Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the Guardian is going down the pan!

I was just thinking that we've had to endure them here, so why should readers of the Guardian get off so lightly? ;)
They are even more deserving of my nonsense than you lot are.
And I could get some petty revenge by whimsically portraying some of the characters on here with professed fondness but barely concealed withering contempt. And pass the best stories off as my own of course
 
I get where you're coming from, Orang Utan , I always feel that Philippa whatshername is always too quick to dismiss the person's feelings about a situation and too encouraging of taking the other side's viewpoint.
 
I actually like reading Bradshaw's reviews, as they're guaranteed to have a different take than I would. Can't say I agree with his conclusions very often, but it's interesting to get there. That said, I think he's just being contrarian giving Fight Club 3 stars. I can see it gets 3/5 for getting a messge across because it's a bit limp in that regard, but it's top notch acting, top notch direction, it looks great (still), and is tremendously entertaining. I can see knocking a star off for the fact that the film isn't sure how to end itself, but 3 is just click bait.

ETA: It's not really about Fight Club being a 3 star film or not. A review can't be "wrong". It's the overall pattern, particularly in this weird series of re-reviewing films that they've been doing. "oooh, did he give Casablanca 5 stars or not?" click
 
Last edited:
I don't know, I think I'd probably give it a three tbh. It's flawed in a lot of ways imo. And I kind of get the revisiting - I wouldn't say it's aged well. I just don't really buy it as having the depth it aims at now, maybe I would at the time.
 
For the royal family, Catherine has been a dream princess. After the turbulent years of Diana and Sarah Ferguson, the royals were delighted when William became romantically involved with the nice, middle-class girl from the home counties when the pair were studying at St Andrews University.

Since then, there has been a fairytale wedding, three healthy children, and a princess to be proud of: calm, cheerful and devoted to her job as wife and mother to the future king and his siblings.

Mail? Nope...it's the Guardian.
 
Now going full-on BBC solemn voice mode...

As the sun began to set outside Kensington Palace on Friday, shock and sadness set in after the announcement that the Princess of Wales was receiving treatment for cancer.

Shortly after the news was announced at 6pm, people began to take out their phones to read the news and stop to take pictures of the Prince and Princess of Wales’s residence.
 
Now going full-on BBC solemn voice mode...

I think that what has broken the Grauniad on this one is that they had already decided to cover the story from an “aren’t the press and those social media people squalid and frightful?” angle, then doubled down on it after the bench reveal, all of which requires the Wales couple to be painted as saintly victims.

Practising journalism anywhere but the Guardian (or maybe the NYT, or perhaps a stout-hearted crusading local paper) is seen as rather reprehensible in Kings Place, so that angle is always difficult for them to resist.
 
of course nobody ever speculated about the health of the monarchs, made ribald songs songs about them, lampooned them and generally treated them as the days entertainment before social media.

The Guardian would have railed against minstrels and would have called for them to be regulated. Rightly so, of course.
 
Presumably before 6pm everyone had been conscientiously avoiding taking photos of royal residences and looking at the news, then the horn of Rohan was blown to let them know it was time.
 
Before the Kremlin took it over the Independent would've made a point of relegating "One woman has cancer" to the and-in-other-news section. Whilst today's Graun only has the front cover and two pages on this story, I had hoped they'd have led on other stuff, like the Moscow attacked and UN veto on Gaza.
 
Busy going on about how bad it is that the Garrick club is men-only, as though an elitist club for the wealthy and powerful to make shady deals with politicians, business people and the judiciary would be just fine and dandy if they let a few women in.
 
The Guardian would have railed against minstrels and would have called for them to be regulated. Rightly so, of course.
Minstrels? Don't talk to be about bloomin' Minstrels. I am fed up to the back teeth with 'em. Their lampoons are just not funny.
 
Back
Top Bottom