opinions, but both are welcome. People might disagree with you, that’s all.
I was surprised too, but I’m beginning to understand that my sub to Unherd was a mistake, because the site suffers from the same problems it claims to oppose.
Similarly your comment. I am very surprised you have been downvoted for merely posting your observations.
am here in new zealand and what has happened here in terms of human rights is terrible. the guardian is a shameful rag. i read it, like our nz press, to keep an eye on what the enemy is thinking.
Yeah, kiwi and biologist here. The ardern quote is true but out of context. The context was covid, that’s the “information” she was talking about, and at the time there really was a surge of absolutely batshit information going around that, if believed by enough people, could have caused our health system to collapse. I did not vote for her, reasonable people can have reasonable reasons why they don’t like her, but anyone who thinks she has done a bad job overall is massively overdoing it.
Exactly; this is classic, authoritarian ‘bigotry of low expectations’. See also Jacinda Ardern’s chilling “We will continue to be your single source of truth”, and the more recent “We own the science” declaration by the UN’s Melissa Fleming at the WEF.
I don’t normally read the Guardian, so perhaps someone who does could reply to this – has there been any article about the Guardian’s links to the slave trade, and support for the Confederate side in the American Civil War? I believe a report into this was commissioned some time ago, by the paper. Presumably this report has been published in the Guardian.
They have remarkably few ‘Struggle Sessions’ where this sort of thing should be brought out and they all self accuse, and self flagellate, and denounce themselves.
If Maoist Commies they would do this a lot – but my theory is they are Stalinist Commies, and so they do it to everyone but themselves. (I mean they almost worshiped Hobsbawn)
Ah Hobsbawm, perhaps the most revolting piece of academic lickspittle ever to grace these shores!
An immigrant as I recall, bitter and twisted with the cancer of Marxism like so many of his ilk, such as the Ralph Miliband and Harold Laski.
Thank you for reminding me how the Guardian idolised him!
You appear from what you wrote to be an angry antisemite. Hopefully that’s not the case?
Pure coincidence, and I just cannot recall all the myriad of ‘home grown’ cretins!
Perhaps you can help me out?
Well Mr H you have had 5 hours plus to reply.
Sadly I now surmise that you are one of those wretched ‘vanity shriekers’ who so infest this planet.
Be gone with you!
So the “an immigrant I recall” ,”like so many of his ilk, such as (two other jews)” was what, in terms of intelligent political insight?
Obviously not a ranting anti-Semite at all.
You must be yet another Marxist apologist!
These seem to be quite a few of you around these days.
Try reading reading a few books, it may make you understand the enormity of your error.
I live in hope if NOT expectation!
You must be yet another Marxist apologist!
These seem to be quite a few of you around these days.
Try reading reading a few books, it may make you understand the enormity of your error.
I live in hope if NOT expectation!
So the “an immigrant I recall” ,”like so many of his ilk, such as (two other jews)” was what, in terms of intelligent political insight?
Obviously not a ranting anti-Semite at all.
Ah, the famous racist dog-whistles that only anti-racists are able to hear.
Pure coincidence, and I just cannot recall all the myriad of ‘home grown’ cretins!
Perhaps you can help me out?
Well Mr H you have had 5 hours plus to reply.
Sadly I now surmise that you are one of those wretched ‘vanity shriekers’ who so infest this planet.
Be gone with you!
Ah, the famous racist dog-whistles that only anti-racists are able to hear.
Ralphy.
An immigrant who loathed this country an should never have been allowed across the threshold. An immigrant who managed to take advantage of what this country had to offer and enrich himself and featherbed his progeny into positions of privilege by mean of his status as Marxist royalty while making no secret of distain for this country, its traditions and its people … that Ralphy?
Yes indeed that RALPHY Sir!
However I seem to have inadvertently upset one Mr Douglas H by including him in my very brief list of Marxist horrors.
Yes indeed that RALPHY Sir!
However I seem to have inadvertently upset one Mr Douglas H by including him in my very brief list of Marxist horrors.
If the nu britn MoD have their way we will soon have a Republican Palace with 5 regiments of the Brigade of Guardians outside, presenting arms with syringes, dressed in hooodies, plimsolls and tracksuit bottoms, all holding hands and dancing to a band playing tribal music, and singing songs about zero carbon….
You appear from what you wrote to be an angry antisemite. Hopefully that’s not the case?
Ralphy.
An immigrant who loathed this country an should never have been allowed across the threshold. An immigrant who managed to take advantage of what this country had to offer and enrich himself and featherbed his progeny into positions of privilege by mean of his status as Marxist royalty while making no secret of distain for this country, its traditions and its people … that Ralphy?
If the nu britn MoD have their way we will soon have a Republican Palace with 5 regiments of the Brigade of Guardians outside, presenting arms with syringes, dressed in hooodies, plimsolls and tracksuit bottoms, all holding hands and dancing to a band playing tribal music, and singing songs about zero carbon….
Ah Hobsbawm, perhaps the most revolting piece of academic lickspittle ever to grace these shores!
An immigrant as I recall, bitter and twisted with the cancer of Marxism like so many of his ilk, such as the Ralph Miliband and Harold Laski.
Thank you for reminding me how the Guardian idolised him!
Sorry, is this supposed to be news? The Guardian disappeared over the event horizon years ago.
Suppose for a minute they actually give a s*** when people like us call them out (they don’t) and they do publish it, then what? They aren’t going to shut up and go away, they’d probably become worse. This tactic doesn’t score the point you think it does. It’s so frustrating to people STILL treating this like a game with gentleman’s rules where you keep expecting the other team to walk when they’re caught on an edge. They need to be rounded on and thrown off the pitch. They’ve been hypocrites for over a century, how about we go after their dodgy foreign funding without which they’d be bankrupt.
They have remarkably few ‘Struggle Sessions’ where this sort of thing should be brought out and they all self accuse, and self flagellate, and denounce themselves.
If Maoist Commies they would do this a lot – but my theory is they are Stalinist Commies, and so they do it to everyone but themselves. (I mean they almost worshiped Hobsbawn)
Sorry, is this supposed to be news? The Guardian disappeared over the event horizon years ago.
Suppose for a minute they actually give a s*** when people like us call them out (they don’t) and they do publish it, then what? They aren’t going to shut up and go away, they’d probably become worse. This tactic doesn’t score the point you think it does. It’s so frustrating to people STILL treating this like a game with gentleman’s rules where you keep expecting the other team to walk when they’re caught on an edge. They need to be rounded on and thrown off the pitch. They’ve been hypocrites for over a century, how about we go after their dodgy foreign funding without which they’d be bankrupt.
I don’t normally read the Guardian, so perhaps someone who does could reply to this – has there been any article about the Guardian’s links to the slave trade, and support for the Confederate side in the American Civil War? I believe a report into this was commissioned some time ago, by the paper. Presumably this report has been published in the Guardian.
I use news aggregation sites that pull stories from a variety of publications. Every time I see a headline that seems at odds with what is probable, realistic or manifestly true, it comes – without fail – from The Guardian. It is by now merely a megaphone of woke dogma, nakedly twisting any fact or event to fit politically correct ideology. I would hesitate to call anyone who works there a journalist.
I use news aggregation sites that pull stories from a variety of publications. Every time I see a headline that seems at odds with what is probable, realistic or manifestly true, it comes – without fail – from The Guardian. It is by now merely a megaphone of woke dogma, nakedly twisting any fact or event to fit politically correct ideology. I would hesitate to call anyone who works there a journalist.
Despite being, to most people’s views, right wing I used to read the Guardian for a left wing angle and, in particular, to support its critical investigative journalism such as Snowden.
Now it is purely an indoctrination rag with almost no news or reporting at all. Does not even report large demonstrations in London if they don’t like the cause (eg anti lockdown).
I am still, just, managing to take the Guardian Weekly but not for long I expect. The problem seemed to start when Viner took over but suspect the paper is now so rotten that even the best new editor would fail.
Despite being, to most people’s views, right wing I used to read the Guardian for a left wing angle and, in particular, to support its critical investigative journalism such as Snowden.
Now it is purely an indoctrination rag with almost no news or reporting at all. Does not even report large demonstrations in London if they don’t like the cause (eg anti lockdown).
I am still, just, managing to take the Guardian Weekly but not for long I expect. The problem seemed to start when Viner took over but suspect the paper is now so rotten that even the best new editor would fail.
I stopped reading it after their ‘coverage’ of Cologne New Years Eve, including Gaby Hinsliff’s disgusting victim-blaming
Me too. That was a truly disgusting episode.
Do you have a link to that ? I fancy developing a rage migraine
Forget that I found it and wish I hadn’t.
Forget that I found it and wish I hadn’t.
I remember the Guardian smearing victims of the Rotherham grooming gangs as Islamaphobes.
Me too. That was a truly disgusting episode.
Do you have a link to that ? I fancy developing a rage migraine
I remember the Guardian smearing victims of the Rotherham grooming gangs as Islamaphobes.
I stopped reading it after their ‘coverage’ of Cologne New Years Eve, including Gaby Hinsliff’s disgusting victim-blaming
Asking Guardian readers if their rag is a most trusted source of news is bound to get a positive answer. People who distrust the Guardian and BBC as trustworthy sources of news don’t read the Guardian nor listen to or watch BBC news. The party line among those who have been indoctrinated by Stonewall and other trans-activists is accepted by both the Guardian and BBC. No amount of biology, psychology or testaments from any one pointing out that it is delusional, dangerous and disingenuous for many young people unable to make adult decisions, is going to be accepted as anything other than transphobia.
Transphobia is fear of trans people – i.e. men dressing up as women and women pretending to be men, many of whom have severe psychological problems which gives rise to their desire to impose their opinions on others with abuse being given whenever they encounter opposition to their absurd unscientific beliefs. Too many clever but very unwise people are going along with this nonsense which anyone with an ounce of common sense can see has dismantled all that feminists sought to achieve over 100 years in less than a decade. However since feminists wanted to end male only spaces, which they have achieved, it seems men in dresses have returned the compliment by invading women only spaces.
Received unscientific assertions by the trans lobby are on par with the received unscientific assertions in other areas of life: none stand up to scrutiny and when challenged abuse is hurled at challengers who need to be silenced lest the emperor’s lack of clothing be exposed.
About male spaces–I remember being nearly alone in my unease when female sportscasters were first allowed in men’s locker rooms. But, “Feminism!!”, I guess.
About male spaces–I remember being nearly alone in my unease when female sportscasters were first allowed in men’s locker rooms. But, “Feminism!!”, I guess.
Asking Guardian readers if their rag is a most trusted source of news is bound to get a positive answer. People who distrust the Guardian and BBC as trustworthy sources of news don’t read the Guardian nor listen to or watch BBC news. The party line among those who have been indoctrinated by Stonewall and other trans-activists is accepted by both the Guardian and BBC. No amount of biology, psychology or testaments from any one pointing out that it is delusional, dangerous and disingenuous for many young people unable to make adult decisions, is going to be accepted as anything other than transphobia.
