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.