Urban v's the Commentariat

[weepiper]

It's all far too close to home if you're female and ever tried to explain what street harassment's like and had it minimised by people who don't want to believe it. Just don't go there. Find something else to attack her over if you must. I actually don't care whether she's telling the truth or not.

 

[Bakunin]

In that case, I think you've misunderstood what some people are saying.

It's not that people are actually defending LP or supporting her in everything (anything) she says or does, it's more that they are challenging you choosing to criticise her on this particular (trivial and personal) issue, which looks like a personal attack for the sake of it rather than a substantive attack on her politics or her negative contribution to the overall debate.

I had this distinction pointed out to me a while back when I made some sneery comment about the sound of her voice, or something along those lines, and I thought it was a valid one, so I took it on board. No one is saying you shouldn't criticise LP (or anyone else) on substantive issues, and I'm sure the chance to do so will be along again soon.

Agreed.

 

[equationgirl]

It's all far too close to home if you're female and ever tried to explain what street harassment's like and had it minimised by people who don't want to believe it. Just don't go there. Find something else to attack her over if you must. I actually don't care whether she's telling the truth or not.

This, pretty much.

 

[DaveCinzano]

Any known faces from our New York list at the dinner party near the end of this video?

 

[butchersapron]

Have discovered that New Statesman pay 12p a word.

That person has a piece in that mag attacking brand right now as well - didn't count the words - looks about a 1000, so a hundred quid?:

Stuff your revolution if it doesn’t include treating women as people

Russell Brand, clown that he is, is taken seriously by an awful lot of young men who see any criticism of the cartoon messiah’s misogyny as a derail from “the real issues” (whatever they are). The fans claim they love Brand despite the fact that he talks about women as poisoned birds of paradise, sucubus-like vultures or material accoutrements of wealth (“Are you reading this on a yacht, through your Ray-Bans, with, I dunno, a pair of glistening Russian sisters,” Brand asks his implicitly male reader at the start of his atrocious Revolution). I think the fans are dishonest: the sexism is part of the sell. If you know what power feels like, even if you have ever so little of it, how many people could commit to a new order with none at all?

 

[frogwoman]

Have discovered that New Statesman pay 12p a word.

That person has a piece in that mag attacking brand right now as well - didn't count the words - looks about a 1000, so a hundred quid?:

Stuff your revolution if it doesn’t include treating women as people

to be honest I hate Russell Brand and I'd agree with a lot of that, except a lot of women also like Russell Brand

 

[DaveCinzano]

Have discovered that New Statesman pay 12p a word.

She doesn't explicitly state that the NS pays 12p/word. Could be any of the outlets she writes for, including the Guardian (which despite a house agreement to pay £310.68/1,000 words for print only pays £90 for “commissioned or ‘pick of the day’” posts, with reports of CiF or blog posts of around 400-600 words earning just £85. At the lower end of that scale that would amount to approximately 12p/word.

laptop will know more about Tightarse Alan's regime of skinflintery.

 

[rekil]

This proper petit booj rubbish was probably done for free. Laurie's off on international duty, and apparently the NS doesn't have a very deep bench.

Do you dislike Jamie Oliver because you’re ideologically opposed to his pasta dishes, or is it because the idea of a working class man who has acquired the privileges of middle class life pisses you off?

Sure, it’s utterly consumerist, but Jamie Oliver capitalises on something that most of us struggle to define: transforming a desire to better yourself morally and culturally into a cast-iron griddle pan. That, I think, is at least something to admire.

 

[butchersapron]

She doesn't explicitly state that the NS pays 12p/word. Could be any of the outlets she writes for, including the Guardian (which despite a house agreement to pay £310.68/1,000 words for print only pays £90 for “commissioned or ‘pick of the day’” posts, with reports of CiF or blog posts of around 400-600 words earning just £85. At the lower end of that scale that would amount to approximately 12p/word.

laptop will know more about Tightarse Alan's regime of skinflintery.

She means the NS though doesn't she? Why else mention that brand edited it?

 

[DaveCinzano]

She means the NS though doesn't she? Why else mention that brand edited it?

She may well mean the NS, but I don't think it is wise to assume that from a tweet (with all the attendant problems associated with brevity, zing, contextlessness, hyperbole etc which the form tends to bring with it), without some kind of explicit confirmation.

Certainly the NUJFB fees guide indicates current rates are around double the mentioned 12p/word. As SD is an experienced freelance and longtime, relatively high-profile (via the blogosphere) contributor to NS, and not some ingénue pulling into the metropolis on a carrot cart with not an idea of how much to charge, I just think it is worth clarifying before potentially overreaching/misstating.

 

[butchersapron]

what if i have no wish to be fair to the NS and it's anti-union cast of scummers and want to make them look bad whilst being able to blame it on one of their own if it turns out to be untrue - eh, did you think of that? *prods in chest* eh?

 

[DaveCinzano]

what if i have no wish to be fair to the NS and it's anti-union cast of scummers and want to make them look bad whilst being able to blame it on one of their own if it turns out to be untrue - eh, did you think of that? *prods in chest* eh?

I'm afraid I was aiming higher, and attempting to ensure that this thread of record accurately and wholly considered all reasonable inferences, to forestall potential future perpetuation of possible mistakes

 

[J Ed]

Apparently Laurie said this, and the quote been loving retweeted by LP. It's an interesting insight into her mind and the way in which she justifies lying about what people say and outright making shit up so that she doesn't have to 'adapt' herself. Explains a lot.

They must be a misogynist/racist (disregard if neo-Nazi bearded hipster) otherwise I'd have to revise the idea that I am not a dick.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Apparently Laurie said this, and the quote been loving retweeted by LP. It's an interesting insight into her mind and the way in which she justifies lying about what people say and outright making shit up so that she doesn't have to 'adapt' herself. Explains a lot.