Transphobia is fear of trans people – i.e. men dressing up as women and women pretending to be men, many of whom have severe psychological problems which gives rise to their desire to impose their opinions on others with abuse being given whenever they encounter opposition to their absurd unscientific beliefs. Too many clever but very unwise people are going along with this nonsense which anyone with an ounce of common sense can see has dismantled all that feminists sought to achieve over 100 years in less than a decade. However since feminists wanted to end male only spaces, which they have achieved, it seems men in dresses have returned the compliment by invading women only spaces.
Received unscientific assertions by the trans lobby are on par with the received unscientific assertions in other areas of life: none stand up to scrutiny and when challenged abuse is hurled at challengers who need to be silenced lest the emperor’s lack of clothing be exposed.
In the new class structure of Britain, those who occupy the highest strata legitimise their presence there by a presumed greater morality that comes from superior education and social connections. When they parrot the woke position of the day they are not only virtue signaling, but also class signaling.
This is why Stock must point out that their views possibly reflect their own idiocy. But Guardian writers are likely not idiots any more than their readers. They are repeating the cant of the Progressive Class, by which they recognise one another, in much the same way as the religious do, or the Soviet Communist Party members once did – and indeed CCP members still do.
They feel their power as all elites do, and are not bothered by their own inconsistencies or hypocrisies, confident in the knowledge that those of their ilk dominate media, academia and the civil service. This also explains why they succumb to mob action on social media; it is a way of reaffirming their class superiority to themselves and others.
In the new class structure of Britain, those who occupy the highest strata legitimise their presence there by a presumed greater morality that comes from superior education and social connections. When they parrot the woke position of the day they are not only virtue signaling, but also class signaling.
This is why Stock must point out that their views possibly reflect their own idiocy. But Guardian writers are likely not idiots any more than their readers. They are repeating the cant of the Progressive Class, by which they recognise one another, in much the same way as the religious do, or the Soviet Communist Party members once did – and indeed CCP members still do.
They feel their power as all elites do, and are not bothered by their own inconsistencies or hypocrisies, confident in the knowledge that those of their ilk dominate media, academia and the civil service. This also explains why they succumb to mob action on social media; it is a way of reaffirming their class superiority to themselves and others.
I noticed this as far back as 2005. It is an absurd publication, of that there is little doubt.
But why?
Was it once good and noble and fair and true?
Nah.
It is the crucible of Leftism, and one more time for the hard of hearing, LEFTISM IS THE PROBLEM.
We can see the inevitable degeneration that occurs whenever Leftism is adopted as the primary lens. We see it in the NY Times. Vanity Fair. Channel 4 and many, many others. Leftism is incapable of remaining balanced or thoughtful or nuanced. It exists only as an emotional vent for people who don’t understand – or don’t want to understand – themselves or the world. The Guardian has simply become an exemplar of this, it’s global popularity a sad indictment of the degree to which emotion now rules everything.
I agree, and therefore regard it as anti-intellectual. They’re incapable of understanding how and why that label fits.
I disagree. Aat one time The Guardian was a decent left-wing paper (all papers have a political slant), I used to get it regularly in the 80s and 90s, I didn’t always agree with it, but it did, more often than not, present more than one view point, even though it would say that the more right-wing view was wrong, giving reasons for that conclusion. It was in the ’00s that things changed and I stopped buying the paper, it became more strident and one-sided, without even bothering to acknowledge that there was another view.
Agreed. It was more balanced and worth reading in the mid 90s. It’s just so partisan now. No point reading a paper if you know in advance exactly what it will say. The Times is much the same in that respect, ditto the FT. Not extreme, but pushing an extremely “narrow band” world view. Rather than reporting news and tolerating diverse opinions.
It’s not only the Guardian that’s gone downhill here. It’s just more partisan and obvious.
Agreed. It was more balanced and worth reading in the mid 90s. It’s just so partisan now. No point reading a paper if you know in advance exactly what it will say. The Times is much the same in that respect, ditto the FT. Not extreme, but pushing an extremely “narrow band” world view. Rather than reporting news and tolerating diverse opinions.
It’s not only the Guardian that’s gone downhill here. It’s just more partisan and obvious.
I agree, and therefore regard it as anti-intellectual. They’re incapable of understanding how and why that label fits.
I disagree. Aat one time The Guardian was a decent left-wing paper (all papers have a political slant), I used to get it regularly in the 80s and 90s, I didn’t always agree with it, but it did, more often than not, present more than one view point, even though it would say that the more right-wing view was wrong, giving reasons for that conclusion. It was in the ’00s that things changed and I stopped buying the paper, it became more strident and one-sided, without even bothering to acknowledge that there was another view.
I noticed this as far back as 2005. It is an absurd publication, of that there is little doubt.
But why?
Was it once good and noble and fair and true?
Nah.
It is the crucible of Leftism, and one more time for the hard of hearing, LEFTISM IS THE PROBLEM.
We can see the inevitable degeneration that occurs whenever Leftism is adopted as the primary lens. We see it in the NY Times. Vanity Fair. Channel 4 and many, many others. Leftism is incapable of remaining balanced or thoughtful or nuanced. It exists only as an emotional vent for people who don’t understand – or don’t want to understand – themselves or the world. The Guardian has simply become an exemplar of this, it’s global popularity a sad indictment of the degree to which emotion now rules everything.
A lot of readers give up on the Guardian because of the incessant finger-wagging.
And the fingers being so wagged are usually attached to economically privileged people.
It’s not the right way to set out information or opinion.
A lot of readers give up on the Guardian because of the incessant finger-wagging.
And the fingers being so wagged are usually attached to economically privileged people.
It’s not the right way to set out information or opinion.
The Guardian has been a joke for quite some time now. Whenever they have comments open on an article claiming that gender is a social construct, that we teach boys and girls to be the way they are I would post a link to this article https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/, showing that monkeys exhibit preferences for toys based on their biological sex. Always got deleted and my account eventually banned.
Welcome to the Legion of the Damned…wear your “banned” badge with honour
I wish there were an archive of “banned by the Guardian” comments we could access….FOI request maybe??
Welcome to the Legion of the Damned…wear your “banned” badge with honour
I wish there were an archive of “banned by the Guardian” comments we could access….FOI request maybe??
The Guardian has been a joke for quite some time now. Whenever they have comments open on an article claiming that gender is a social construct, that we teach boys and girls to be the way they are I would post a link to this article https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-prefer-boys-toys/, showing that monkeys exhibit preferences for toys based on their biological sex. Always got deleted and my account eventually banned.
Follow the money. In today’s media landscape newspapers make their money from subscriptions not advertising. This a has been widely reported. It isn’t about intelligence it is about giving people what they want. Liberal readers want to hear confirmation of their beliefs. They want to hear how right and good they are and how wrong and bad the other side is. And of course, the same is true for conservative publications. The anti-woke, me included, never tire of reading about how dumb wokism is. But both sides in the woke wars calling each other idiots is tiresome and doesn’t solve anything. It just makes the people dividing us lots of money.
Follow the money. In today’s media landscape newspapers make their money from subscriptions not advertising. This a has been widely reported. It isn’t about intelligence it is about giving people what they want. Liberal readers want to hear confirmation of their beliefs. They want to hear how right and good they are and how wrong and bad the other side is. And of course, the same is true for conservative publications. The anti-woke, me included, never tire of reading about how dumb wokism is. But both sides in the woke wars calling each other idiots is tiresome and doesn’t solve anything. It just makes the people dividing us lots of money.
The Guardian and its bigoted trustafarian readers regard themselves as a master race. Entitled to Lord it over, and fleece the rest of us untermenshen.
The Guardian and its bigoted trustafarian readers regard themselves as a master race. Entitled to Lord it over, and fleece the rest of us untermenshen.
Who has decided that sticking to the biological facts on sex must now be described in a manner suggesting such a position is an ideogical one? Time to stop using ‘gender critical’ to describe ourselves. How about ‘gender factual’?
Who has decided that sticking to the biological facts on sex must now be described in a manner suggesting such a position is an ideogical one? Time to stop using ‘gender critical’ to describe ourselves. How about ‘gender factual’?
The writer focuses on trans issues, but her points have wider relevance. (Consider the Grauniad’s coverage of the Ukraine war.)
The Guardian used, despite its uninspired politics, to be a serious paper. I bought it every day for maybe thirty years.
What happened?
1. A visit from MI5 following their publication of material from Wikileaks, since when the paper has faithfully parrroted whatever the MI5 line is, witness their lack of support for Assange which extends to accusing him of endangering people by leaking when it was in fact a Graun journalist who disclosed material Assange asked him to keep secret. The fact that he has been allowed to get away with this while Assange stays in jail, speaks volumes of the new relationship with the security state.
2. A boardroom coup following the near-bankruptcy of the Scott Trust.. A load of hedge-funders and American financial wizards installed as directors, and Viner appointed editor.
3. The Graun’s free online news service has been a success in the USA, where it is widely used by the chattering classes. Business dictates that the Graun reflects US “progressive” values. Therefore, transwomen are women and anyone who says they are not is a “bigot”, including regulars Hadley Freeman and Suzanne Moore; Ukraine is a righteous, brave little democracy being menaced by the Evil Empire, and so on. This is what Americans, especially the ones with money to buy the things advertised, want to hear.
Sad, but it’s the way of the world. He who pays the piper….
Ukraine IS being menaced — actually invaded and warred upon — by an evil Emperor.
Ukraine IS being menaced — actually invaded and warred upon — by an evil Emperor.
The writer focuses on trans issues, but her points have wider relevance. (Consider the Grauniad’s coverage of the Ukraine war.)
The Guardian used, despite its uninspired politics, to be a serious paper. I bought it every day for maybe thirty years.
What happened?
1. A visit from MI5 following their publication of material from Wikileaks, since when the paper has faithfully parrroted whatever the MI5 line is, witness their lack of support for Assange which extends to accusing him of endangering people by leaking when it was in fact a Graun journalist who disclosed material Assange asked him to keep secret. The fact that he has been allowed to get away with this while Assange stays in jail, speaks volumes of the new relationship with the security state.
2. A boardroom coup following the near-bankruptcy of the Scott Trust.. A load of hedge-funders and American financial wizards installed as directors, and Viner appointed editor.
3. The Graun’s free online news service has been a success in the USA, where it is widely used by the chattering classes. Business dictates that the Graun reflects US “progressive” values. Therefore, transwomen are women and anyone who says they are not is a “bigot”, including regulars Hadley Freeman and Suzanne Moore; Ukraine is a righteous, brave little democracy being menaced by the Evil Empire, and so on. This is what Americans, especially the ones with money to buy the things advertised, want to hear.
Sad, but it’s the way of the world. He who pays the piper….
What? The Guardian disrespects it’s readers? As usual the media is late with the news.
It’s not intended as “news”, rather a detailed exposé of the internal machinations at the Guardian, referencing events from several years ago. I found it insightful. And, are “the media” usually late with the news?
It’s not intended as “news”, rather a detailed exposé of the internal machinations at the Guardian, referencing events from several years ago. I found it insightful. And, are “the media” usually late with the news?
What? The Guardian disrespects it’s readers? As usual the media is late with the news.
Interesting how the MSM has responded to online competition in the desperate attempt to remain viable. The fact that the FT has resorted to imitating the Guardian is a sign of the times.
Interesting how the MSM has responded to online competition in the desperate attempt to remain viable. The fact that the FT has resorted to imitating the Guardian is a sign of the times.
Thanks again to the cowardly academic bureaucrats who have, in Kathleen Stock, inadvertently given us someone with a proper talent for commentary.
The Guardian seemed to give up being a newspaper a few years ago. Where once it had journalists investigating news stories, it now appears to have handed much of its content over to lifestyle tips and a brand of increasingly narrow political opinion. (Perhaps readers should have seen the writing on the wall when comedians and other celebrities were given whole pages to describe just how much they cared.)
Last weekend the FT columnist Janan Ganesh reiterated a point he’s been making for a while: ‘People do not work out their beliefs and then join the corresponding tribe. They join a tribe and infer their beliefs from it.’ Sadly, The Guardian allowed itself to become the house journal for a political tribe who’s members appear not to care their leaders might be losing the plot. That may simply be because holding ‘correct’ beliefs is a lifestyle choice they can afford, as some Unherd readers are suggesting. But if Kathleen Stock’s investigations are accurate, the Directors of the Scott Trust need to take a long hard look at their values and responsibilities. Our democracy needs ‘fearless journalism’. The Trustees won’t deliver that if they allow the kind of lobbying by political groups Kathleen Stock has described here.
Thanks again to the cowardly academic bureaucrats who have, in Kathleen Stock, inadvertently given us someone with a proper talent for commentary.
The Guardian seemed to give up being a newspaper a few years ago. Where once it had journalists investigating news stories, it now appears to have handed much of its content over to lifestyle tips and a brand of increasingly narrow political opinion. (Perhaps readers should have seen the writing on the wall when comedians and other celebrities were given whole pages to describe just how much they cared.)
Last weekend the FT columnist Janan Ganesh reiterated a point he’s been making for a while: ‘People do not work out their beliefs and then join the corresponding tribe. They join a tribe and infer their beliefs from it.’ Sadly, The Guardian allowed itself to become the house journal for a political tribe who’s members appear not to care their leaders might be losing the plot. That may simply be because holding ‘correct’ beliefs is a lifestyle choice they can afford, as some Unherd readers are suggesting. But if Kathleen Stock’s investigations are accurate, the Directors of the Scott Trust need to take a long hard look at their values and responsibilities. Our democracy needs ‘fearless journalism’. The Trustees won’t deliver that if they allow the kind of lobbying by political groups Kathleen Stock has described here.
As as American who read the Guardian as often as possible, it is nothing but a pathetic rag whose owners, publishers, editors, and writers sold out their integrity and soul a long, long time ago for a few shekels Just like my beloved Washington Post after Bezos took over.
Propaganda organs to further their political and business objectives. Sad and tragic.
As as American who read the Guardian as often as possible, it is nothing but a pathetic rag whose owners, publishers, editors, and writers sold out their integrity and soul a long, long time ago for a few shekels Just like my beloved Washington Post after Bezos took over.
Propaganda organs to further their political and business objectives. Sad and tragic.
Thank you for this
I am also a proud carrier of my “banned by the Guardian” status
My crime was to complain about the vacuity of the “Tim Dowling” column
Any paper that can pay for that and publish an article on piss by Adrian Chiles ( Mr Viner) and then beg for charity contributions must indeed have a heavy sense of irony
(See Stewart Lee on You Tube if you can tolerate the ads for a hilarious urinary related description of Chiles by the way)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfHWtq14inc
I don’t inhabit the world in which the Guardianistas would have us believe exists outside what must be their vanishingly small “Self Confirmatory and Congratulatory Bubble”
The key is, of course, to read it for its comedy value…..Toynbee, Jones, Monbiot,Cosslett ..true comedy gold, surely no-one outside the bubble takes them seriously
Mind you it is a wonderful resource for Vegan recipes and I enjoy Jay Rayners rants and regional recommendations when he gets out of London ( trains permitting of course) …Not trans BTW, this is Unherd not Garundia
Oh yes and why all the Australian content in a UK paper??…I don’t need advice on the best Aussie tomato ketchup brand thanks
Great posts by Roger Bond and Douglas McNeish below, much more articulate than my offering
SATURDAY MORNING…..
Just as an example…this is Dowling’s byline for today….I dread what is to come from Chiles later
“I trip over a bird feeder lying in the blackness. And as soon as I regain my balance, I step on a rake”
Maybe someone should start issuing “Banned by the Guardian” teeshirts.
“BUNNED BY THE GARUDNIA”
To be worn with pride and honour
“BUNNED BY THE GARUDNIA”
To be worn with pride and honour
I sometimes do a shuffle between The Guardian UK, TG Australia and TG US. It is interesting to see how much is common to all three.
In Australia we have one or two Guardian journalists who are well-respected and very popular amongst mildly left-wing members of the public. I wonder how they (the journalists, that is) maintain their Guardian jobs and still manage to prove that they are astute thinkers when it comes to issues the Guardian does not censor.
As a reader I sometimes write comments on articles and have discovered that if you want to say anything at all critical of the “LGBTQI” madness you have to be sneaky indeed, otherwise you will be deleted for sure (I write as an L who wants out of the acronym).
Maybe someone should start issuing “Banned by the Guardian” teeshirts.
I sometimes do a shuffle between The Guardian UK, TG Australia and TG US. It is interesting to see how much is common to all three.
In Australia we have one or two Guardian journalists who are well-respected and very popular amongst mildly left-wing members of the public. I wonder how they (the journalists, that is) maintain their Guardian jobs and still manage to prove that they are astute thinkers when it comes to issues the Guardian does not censor.
As a reader I sometimes write comments on articles and have discovered that if you want to say anything at all critical of the “LGBTQI” madness you have to be sneaky indeed, otherwise you will be deleted for sure (I write as an L who wants out of the acronym).
Thank you for this
I am also a proud carrier of my “banned by the Guardian” status
My crime was to complain about the vacuity of the “Tim Dowling” column
Any paper that can pay for that and publish an article on piss by Adrian Chiles ( Mr Viner) and then beg for charity contributions must indeed have a heavy sense of irony
(See Stewart Lee on You Tube if you can tolerate the ads for a hilarious urinary related description of Chiles by the way)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfHWtq14inc
I don’t inhabit the world in which the Guardianistas would have us believe exists outside what must be their vanishingly small “Self Confirmatory and Congratulatory Bubble”
The key is, of course, to read it for its comedy value…..Toynbee, Jones, Monbiot,Cosslett ..true comedy gold, surely no-one outside the bubble takes them seriously
Mind you it is a wonderful resource for Vegan recipes and I enjoy Jay Rayners rants and regional recommendations when he gets out of London ( trains permitting of course) …Not trans BTW, this is Unherd not Garundia
Oh yes and why all the Australian content in a UK paper??…I don’t need advice on the best Aussie tomato ketchup brand thanks
Great posts by Roger Bond and Douglas McNeish below, much more articulate than my offering
SATURDAY MORNING…..
Just as an example…this is Dowling’s byline for today….I dread what is to come from Chiles later
“I trip over a bird feeder lying in the blackness. And as soon as I regain my balance, I step on a rake”
Kathleen really hits the nail on the head when she points to ‘fear of populism’ as the driving force behind the media’s abandonment of balanced, critical, many-sided coverage. In America, it actually has a name, Trump Derangement Syndrome, because since 2016, the rhetoric around him became so hyperbolic and frankly apocalyptic that it caused even steadfast independents like myself to lose trust in most media. The explanation, of course, is that fear makes people irrational and leads to irrational decisions. Some groups have legitimate, or at least sympathetic, reasons to fear. Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, women, and others have suffered real harm in the past due to unfair laws, prejudice, and discrimination, and they fear losing the progress their various rights movements have secured. In my view, their fear is misplaced, but I nonetheless can see why they are hesitant to put their trust in a movement that embraces pure majoritarianism and fewer restrictions on individual freedoms. The transnational aristocracy, the financiers, bankers, traders, corporations, DAVOS men, lobbyists, etc. who run the current “rules based international order” and/or subsist off it like parasites also fear it, but for less sympathetic reasons. Like any aristocracy at any point in history, they have an instinctual and existential fear of popular uprising, which is basically what populism is. In America, the situation is at it’s absolute worst because America is the only nation that could unilaterally end the age of globalism. In other nations, the threat is less existential but still very present to oligarchs of those nations. The oligarchs will use every available means to undermine populist insurgencies, including manipulating the media outlets they own to attempt to control narratives, corrupting science by funding and then rubber stamping research that backs their policies while ignoring or black balling anything contradictory, and exploiting the reasonable fears of minority groups by focusing on historical grievances to amplify fears of a a return to the ‘bad old days’. For those who understand history, their behavior is sadly predictable. Like the landed nobility of the 19th century, they will embrace increasingly reactionary policies as their world falls apart around them. I would point out that the UK handled that transition better and more peacefully than just about any other European nation. I couldn’t tell you exactly when the monarch became a figurehead to the parliament or the house of lords became irrelevant but it was clearly somewhere in there. I suspect despite its present trials, Britain will weather this storm better than others as well. A timely Brexit suggests as much. I suspect a hundred years from now, the UK will be looked upon as the smart sailor who wisely jumped ship before the violence broke out and the ship caught on fire.
….and you hadn’t noticed Obama Derangement Syndrome beforehand – you know, about ‘Hussein’ Obama the socialist Kenyan etc? Or Clinton DS (oh my god he got a BJ!; OMG she used a non-govt server; she leads a paedo ring! Yet, of the four, only one tried to overthrow the election and has so many associates criminally charged, or in jail (over 15 now I think?). But yeah MSM boo.
Which publications printed these stories? I just did a perfunctory Google-search and the first three pages are all mainstream news articles that actually denounce these stories as conspiracies rather than promote them.
Tell me more about this Obama Derangement Syndrome. Is this the same fellow who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize before spending one day in office?
Which publications printed these stories? I just did a perfunctory Google-search and the first three pages are all mainstream news articles that actually denounce these stories as conspiracies rather than promote them.