They must be a misogynist/racist (disregard if neo-Nazi bearded hipster) otherwise I'd have to revise the idea that I am not a dick.

That's really quite a strange quote. Does LP have a notion that there is an essential self that exists somewhere separate from all the stories? She seems to be at least questioning this in the second part, where she is actively encouraging story telling as a way to change the world (which she presumably is partly a product of). It all comes across as a self-serving and poorly thought out justification for personal dishonesty in the cause of some greater good...not really the sort of thing you'd want to tweet, let alone retweet.
Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Bakunin]

That's really quite a strange quote. Does LP have a notion that there is an essential self that exists somewhere seperate from all the stories? She seems to be at least questioning this in the second part, where she is actively encouraging story telling as a way to change the world (which she presumably is partly a product of). It all comes across as a self serving and poorly thought out justification for personal dishonesty in the cause of some geater good.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Sounds like fair, reasoned comment to me.

 

[killer b]

It's an ironically (unintentionally) worded call to action ('be the change you want to see') rather than suggesting fibbing, surely?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

It's an ironically (unintentionally) worded call to action ('be the change you want to see') rather than suggesting fibbing, surely?

I'm not so sure. It seems to me to be a call to 'change the world' by telling 'stories', in order to protect yourself; after all that is where she starts i.e. don't change your self (whatever that might be), but rather change the account you give of the world you live in. She doesn't want to be the change/to be changed; she want to be protected, as she is. Which when you think about it isn't really all that suprising for someone in her position.

Cheers - Louis Macneice

 

[Bakunin]

It's an ironically (unintentionally) worded call to action ('be the change you want to see') rather than suggesting fibbing, surely?

Objective fact is, or should be, a journalistic fundamental. If you start bending a narrative and you're spotted doing it, which she has been on a number of occasions, then not only yourself but also your cause is discredited. It's like a trial witness giving evidence. A few small white lies might not seem like much until the opposing lawyer points them out to a jury, at which point everything you've said becomes questionable no matter how accurate the rest of it may be. If people don't know at a given time whether or not you're bending the truth then they're likely to err on the side of caution.

 

[killer b]

I know that's what she does, which is what makes the quote amusing. But she isn't suggesting that's what people should do ffs. listen to yourselves.

 

[Bakunin]

I know that's what she does, which is what makes the quote amusing. But she isn't suggesting that's what people should do ffs. listen to yourselves.

Personally, it's the fact that she does it that annoys me. It's not what a reporter is supposed to do and ignores basic principles. I don't mind people being polemicists at all, provided they're honest about it. I mind the idea of pretending to be an honest broker while employing dishonest methods and rounding on people who have the temerity to point that out.

 

[rekil]

neo-Nazi bearded hipster

Kicked off the twitter apparently. I don't see LP campaigning for her "digital activist hero" (Guardian - Nov 2013) this time.

Crabapple's done a fantastically smug 15 point guide to $ucce$$ to promote Cory Doctorow's stocking filler buke. She's left out a few and claimed she never got a big break. Forgotten about all the opportunities Occupy threw up already eh? EH?

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I know that's what she does, which is what makes the quote amusing. But she isn't suggesting that's what people should do ffs. listen to yourselves.

Sorry I'm confused now. She is saying invent the story isn't she? I have a nasty feeling that I'm being quite thick here...help me out.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[killer b]

Personally, it's the fact that she does it that annoys me. It's not what a reporter is supposed to do and ignores basic principles. I don't mind people being polemicists at all, provided they're honest about it. I mind the idea of pretending to be an honest broker while employing dishonest methods and rounding on people who have the temerity to point that out.

As a journalism fellow at Harvard, we know Penny needs no lecturing on journalistic ethics Clearly she doesn't apply those ethics to her own writing, but advocating it to others would be insane.

So, while this is amusingly misunderstandable, it's not her suggesting journalists break rule 1 of the journalism rule book - it's her suggesting people act to change things (and therefore the story).

 

[Bakunin]

As a journalism fellow at Harvard, we know Penny needs no lecturing on journalistic ethics Clearly she doesn't apply those ethics to her own writing, but advocating it to others would be insane.

So, while this is amusingly misunderstandable, it's not her suggesting journalists break rule 1 of the journalism rule book - it's her suggesting people act to change things (and therefore the story).

If I'm wrong about this particular instance, then fair enough. I don't think her prior record will have helped vis a vis misunderstandings, though.

 

[newbie]

Sorry I'm confused now. She is saying invent the story isn't she? I have a nasty feeling that I'm being quite thick here...help me out.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

to me it reads like she's saying that as a character in a story she can do what's expected of her or she can try to change the plotline.

Isn't that something that's occurred to most of us, one way or another, even before the Truman Show?

 

[phildwyer]

Sorry I'm confused now. She is saying invent the story isn't she? I have a nasty feeling that I'm being quite thick here...help me out.

By "the story" she means "life" or "the historical situation" or "politics." She doesn't mean it in a journalistic sense.

 

[phildwyer]

Apparently Laurie said this, and the quote been loving retweeted by LP. It's an interesting insight into her mind and the way in which she justifies lying about what people say and outright making shit up so that she doesn't have to 'adapt' herself. Explains a lot.

Posts like this remind me of the Gamergate fiasco. So desperate to find ammunition. Getting daft.

 

[8115]

She's an Emma Goldman for our time

 

[J Ed]

She's an Emma Goldman for our time

Don't tell her that, she'll open up an expensive ice cream shop which sells pretentious mostly savoury flavours

 

[8115]

Don't tell her that, she'll open up an expensive ice cream shop which sells pretentious mostly savoury flavours

You know you're on a highbrow thread when you have to google the jokes to get them.