Tell me more about this Obama Derangement Syndrome. Is this the same fellow who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize before spending one day in office?
I largely agree with you, except that “pure majoritarianism” and “fewer restrictions on individual freedoms”. are inherently at odds with each other. A pure majority can easily (and have in the past) been responsible for some of the worst repressions of minorities imaginable. A “majority” within the UK voted to exit the European Union – that is, participating in an even larger majority. Here in the U.S. the battle is fought for States rights to prevent the tyranny of the much larger Federal majorities.
….and you hadn’t noticed Obama Derangement Syndrome beforehand – you know, about ‘Hussein’ Obama the socialist Kenyan etc? Or Clinton DS (oh my god he got a BJ!; OMG she used a non-govt server; she leads a paedo ring! Yet, of the four, only one tried to overthrow the election and has so many associates criminally charged, or in jail (over 15 now I think?). But yeah MSM boo.
I largely agree with you, except that “pure majoritarianism” and “fewer restrictions on individual freedoms”. are inherently at odds with each other. A pure majority can easily (and have in the past) been responsible for some of the worst repressions of minorities imaginable. A “majority” within the UK voted to exit the European Union – that is, participating in an even larger majority. Here in the U.S. the battle is fought for States rights to prevent the tyranny of the much larger Federal majorities.
Kathleen really hits the nail on the head when she points to ‘fear of populism’ as the driving force behind the media’s abandonment of balanced, critical, many-sided coverage. In America, it actually has a name, Trump Derangement Syndrome, because since 2016, the rhetoric around him became so hyperbolic and frankly apocalyptic that it caused even steadfast independents like myself to lose trust in most media. The explanation, of course, is that fear makes people irrational and leads to irrational decisions. Some groups have legitimate, or at least sympathetic, reasons to fear. Blacks, Jews, homosexuals, women, and others have suffered real harm in the past due to unfair laws, prejudice, and discrimination, and they fear losing the progress their various rights movements have secured. In my view, their fear is misplaced, but I nonetheless can see why they are hesitant to put their trust in a movement that embraces pure majoritarianism and fewer restrictions on individual freedoms. The transnational aristocracy, the financiers, bankers, traders, corporations, DAVOS men, lobbyists, etc. who run the current “rules based international order” and/or subsist off it like parasites also fear it, but for less sympathetic reasons. Like any aristocracy at any point in history, they have an instinctual and existential fear of popular uprising, which is basically what populism is. In America, the situation is at it’s absolute worst because America is the only nation that could unilaterally end the age of globalism. In other nations, the threat is less existential but still very present to oligarchs of those nations. The oligarchs will use every available means to undermine populist insurgencies, including manipulating the media outlets they own to attempt to control narratives, corrupting science by funding and then rubber stamping research that backs their policies while ignoring or black balling anything contradictory, and exploiting the reasonable fears of minority groups by focusing on historical grievances to amplify fears of a a return to the ‘bad old days’. For those who understand history, their behavior is sadly predictable. Like the landed nobility of the 19th century, they will embrace increasingly reactionary policies as their world falls apart around them. I would point out that the UK handled that transition better and more peacefully than just about any other European nation. I couldn’t tell you exactly when the monarch became a figurehead to the parliament or the house of lords became irrelevant but it was clearly somewhere in there. I suspect despite its present trials, Britain will weather this storm better than others as well. A timely Brexit suggests as much. I suspect a hundred years from now, the UK will be looked upon as the smart sailor who wisely jumped ship before the violence broke out and the ship caught on fire.
I gave up on the Guardian when it became predominantly full of opinion pieces containing ad hominem attacks and a liberal use of the F word. When you have to resort to such tactics you’ve lost the argument.
I gave up on the Guardian when it became predominantly full of opinion pieces containing ad hominem attacks and a liberal use of the F word. When you have to resort to such tactics you’ve lost the argument.
The Grauniad was well embarked on this direction of travel under Rusbridger; Viner then seems to have pushed it to a point of criticality for hectoring, “right on” byline, or perhaps more aptly, to a cultural event horizon, in that I don’t think its a recoverable situation any more.
Even if you wanted to salvage it as an intelligent, considered journalistic organ, the damage done appears irreversible. Time to walk away: neither readers nor writers will notice, they’re all too busy alternately lecturing one another and congratulating each other for being “on the right side of history”.
It actually depresses me: I really do think it’s healthy to have a variety of viewpoints, but for the press to function in society, that desire must be mutual to journalists and readers both, which is not what’s happening at the Graun.
The Grauniad was well embarked on this direction of travel under Rusbridger; Viner then seems to have pushed it to a point of criticality for hectoring, “right on” byline, or perhaps more aptly, to a cultural event horizon, in that I don’t think its a recoverable situation any more.
Even if you wanted to salvage it as an intelligent, considered journalistic organ, the damage done appears irreversible. Time to walk away: neither readers nor writers will notice, they’re all too busy alternately lecturing one another and congratulating each other for being “on the right side of history”.
It actually depresses me: I really do think it’s healthy to have a variety of viewpoints, but for the press to function in society, that desire must be mutual to journalists and readers both, which is not what’s happening at the Graun.
All newspapers are riddled with trash – just a question of chosing which trash you like to eat.
Yes, the self-congratulatory tone of the comments is bemusing. Exactly the kind of moral superiority you’d see on peak Guardian.
Yes, the self-congratulatory tone of the comments is bemusing. Exactly the kind of moral superiority you’d see on peak Guardian.
All newspapers are riddled with trash – just a question of chosing which trash you like to eat.
“From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers”
I would say that it is not possible to read the Guardian as if it is a serious newspaper without having already been infantilised. Reading it merely entrenches the infantile mindset of those who really think the world works that way.
“Actually, I’ve come to think that they do think some of their readers are idiots — a fact which partly explains progressive policing and censorship around discussion of gender identity, as well as other controversial topics too.”
The subsequent possible explanations Prof Stock gives for this can be summarised as either that the person doing the talking is stupid themselves, or that person thinks his/her audience is stupid. We see a lot of this online generally – it’s one of the more depressing race-to-the-bottom aspects of arguing with strangers online – but it tends not to be a behaviour that journalists working for broadsheet newspapers endorse.
However, this is the Guardian we’re talking about here, and this analysis needs to be extended with a further possibility: that the writer actually hopes, rather than fears, that his/her audience may be stupid, and that they are therefore witless enough to actually believe the nonsense that he/she is peddling. I am not sure that this is a “these days” type of argument – maybe it’s always been the case – but there are some extraordinarily stupid and ignorant people in possession of good qualifications and in positions of responsibility.
The examples above are only a tiny slice of this – people qualified as doctors who apparently don’t think sex is physically real etc – idiots like this are scattered everywhere throughout public life and they very obviously have got all the way through a modern education without having absorbed anything axiomatic to the Age of Reason itself. One would think this would be impossible, but it very clearly isn’t.
The point is, though, that if you’re one of these professionally-qualified-but-daft people, you get your political ideas from the Guardian, because it’s the only supposedly respectable news source that won’t intrude on your echo chamber.
“From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers”
I would say that it is not possible to read the Guardian as if it is a serious newspaper without having already been infantilised. Reading it merely entrenches the infantile mindset of those who really think the world works that way.
“Actually, I’ve come to think that they do think some of their readers are idiots — a fact which partly explains progressive policing and censorship around discussion of gender identity, as well as other controversial topics too.”
The subsequent possible explanations Prof Stock gives for this can be summarised as either that the person doing the talking is stupid themselves, or that person thinks his/her audience is stupid. We see a lot of this online generally – it’s one of the more depressing race-to-the-bottom aspects of arguing with strangers online – but it tends not to be a behaviour that journalists working for broadsheet newspapers endorse.
However, this is the Guardian we’re talking about here, and this analysis needs to be extended with a further possibility: that the writer actually hopes, rather than fears, that his/her audience may be stupid, and that they are therefore witless enough to actually believe the nonsense that he/she is peddling. I am not sure that this is a “these days” type of argument – maybe it’s always been the case – but there are some extraordinarily stupid and ignorant people in possession of good qualifications and in positions of responsibility.
The examples above are only a tiny slice of this – people qualified as doctors who apparently don’t think sex is physically real etc – idiots like this are scattered everywhere throughout public life and they very obviously have got all the way through a modern education without having absorbed anything axiomatic to the Age of Reason itself. One would think this would be impossible, but it very clearly isn’t.
The point is, though, that if you’re one of these professionally-qualified-but-daft people, you get your political ideas from the Guardian, because it’s the only supposedly respectable news source that won’t intrude on your echo chamber.
Their one-sided coverage of the Covid 19 debacle was a fine example of propaganda over journalism.
Their one-sided coverage of the Covid 19 debacle was a fine example of propaganda over journalism.
“This can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake.”
There’s always a tell in these articles that as far as KS is concerned, recent misunderstandings around her suitability for academic employment simply prove that REAL media-led elite progressivism has never been tried.
I guess it would be a different tune entirely but for the little contretemps
I guess it would be a different tune entirely but for the little contretemps
“This can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake.”
There’s always a tell in these articles that as far as KS is concerned, recent misunderstandings around her suitability for academic employment simply prove that REAL media-led elite progressivism has never been tried.
The Guardian is a pricelessly valuable media equivalent of a paid snitch, mole, informer or tout that gives an ( ever increasingly less) free society crucial intelligence on what the increasingly powerful, seditious and would be totalitarian National Socialists plans are, not least in relation to their key weapon, the racism, LGBT and Eco trident…
The Guardian is a pricelessly valuable media equivalent of a paid snitch, mole, informer or tout that gives an ( ever increasingly less) free society crucial intelligence on what the increasingly powerful, seditious and would be totalitarian National Socialists plans are, not least in relation to their key weapon, the racism, LGBT and Eco trident…
It is not only Trans issues that bring Guardianistas out in hives. A few years ago, Ayaan Hirsi Ali published a book on Islam called ‘Heresy’. Now you don’t have to agree with everything that Ali writes on Islam (I don’t) but she is absolutely entitled to her critical view: she was, after all, forcibly mutilated in the name of Islam and, sad to say, it is only in Muslim countries that women still suffer the systematic oppression that the West began to throw off over a hundred years ago.
Ali’s crime, apart from pointing-out the hypocrisy of western feminists who were ripping themselves apart over the meaning of feminism (the Trans debate was still largely confined to ‘The Academy’), while ignoring FGM and the oppression of women in Muslim societies, was to call for a Reformation within Islam; hence she dubbed herself a heretic.
The Guardian’s response? Initially, to completely ignore her; she had, after all married Neil Ferguson, an excellent historian but right-wing, so was ‘beyond the pale’. Eventually, they published a completely bizarre piece on ‘Heresy within Islam’, concluding that it didn’t exist (not true, there are many points of view within Islam, some of which, over the years, like the Sunni-Shia split that have led to accusations of heresy) but more curious than a curious thing, not once mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book.
If that isn’t ‘gaslighting’, I don’t know what is?
It is not only Trans issues that bring Guardianistas out in hives. A few years ago, Ayaan Hirsi Ali published a book on Islam called ‘Heresy’. Now you don’t have to agree with everything that Ali writes on Islam (I don’t) but she is absolutely entitled to her critical view: she was, after all, forcibly mutilated in the name of Islam and, sad to say, it is only in Muslim countries that women still suffer the systematic oppression that the West began to throw off over a hundred years ago.
Ali’s crime, apart from pointing-out the hypocrisy of western feminists who were ripping themselves apart over the meaning of feminism (the Trans debate was still largely confined to ‘The Academy’), while ignoring FGM and the oppression of women in Muslim societies, was to call for a Reformation within Islam; hence she dubbed herself a heretic.
The Guardian’s response? Initially, to completely ignore her; she had, after all married Neil Ferguson, an excellent historian but right-wing, so was ‘beyond the pale’. Eventually, they published a completely bizarre piece on ‘Heresy within Islam’, concluding that it didn’t exist (not true, there are many points of view within Islam, some of which, over the years, like the Sunni-Shia split that have led to accusations of heresy) but more curious than a curious thing, not once mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book.
If that isn’t ‘gaslighting’, I don’t know what is?
“From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers”Could readers of the Guardian be any more the paper is infantilised
” Historically so fond of moral missions,…”
You mean moralising
“…..and start trusting readers to be able to think for themselves”
Well as they take the Guardian they must be inherently incapable of doing so or, put another way, if they could think for themselves they would not be reading the Guardian.
“From trans to Kanye, the paper is infantilising readers”Could readers of the Guardian be any more the paper is infantilised
” Historically so fond of moral missions,…”
You mean moralising
“…..and start trusting readers to be able to think for themselves”
Well as they take the Guardian they must be inherently incapable of doing so or, put another way, if they could think for themselves they would not be reading the Guardian.
“But this can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake.”
Leaves me almost speechless that anyone could still even contemplate the possibility in 2022 !
Still, the place appears to be turning into a circular firing squad …
“But this can’t be the entire story about those writers and editors at the Guardian. These are supposed to be among the nation’s foremost intellectuals, for god’s sake.”
Leaves me almost speechless that anyone could still even contemplate the possibility in 2022 !
Still, the place appears to be turning into a circular firing squad …
The suggestion that writers and editors in The Guardian are supposed to be among the nations’ foremost intellectuals is a new one on me; a marmalade-dropper, to be honest.
The suggestion that writers and editors in The Guardian are supposed to be among the nations’ foremost intellectuals is a new one on me; a marmalade-dropper, to be honest.
One columnist sums it up: Polly Toynbee. Smug, condescending, know-all attitude.
One columnist sums it up: Polly Toynbee. Smug, condescending, know-all attitude.
The Guardians next woke battlefield is Artificial Intelligence. Apperently, AI is making womens boobs bigger! Probably some devious plan by the white patriarchy to retain old gender roles by manipulating code. Pure gold if you like crazy. You just can’t make this shite up.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/09/lensa-ai-portraits-misogyny?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
The Guardians next woke battlefield is Artificial Intelligence. Apperently, AI is making womens boobs bigger! Probably some devious plan by the white patriarchy to retain old gender roles by manipulating code. Pure gold if you like crazy. You just can’t make this shite up.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/dec/09/lensa-ai-portraits-misogyny?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Started reading the (Manchester) Guardian around 1958. Stopped seeing the Guardian as my ‘paper of choice’ around 2018.
Started reading the (Manchester) Guardian around 1958. Stopped seeing the Guardian as my ‘paper of choice’ around 2018.
I comment on the Guardian and usually getaway with not being removed. . Not that the replies are ever supportive but often there are a lot of them ranging from the mildly critical to the outraged. I think the moderators need a few dissenting voices so they let the comments stand.
If anyone thinks that on every single issue there is any possibility of a dissenting voice on the paper then they are deluded. It is a hive of quite exceptional conformity. Simon Jenkins being the sole dissenter some of the time. I suppose that is permissible him being older. Take the current wave of strikes. The G is firmly supportive as it represents the opinions of the classes who are paid for or rely upon the state for a living. That means on every twist and turn of events you can guarantee that the government is entirely in the wrong and the strikers are doing the work of saints. There is not one voice expressing anything nuanced.
Actually I still enjoy reading it as once upon a time it was a really good paper with exceptional writing and I live in hope that one day it will print something that stands comparison. . Thanks for the memory really and it is as well to keep an eye on the wilder fantasies of the progressive class.
I comment on the Guardian and usually getaway with not being removed. . Not that the replies are ever supportive but often there are a lot of them ranging from the mildly critical to the outraged. I think the moderators need a few dissenting voices so they let the comments stand.
If anyone thinks that on every single issue there is any possibility of a dissenting voice on the paper then they are deluded. It is a hive of quite exceptional conformity. Simon Jenkins being the sole dissenter some of the time. I suppose that is permissible him being older. Take the current wave of strikes. The G is firmly supportive as it represents the opinions of the classes who are paid for or rely upon the state for a living. That means on every twist and turn of events you can guarantee that the government is entirely in the wrong and the strikers are doing the work of saints. There is not one voice expressing anything nuanced.
Actually I still enjoy reading it as once upon a time it was a really good paper with exceptional writing and I live in hope that one day it will print something that stands comparison. . Thanks for the memory really and it is as well to keep an eye on the wilder fantasies of the progressive class.
We have the same problem in the US. Very dangerous to democracy. If journalists stop seeing truth as their job and start engineering outcomes, democracy becomes unsustainable.
We have the same problem in the US. Very dangerous to democracy. If journalists stop seeing truth as their job and start engineering outcomes, democracy becomes unsustainable.
It is not only Trans issues that bring Guardianistas out in hives. A few years ago, Ayaan Hirsi Ali published a book on Islam called ‘Heresy’. Now you don’t have to agree with everything that Ali writes on Islam (I don’t) but she is absolutely entitled to her critical view: she was, after all, forcibly mutilated in the name of Islam and, sad to say, it is only in Muslim countries that women still suffer the kind of systematic oppression that the West began (NB. ‘began’) to throw off over a hundred years ago.
Ali’s crime, apart from pointing-out the hypocrisy of western feminists who were ripping themselves apart over the meaning of feminism (the Trans debate was still largely confined to ‘The Academy’), while ignoring FGM and the oppression of women in Muslim societies, was to call for a Reformation within Islam; hence she dubbed herself a heretic.
The Guardian’s response? Initially, to completely ignore her; she had, after all married Niall Ferguson, an excellent historian but right-wing, so was ‘beyond the pale’. Eventually, they published a completely bizarre piece on ‘Heresy within Islam’, concluding that it didn’t exist (not true, there are many points of view within Islam, some of which, over the years, like the Sunni-Shia split that have led to accusations of heresy) but more curious than a curious thing, not once mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book.
Is this not the very definition of ‘gas-lighting’?
It is not only Trans issues that bring Guardianistas out in hives. A few years ago, Ayaan Hirsi Ali published a book on Islam called ‘Heresy’. Now you don’t have to agree with everything that Ali writes on Islam (I don’t) but she is absolutely entitled to her critical view: she was, after all, forcibly mutilated in the name of Islam and, sad to say, it is only in Muslim countries that women still suffer the kind of systematic oppression that the West began (NB. ‘began’) to throw off over a hundred years ago.
Ali’s crime, apart from pointing-out the hypocrisy of western feminists who were ripping themselves apart over the meaning of feminism (the Trans debate was still largely confined to ‘The Academy’), while ignoring FGM and the oppression of women in Muslim societies, was to call for a Reformation within Islam; hence she dubbed herself a heretic.
The Guardian’s response? Initially, to completely ignore her; she had, after all married Niall Ferguson, an excellent historian but right-wing, so was ‘beyond the pale’. Eventually, they published a completely bizarre piece on ‘Heresy within Islam’, concluding that it didn’t exist (not true, there are many points of view within Islam, some of which, over the years, like the Sunni-Shia split that have led to accusations of heresy) but more curious than a curious thing, not once mentioning Ayaan Hirsi Ali and her book.
Is this not the very definition of ‘gas-lighting’?
I’m trying to think of British newspaper that DOESN’T both lecture to, and to some degree infantilise, its readers.
Can anyone help? The Mail? The Sun The Telegraph? Anyone?
As bad as it might seem, British news media is much better than anything found in North America. At least there’s a bit of diversity.
As bad as it might seem, British news media is much better than anything found in North America. At least there’s a bit of diversity.
I’m trying to think of British newspaper that DOESN’T both lecture to, and to some degree infantilise, its readers.
Can anyone help? The Mail? The Sun The Telegraph? Anyone?
I’m here because I became so exasperated with the Guardian (which I still read, but much more selectively now).
I’m here because I became so exasperated with the Guardian (which I still read, but much more selectively now).
To make the story short, I dare say, this lady has got “balls”..!
To make the story short, I dare say, this lady has got “balls”..!
…be mindful that the Guardian is “highly trusted” by the vanishingly small number of people who read it. Most of us think it is utter bilge…and the much bigger numbers of people for whom the Mail and the Telegraph are “highly trusted” consider publishing and reading it to be an act of Treason, which should be subjected to swift and condign punishment of a traditional sort…although I think most of them would now draw the line at “drawing and quartering”…
…be mindful that the Guardian is “highly trusted” by the vanishingly small number of people who read it. Most of us think it is utter bilge…and the much bigger numbers of people for whom the Mail and the Telegraph are “highly trusted” consider publishing and reading it to be an act of Treason, which should be subjected to swift and condign punishment of a traditional sort…although I think most of them would now draw the line at “drawing and quartering”…
So grateful to Ms. Stock for her multidimensional intelligence.
So grateful to Ms. Stock for her multidimensional intelligence.
Trans women are definitely not women. They are dangerously ill people and in more caring times would have been committed to an asylum along with those who claimed to be God or the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Trans women are definitely not women. They are dangerously ill people and in more caring times would have been committed to an asylum along with those who claimed to be God or the reincarnation of Napoleon Bonaparte.
Woodward and Bernstein were pumped up kicks in a giant game of Get The Republican and Pulitzers are gold stars for the obeisant, so the state of “journalism” is only a surprise to those who didn’t know it was always a form of prostitution.
Woodward and Bernstein were pumped up kicks in a giant game of Get The Republican and Pulitzers are gold stars for the obeisant, so the state of “journalism” is only a surprise to those who didn’t know it was always a form of prostitution.
But, may the Good Lord be praised, we still have the Observer on a Sunday. Sonia Sodha(spelling?) and Kenan Malik who respectively write with nuance on the like of gender/transgender and race.
The answer to the headline is yes.
The answer to the headline is yes.
I read the Guardian. It does indeed have many problems, though not as many as the BBC. After the BBC if I switch to Al Jazeera I find it to be an interesting antidote, but the problem is that all news outlets are a problem in their own different ways. There are three biases, the bias of presentation, and the bias of the recipient, from which arises the bias of interpretation. It’s interesting to observe all three at play in this comments section (inference in particular). Personally my aim is (if at all possible) always to be an observer (small ‘o’). I’m really not all that interested in the news, because so much of it is either puerile or vexatious. However I somehow feel I should be, at least to some degree informed on what’s going on in the world even if it is the present obsession with the stultifyingly boring spectacle of ritualised tribal warfare.
I find many of the articles in Unherd to be so over intellectualised as to be unreadable, but this writer’s piece was interesting, although I have little understanding of the specifics of gender issues which seem very complex. But it seemed to me that there were some very relevant issues raised. The problem these days seems to be that contrarian opinion is not allowed and to be avoided, even when it is blindingly obvious that criticism is justified, because of the degree of opprobrium the slightest criticism attracts.
I think it’s fair to say her piece would not have been published in the Grauniad.
I read the Guardian. It does indeed have many problems, though not as many as the BBC. After the BBC if I switch to Al Jazeera I find it to be an interesting antidote, but the problem is that all news outlets are a problem in their own different ways. There are three biases, the bias of presentation, and the bias of the recipient, from which arises the bias of interpretation. It’s interesting to observe all three at play in this comments section (inference in particular). Personally my aim is (if at all possible) always to be an observer (small ‘o’). I’m really not all that interested in the news, because so much of it is either puerile or vexatious. However I somehow feel I should be, at least to some degree informed on what’s going on in the world even if it is the present obsession with the stultifyingly boring spectacle of ritualised tribal warfare.
I find many of the articles in Unherd to be so over intellectualised as to be unreadable, but this writer’s piece was interesting, although I have little understanding of the specifics of gender issues which seem very complex. But it seemed to me that there were some very relevant issues raised. The problem these days seems to be that contrarian opinion is not allowed and to be avoided, even when it is blindingly obvious that criticism is justified, because of the degree of opprobrium the slightest criticism attracts.
I think it’s fair to say her piece would not have been published in the Grauniad.
I am in debt to the the Guardian. I was very pro-EEC (still am), and did not see any harm in the transition into the EU. What could be wrong with ever-tighter integration? And surely everybody using the same money would be rather convenient.
It was Larry Elliot, the Guardian’s long-time economics editor, which ‘woke-me-up’ to the inherent shortfalls in the reasoning behind the Euro.
Elliot’s (unfortunately too infrequent) articles are at loggerheads with much of the opinion on Brexit expressed in the Guardian. I found it rather fun to post concepts taken from his articles in the forums under Brexit opinion articles. Apparently such thoughts could only come from a small minded nationalist zealot.
I am in debt to the the Guardian. I was very pro-EEC (still am), and did not see any harm in the transition into the EU. What could be wrong with ever-tighter integration? And surely everybody using the same money would be rather convenient.
It was Larry Elliot, the Guardian’s long-time economics editor, which ‘woke-me-up’ to the inherent shortfalls in the reasoning behind the Euro.
Elliot’s (unfortunately too infrequent) articles are at loggerheads with much of the opinion on Brexit expressed in the Guardian. I found it rather fun to post concepts taken from his articles in the forums under Brexit opinion articles. Apparently such thoughts could only come from a small minded nationalist zealot.
The Guardian used to be fairly so so many years ago but for a long time now it has been a Marxist propaganda and indoctrination rag , really deplorable and full of lies .I believe that the people who finance the “paper” are in the old Soviet bloc somewhere . It is obvious that they hate the west and will do anything and everything to undermine us all . This paper is one of the reasons that so many teachers and youngsters in Britain hate our country and take every opportunity to talk it down .
The Guardian used to be fairly so so many years ago but for a long time now it has been a Marxist propaganda and indoctrination rag , really deplorable and full of lies .I believe that the people who finance the “paper” are in the old Soviet bloc somewhere . It is obvious that they hate the west and will do anything and everything to undermine us all . This paper is one of the reasons that so many teachers and youngsters in Britain hate our country and take every opportunity to talk it down .
NO, the Gardian must now be avoided like the plague it is , believe me folks it is toxic to my country and the West .
NO, the Gardian must now be avoided like the plague it is , believe me folks it is toxic to my country and the West .
Believing someone with male biology (musculature and genitalia), male endocrinology (testosterone and PSA) and male genetics (a Y chromosome) to be a woman merely because they say so is on a par with believing that 2 + 2 = 5.
It is important to some people that we believe this, but that does not make it so, and no amount of legislation or bullying will make it so. The Guardian and BBC appear to be treating us in the same way that O’Brien did Winston Smith.
I am not critical of any gender so why refer to me as gender critical, this is more nonsense. I also care not a jot if someone choses to change, dress, name or even physical body through surgery or chemicals. I will happily call them by whatever name or pronoun they wish and treat them with utmost respect as all other people.
However, a person cannot change their biological sex through wishing it so,
Believing someone with male biology (musculature and genitalia), male endocrinology (testosterone and PSA) and male genetics (a Y chromosome) to be a woman merely because they say so is on a par with believing that 2 + 2 = 5.
It is important to some people that we believe this, but that does not make it so, and no amount of legislation or bullying will make it so. The Guardian and BBC appear to be treating us in the same way that O’Brien did Winston Smith.
I am not critical of any gender so why refer to me as gender critical, this is more nonsense. I also care not a jot if someone choses to change, dress, name or even physical body through surgery or chemicals. I will happily call them by whatever name or pronoun they wish and treat them with utmost respect as all other people.
However, a person cannot change their biological sex through wishing it so,
Interesting how this article offered an opportunity for just about everyone below to demonize The Guardian. No surprise. Let’s face it, everything is political, for the simple fact that politics is a big umbrella for cultural beliefs and personal identity. I have been reading Unheard articles once in awhile for probably the last 2 years. It hardly ever fails. Just about every article is written from what we would call the conservative perspective in life, and just about every response portraits the same ideology. Needless to say, it would be completely unproductive for me to even attempt to convince others that this is the case and they need to use their judgement instead of instantly jump on the bandwagon. Our judgement is clouded, we cannot use our judgement. Everything is tainted by ideology. The enemy is within us, all of us.
That’s interesting. I’ve been reading it for about a year and my observation has been that nearly all of the writers it features approach their subjects from a slightly left of center perspective (a few much further left than slightly). So, I imagine, that says something about where you and I sit on the political spectrum, except that in my case it’s not really the left-right spectrum, but more like the RGB 3-dimensional space like they try to represent with color charts. Call it the Left-Right-libertarian (small L) space. So you think most of the writers are “conservative”. From my libertarian perspective they look, as I said, mostly left of center. I’m trying to think of an Unherd article I’ve read which was truly conservative and can’t. Give me an example of one.
No, they are different. The Guardian and other left-wing publications peddle in outright lies and gaslighting to a gullible reader-base while treating those they consider enemies with sneering contempt. While I disagree with some Unherd writers I hardly find that they adopt a staunch conservative viewpoint. In fact, up until a few years ago, much of what is printed here would have been considered pretty much middle-of-the-road.
The problem is is that left-wingism has dominated almost all forms of discourse, so much so, that anything that is critical of it is immediately perceived to be conservative or right-wing.
I do agree with you, however, that ideological thinking is an easy trap to fall into and that we must be wary of pronouncing judgment on others.
However, what I like most about Unherd is that I am able to post comments here that would have gotten me, and indeed have gotten me, banned from platforms such as The Guardian. I also regularly see posts that I disagree with here from readers, but rather than see them banned or censored, I welcome their contributions no matter how wrong-headed I may think them – a courtesy that is never afforded by most left-wing platforms.
I think you are largely correct about this, but the coverage is much broader than typical publications and there is at least a little diversity of thought.
“Just about every article is written from what we would call the conservative perspective in life…”
You are mistaken. It is simply your own views are further left than you suppose and consequently you interpret alternative views to your own as being further right than they really are.
Of course I might just be wrong here, but an interesting consequence of that could very well be that the consensus in these comments is still nonetheless broadly correct and which means that right-wing views tend more often to be factually supportable than you would like to admit. What you can’t do here is to dismiss the consensus you perceive on the basis of nothing more than the fact that you obviously still trust the Guardian.
I think you would find the majority of writers on Unherd would reject the suggestion that they were right wing. Many are former Guardian writers that have been driven out by that paper’s bigotry.
“Many are former Guardian writers that have been driven out by that paper’s bigotry.”
Or Liberals mugged by reality, as the saying goes.
“Many are former Guardian writers that have been driven out by that paper’s bigotry.”
Or Liberals mugged by reality, as the saying goes.
That’s interesting. I’ve been reading it for about a year and my observation has been that nearly all of the writers it features approach their subjects from a slightly left of center perspective (a few much further left than slightly). So, I imagine, that says something about where you and I sit on the political spectrum, except that in my case it’s not really the left-right spectrum, but more like the RGB 3-dimensional space like they try to represent with color charts. Call it the Left-Right-libertarian (small L) space. So you think most of the writers are “conservative”. From my libertarian perspective they look, as I said, mostly left of center. I’m trying to think of an Unherd article I’ve read which was truly conservative and can’t. Give me an example of one.
No, they are different. The Guardian and other left-wing publications peddle in outright lies and gaslighting to a gullible reader-base while treating those they consider enemies with sneering contempt. While I disagree with some Unherd writers I hardly find that they adopt a staunch conservative viewpoint. In fact, up until a few years ago, much of what is printed here would have been considered pretty much middle-of-the-road.
The problem is is that left-wingism has dominated almost all forms of discourse, so much so, that anything that is critical of it is immediately perceived to be conservative or right-wing.
I do agree with you, however, that ideological thinking is an easy trap to fall into and that we must be wary of pronouncing judgment on others.
However, what I like most about Unherd is that I am able to post comments here that would have gotten me, and indeed have gotten me, banned from platforms such as The Guardian. I also regularly see posts that I disagree with here from readers, but rather than see them banned or censored, I welcome their contributions no matter how wrong-headed I may think them – a courtesy that is never afforded by most left-wing platforms.
I think you are largely correct about this, but the coverage is much broader than typical publications and there is at least a little diversity of thought.
“Just about every article is written from what we would call the conservative perspective in life…”
You are mistaken. It is simply your own views are further left than you suppose and consequently you interpret alternative views to your own as being further right than they really are.
Of course I might just be wrong here, but an interesting consequence of that could very well be that the consensus in these comments is still nonetheless broadly correct and which means that right-wing views tend more often to be factually supportable than you would like to admit. What you can’t do here is to dismiss the consensus you perceive on the basis of nothing more than the fact that you obviously still trust the Guardian.
I think you would find the majority of writers on Unherd would reject the suggestion that they were right wing. Many are former Guardian writers that have been driven out by that paper’s bigotry.
Interesting how this article offered an opportunity for just about everyone below to demonize The Guardian. No surprise. Let’s face it, everything is political, for the simple fact that politics is a big umbrella for cultural beliefs and personal identity. I have been reading Unheard articles once in awhile for probably the last 2 years. It hardly ever fails. Just about every article is written from what we would call the conservative perspective in life, and just about every response portraits the same ideology. Needless to say, it would be completely unproductive for me to even attempt to convince others that this is the case and they need to use their judgement instead of instantly jump on the bandwagon. Our judgement is clouded, we cannot use our judgement. Everything is tainted by ideology. The enemy is within us, all of us.
If not the Guardian what? Tip, the Sunday Times is a good antidote and I like one of their journalists. Front line reporting should be supported wherever.
I read the Guardian occasionally, but mostly the Times. John Crace in the Guardian is excellent, as is Marinna Hyde. I just ignore the trans articles. I migrated across to the Times after several articles slagging off Jordan Peterson in the Guardian. Then almost immediately, Decca Aithenhead in the Times did the same thing! The Guardian focus in an obsessive way about climate change, which is thoroughly depressing, and saturates the paper with helplessness.
I don’t know much about Peterson, but as a non religious person, the comments I’ve seen attributed to him in relation to God, faith and religion in general would seem to indicate an abysmally shallow understanding of the subject. As for changing to the Times? because of criticism of someone? Take it in your stride. 🙂
I am not a Peterson fan, I know very little about him, but the spectacle of my fellow “progressives” mocking and belittling him when he admitted to some mental health challenges was disgusting and not in any way progressive.
As a university student, many years ago, The Guardian was my daily newspaper. They even published one of my letters to the editor.
Now I’m older, and I hope wiser, I very occasionally look at their headlines to see what the deluded whack-job crazy loonies are claiming. I don’t recognize it as a sane news source at all.
I diligently read the Guardian along with The Times and the Telegraph every day. I do this to ensure I get (one hopes) a balanced view . But sadly that is not my experience.
The Guardian is predictable, and shrill about its view of virtue. I dont think they could report a church garden fete without making it a trans or LGBT ??++issue.
The BBC comes close too. No programme shall reflect the statistical make up of British Society. Why ? Because to do so deprives those seeking virtue .
The Guardian – going back to its earliest days as The Manchester Guardian – has never been remotely left in orientation.
They were among the main contributors to the 1917 Balfour Declaration – a wholly racist ideology which completely ignored the long historical presence of Palestinians in Palestine.
I would define the paper and its journalists as poseur-left in orientation, in order to dupe the readership into doublethink.
What really is tragic is that within a capitalist society such as Britain, there is not one single decent mass readership left newspaper.
The Mirror comes closest but is aimed at a reading age of 11 years!
If there were a market for that, why did The Independent stop printing in 2016 and go online-only? In a capitalist society, as you put it, the market decides what it wants to buy.
Seems the “Morning Star” would be better for you.
If there were a market for that, why did The Independent stop printing in 2016 and go online-only? In a capitalist society, as you put it, the market decides what it wants to buy.
Seems the “Morning Star” would be better for you.
The Guardian – going back to its earliest days as The Manchester Guardian – has never been remotely left in orientation.
They were among the main contributors to the 1917 Balfour Declaration – a wholly racist ideology which completely ignored the long historical presence of Palestinians in Palestine.
I would define the paper and its journalists as poseur-left in orientation, in order to dupe the readership into doublethink.
What really is tragic is that within a capitalist society such as Britain, there is not one single decent mass readership left newspaper.
The Mirror comes closest but is aimed at a reading age of 11 years!
I look through the Guardian sometimes but I also look web-sites like the Mail and Guido Fawkes to try and get a perspective. If you want to try into sewage, figuratively speaking I recommend the latter’s comments sections: they can actually be quite scary. For all their faults I like the BBC and the London Times best.
scary indeed…..any of the MSM websites are the same but Guido and his followers inhabit a different universe of terror
scary indeed…..any of the MSM websites are the same but Guido and his followers inhabit a different universe of terror
I look through the Guardian sometimes but I also look web-sites like the Mail and Guido Fawkes to try and get a perspective. If you want to try into sewage, figuratively speaking I recommend the latter’s comments sections: they can actually be quite scary. For all their faults I like the BBC and the London Times best.
Thanks Kathleen. An accurate assessment of the gutter journalism that the Guardian has sunk to in recent years. And its not just on the issues of trans activism and feminism. Their journalistic decline is also apparent in their handling (defence of) of Israel’s racist regime, Labour’s progressive agenda under Corbyn, Palestinian struggle for justice and so much more.
Thanks Kathleen. An accurate assessment of the gutter journalism that the Guardian has sunk to in recent years. And its not just on the issues of trans activism and feminism. Their journalistic decline is also apparent in their handling (defence of) of Israel’s racist regime, Labour’s progressive agenda under Corbyn, Palestinian struggle for justice and so much more.
I agree with the article overall, but gee, it’s hilarious to see an article about a newspaper lacking nuance and context, taking extremist views as fact, and lacking dissenting views, followed by a bunch of comments that… er .. well, I’m sure you can see where I’m heading here. Good article, yes, certain parts of progressivism have been taken over by an insane cult, but I’m not quite ready to write off all progressive thought for all time. I would also add: a cult with bad thinking has taken over parts of the left and now a few people are having their lives ruined. Another cult with bad thinking (“the planet has no limits and it’s a librul conspiracy to say otherwise!!!!”) has taken over parts of the right and now large parts of the planet will be rendered uninhabitable. Perspective, people.
Tell me which parts of the planet will become uninhabitable and when? Because this nonsense isn’t coming from the IPCC.
I remember the good old days when we were told Pacific islands would drown with rising seas, the arctic would be ice free, the Great Barrier Reef would die off, mass starvation, 100 millions of climate refugees.
Geez, now we’re getting serious – the planet will be uninhabitable.
Why would I Google the many studies on peak wet-bulb temperature when you won’t do it for yourself and you won’t read them anyway? And why would you imagine that the comments section is a place for serious scientific discussion? But it doesn’t matter any more. The laws of physics don’t read either the Guardian or Unherd, are not on Twitter, and owe us nothing, not even existence.
I’ve actually heard this one before – the planet will become uninhabitable because it will get so hot and humid our bodies can’t cool down enough through sweating.
And this will make the planet uninhabitable? We won’t be able to adapt through maybe the use of air conditioning? I’m not sure this will be a huge problem here in Canada.
The problem with studies predicting dire outcomes from flooding, or heat waves etc., is they assume we will do nothing to mitigate the impact. Yet humans are incredibly adaptive.
I know my tone is glib and condescending, but we’ve heard this kind of stuff for 35 years. I’ll give you this though – increased heat waves are one of the few predictions that have actually come true.
But are they ‘man made’?
“increased heat waves are one of the few predictions that have actually come true.”
Well, thanks for giving me that, but if that prediction has come true.. and given that we have failed to meet every benchmark for limiting CO2 emissions, doesn’t that mean that the increased heatwaves.. which you admit are happening… will continue to… er.. increase? Why would they not?
And it’s not the only prediction that’s come true. Increased oceanic acidification: O2-free oceanic dead-zones; sea level rise causing coastal erosion and problems for low-lying islands including salination of land; more and stronger hurricanes; more extreme weather events overall. All have come true.
But are they ‘man made’?
“increased heat waves are one of the few predictions that have actually come true.”
Well, thanks for giving me that, but if that prediction has come true.. and given that we have failed to meet every benchmark for limiting CO2 emissions, doesn’t that mean that the increased heatwaves.. which you admit are happening… will continue to… er.. increase? Why would they not?
And it’s not the only prediction that’s come true. Increased oceanic acidification: O2-free oceanic dead-zones; sea level rise causing coastal erosion and problems for low-lying islands including salination of land; more and stronger hurricanes; more extreme weather events overall. All have come true.
He makes the point that your claims are not supported by the body of work that the IPCC itself represents. Do you have a link to any study on “peak wet-bulb temperature” that contradicts the IPCC’s body of evidence, explains why the IPCC’s position is wrong, and provide falsifiable claims as to why?
The answer is that you don’t, of course.
Nature Geoscience good enough for you? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3
“These results suggest that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will prevent most of the tropics from reaching a TW of 35 °C, the limit of human adaptation.”
As has been pointed out by many experts, the clear implication is that :
1) even limiting to 1.5 degrees means that only “most” of the tropics won’t reach “the limit of human adaptation”.. sucks to be you if you’re not in the “most” part.
2) Past 1.5 degrees… which nobody thinks we’ll meet.. all bets are off.
I see clear reasons for alarm. You aren’t required to.
I never said anything about the IPCC or made any statements of any kind about any IPCC projections or positions, so I don’t know why you’re bringing that into it.
“Do you have a link to any study on “peak wet-bulb temperature” that contradicts the IPCC’s body of evidence, explains why the IPCC’s position is wrong, and provide falsifiable claims as to why?”
This is the standard trick of creating a set of criteria which I don’t agree with and never agreed to. Please don’t do that.
“it’s hilarious to see an article about a newspaper lacking nuance and context, taking extremist views as fact, and lacking dissenting views, followed by a bunch of comments that… er..”
Yes – unfortunately this is a pattern on Unherd – measured, nuanced, centrist articles; reactionary commenters who appear too have misread the authors points & position as being entirely in support of their fairly extreme conservative position.
“it’s hilarious to see an article about a newspaper lacking nuance and context, taking extremist views as fact, and lacking dissenting views, followed by a bunch of comments that… er..”
Yes – unfortunately this is a pattern on Unherd – measured, nuanced, centrist articles; reactionary commenters who appear too have misread the authors points & position as being entirely in support of their fairly extreme conservative position.
Nature Geoscience good enough for you? https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-021-00695-3
“These results suggest that limiting global warming to 1.5 °C will prevent most of the tropics from reaching a TW of 35 °C, the limit of human adaptation.”
As has been pointed out by many experts, the clear implication is that :
1) even limiting to 1.5 degrees means that only “most” of the tropics won’t reach “the limit of human adaptation”.. sucks to be you if you’re not in the “most” part.
2) Past 1.5 degrees… which nobody thinks we’ll meet.. all bets are off.
I see clear reasons for alarm. You aren’t required to.
I never said anything about the IPCC or made any statements of any kind about any IPCC projections or positions, so I don’t know why you’re bringing that into it.
“Do you have a link to any study on “peak wet-bulb temperature” that contradicts the IPCC’s body of evidence, explains why the IPCC’s position is wrong, and provide falsifiable claims as to why?”
This is the standard trick of creating a set of criteria which I don’t agree with and never agreed to. Please don’t do that.
I’ve actually heard this one before – the planet will become uninhabitable because it will get so hot and humid our bodies can’t cool down enough through sweating.
And this will make the planet uninhabitable? We won’t be able to adapt through maybe the use of air conditioning? I’m not sure this will be a huge problem here in Canada.
The problem with studies predicting dire outcomes from flooding, or heat waves etc., is they assume we will do nothing to mitigate the impact. Yet humans are incredibly adaptive.
I know my tone is glib and condescending, but we’ve heard this kind of stuff for 35 years. I’ll give you this though – increased heat waves are one of the few predictions that have actually come true.
He makes the point that your claims are not supported by the body of work that the IPCC itself represents. Do you have a link to any study on “peak wet-bulb temperature” that contradicts the IPCC’s body of evidence, explains why the IPCC’s position is wrong, and provide falsifiable claims as to why?
The answer is that you don’t, of course.
Why would I Google the many studies on peak wet-bulb temperature when you won’t do it for yourself and you won’t read them anyway? And why would you imagine that the comments section is a place for serious scientific discussion? But it doesn’t matter any more. The laws of physics don’t read either the Guardian or Unherd, are not on Twitter, and owe us nothing, not even existence.
…
Tell me which parts of the planet will become uninhabitable and when? Because this nonsense isn’t coming from the IPCC.
I remember the good old days when we were told Pacific islands would drown with rising seas, the arctic would be ice free, the Great Barrier Reef would die off, mass starvation, 100 millions of climate refugees.
Geez, now we’re getting serious – the planet will be uninhabitable.
…
I agree with the article overall, but gee, it’s hilarious to see an article about a newspaper lacking nuance and context, taking extremist views as fact, and lacking dissenting views, followed by a bunch of comments that… er .. well, I’m sure you can see where I’m heading here. Good article, yes, certain parts of progressivism have been taken over by an insane cult, but I’m not quite ready to write off all progressive thought for all time. I would also add: a cult with bad thinking has taken over parts of the left and now a few people are having their lives ruined. Another cult with bad thinking (“the planet has no limits and it’s a librul conspiracy to say otherwise!!!!”) has taken over parts of the right and now large parts of the planet will be rendered uninhabitable. Perspective, people.
Oh, dear. Unfortunately what I see in the comments section of Prof. Stocks (usually excellent) articles is a bunch of people who think that because she’s correctly identified a massive hole in left wing thought, this entitles them to:
1) write off all left-wing thought,
2) ignore all the massive holes in right-wing thought and
3) go on, and on, and on, and on about whatever personal conspiracy theory is floating their particular boat.
Sad. Will still follow Doc Stock but I regret my sub to Unherd.
Perhaps you’d be better off in the comfort zone of the Guardian, where you are free to believe anything you like without fear of anyone else holding it up for rational inspection?
But.. as this article correctly states.. the Guardian has some real problems. Why would I go back? I’m just not convinced that Unherd is the place to flee to.
But.. as this article correctly states.. the Guardian has some real problems. Why would I go back? I’m just not convinced that Unherd is the place to flee to.
Perhaps you’d be better off in the comfort zone of the Guardian, where you are free to believe anything you like without fear of anyone else holding it up for rational inspection?
Oh, dear. Unfortunately what I see in the comments section of Prof. Stocks (usually excellent) articles is a bunch of people who think that because she’s correctly identified a massive hole in left wing thought, this entitles them to:
1) write off all left-wing thought,
2) ignore all the massive holes in right-wing thought and
3) go on, and on, and on, and on about whatever personal conspiracy theory is floating their particular boat.
Sad. Will still follow Doc Stock but I regret my sub to Unherd.
As a new reader, drawn by the promise in the ‘mission’ statement of ‘new thinking’ and not pandering to tired tribal thinking, I’m deeply disappointed by the fact that 85% of the BTL comments are vaccuous right-wing rants that would embarrass Richard Littlejohn in their evidenceless cliches and echo-chamber rabble-rousing,
Oh well, I guess my search continues- this seems little better than Breitbart.
What’s wrong with Breitbart? Asking out of genuine curiosity. I just glanced at it and, while I’m not fond of the general website design, found that the random stories I clicked upon were no better or worse than most other publications.
Also, please do point out any cliches and rabble-rousing comments you come across. I’m probably guilty of that myself at times, but I do welcome intelligent debate and love to be proven wrong about things.
As I mentioned in another post, while Unherd and its commentariat may not be perfect, it does allow for different viewpoints to be heard, in a way which is not often allowed on other publications’ comments section. I’d rather people felt safe to express themselves here no matter how clumsily they do it, than that they feel compelled to be silent or for fear of being censored, scorned, or banned.
You have the rest of the media landscape to enjoy if you want a left-wing echo-chamber.
Agreed. Some of the articles and contributors are ok. That’s about as far as I’d go at this point.
Someone who touts vaccine mandates (especially vaccines that don’t work effectively) is always going to take heat here.
Someone who touts vaccine mandates (especially vaccines that don’t work effectively) is always going to take heat here.
Actually, Unherd succeeds in its mission statement. The problem here is not Unherd, but you: you appear not to have worked out that the opinions here – either those of the writers or the commentators – aren’t generally right-wing, but varied across the political spectrum.
This is what common-sense looks like: what you’re calling “vaccuous (sic) right-wing rants” are really just a selection of how most adults with a bit of life behind them think the world really works. This is how such people respond to being told that sex is not real and not binary, that men should have the right to women-only spaces by simply asserting an entirely self-declared entitlement to femininity despite having no external resemblance to it, and that children can legitimately be sexually mutilated without parental consent before they are even able to understand what their own adult consent might later comprise. If there is a rant-like quality to some of the comments here, that is quite understandably simply because the propositions in question are not merely wrong but outrageous.
Sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s your own problem, not anyone else’s here, and certainly not that of Unherd.
Actually a large percentage of BTL commentators are smart ‘ex-liberals’ who had the independence of thought, intelligence, discernment and nous to move away from media that simply marched towards intolerance, authoritarianism and ‘progressivism’. See how many people here were and are familiar with The Guardian?
Not even just “ex-” liberals, but also true liberals who saw how illiberal so-called liberals were becoming.
Not even just “ex-” liberals, but also true liberals who saw how illiberal so-called liberals were becoming.
What’s wrong with Breitbart? Asking out of genuine curiosity. I just glanced at it and, while I’m not fond of the general website design, found that the random stories I clicked upon were no better or worse than most other publications.
Also, please do point out any cliches and rabble-rousing comments you come across. I’m probably guilty of that myself at times, but I do welcome intelligent debate and love to be proven wrong about things.
As I mentioned in another post, while Unherd and its commentariat may not be perfect, it does allow for different viewpoints to be heard, in a way which is not often allowed on other publications’ comments section. I’d rather people felt safe to express themselves here no matter how clumsily they do it, than that they feel compelled to be silent or for fear of being censored, scorned, or banned.
You have the rest of the media landscape to enjoy if you want a left-wing echo-chamber.
Agreed. Some of the articles and contributors are ok. That’s about as far as I’d go at this point.
Actually, Unherd succeeds in its mission statement. The problem here is not Unherd, but you: you appear not to have worked out that the opinions here – either those of the writers or the commentators – aren’t generally right-wing, but varied across the political spectrum.
This is what common-sense looks like: what you’re calling “vaccuous (sic) right-wing rants” are really just a selection of how most adults with a bit of life behind them think the world really works. This is how such people respond to being told that sex is not real and not binary, that men should have the right to women-only spaces by simply asserting an entirely self-declared entitlement to femininity despite having no external resemblance to it, and that children can legitimately be sexually mutilated without parental consent before they are even able to understand what their own adult consent might later comprise. If there is a rant-like quality to some of the comments here, that is quite understandably simply because the propositions in question are not merely wrong but outrageous.
Sorry if you don’t like it, but it’s your own problem, not anyone else’s here, and certainly not that of Unherd.
Actually a large percentage of BTL commentators are smart ‘ex-liberals’ who had the independence of thought, intelligence, discernment and nous to move away from media that simply marched towards intolerance, authoritarianism and ‘progressivism’. See how many people here were and are familiar with The Guardian?
As a new reader, drawn by the promise in the ‘mission’ statement of ‘new thinking’ and not pandering to tired tribal thinking, I’m deeply disappointed by the fact that 85% of the BTL comments are vaccuous right-wing rants that would embarrass Richard Littlejohn in their evidenceless cliches and echo-chamber rabble-rousing,
Oh well, I guess my search continues- this seems little better than Breitbart.
Ohh my God! This is unreadable…. After slogging through the first half, I gave up. Sorry, not sorry. After working in A&E for years, meeting lots of (mainly) kids and young adults who are secure in their trans identity, able to give detailed accounts of their improved quality of life in their new gender (both ways), I can only regard this piece as on par with something by Jordan Petersen, or Alex Jones. Watch this if you dare: https://youtu.be/GW8Plf_IXGs
I’m sorry, but nothing is “unreadable”, because ideas don’t jump out of a page and physically attack you. You just didn’t want to read them because you think your personal experience with a subset of kids trumps the other subset of kids.. who you don’t meet… who regret what they have done.
I’m a progressive, as I suspect you are. Genuine question: are women a marginalised group? And is it progressive to redefine a marginalised group without the consent of that marginalised group? Especially when that redefinition has major consequences in life and law? Do women have the right to say no, to exclude, to not be accomodating and compliant? Another question: is it progressive to create a situation where LGB kids are being told.. in large numbers.. that there’s something wrong with them? In 2022?
This isn’t progressive.
I’m sorry, but nothing is “unreadable”, because ideas don’t jump out of a page and physically attack you. You just didn’t want to read them because you think your personal experience with a subset of kids trumps the other subset of kids.. who you don’t meet… who regret what they have done.
I’m a progressive, as I suspect you are. Genuine question: are women a marginalised group? And is it progressive to redefine a marginalised group without the consent of that marginalised group? Especially when that redefinition has major consequences in life and law? Do women have the right to say no, to exclude, to not be accomodating and compliant? Another question: is it progressive to create a situation where LGB kids are being told.. in large numbers.. that there’s something wrong with them? In 2022?
This isn’t progressive.
Ohh my God! This is unreadable…. After slogging through the first half, I gave up. Sorry, not sorry. After working in A&E for years, meeting lots of (mainly) kids and young adults who are secure in their trans identity, able to give detailed accounts of their improved quality of life in their new gender (both ways), I can only regard this piece as on par with something by Jordan Petersen, or Alex Jones. Watch this if you dare: https://youtu.be/GW8Plf_IXGs