Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why the Guardian is going down the pan!

Curtice agreed that Ukip was now a major presence. "Ukip are probably hoping that they are now on a roll, certainly all the way through to the European elections in June 2014. Certainly, last night's performances were not a flash in the pan."

No he didn't. He said nothing of the sort. They used this twice today.
 
Headline: Rotherham byelection brings relief for Labour as Ukip celebrates second place

Suggests a labour party under pressure finally able to break out. Reality =10+ lead for months, lead 6+ since the early days of the last election.

In this case I think they may just have been reflecting on circumstances particular to Rotherham in this by-election campaign. All these by-elections were pretty safe for Labour and therefore rather dull, and the press seized on several local messes to make the story seem vaguely interesting.
 
They didn't "add" it, they mistranslated fight for kill, in a sentence where the word "fight" was mistranslated more than once.

We don’t kill Jews because they are Jews. We kill the Zionists because they are conquerors and we will continue to kill anyone who takes our land and our holy places … We will free Jerusalem inch by inch, stone by stone.​
This however is a blatant mistranslation. What Meshal actually said is:

We do not fight the Jews because they are Jews. We fight the Zionist occupiers and aggressors. And we will fight anyone who tries to occupy our lands or attacks us. We fight those who fight us, who attack us, who besiege us, who attack our holy places and our land.​
The electronic intifada is often very good on this sort of stuff, but that headline is way OTT given what actually happened.
 
And Silver Linings Playbook at No. 4, which is reasonable but only a brain dead moron could ever claim that it's the fourth best film of the year.
 
Commenting on progressive issues online counts as scab journalism when Guardian journalists are bravely striking to defend their four week sabbaticals. Anyone posting on P&P should be ashamed of themselves.
 
This is so Rusbridger can afford a better class of wig

Alan-Rusbridger.jpg
 
Commenting on progressive issues online counts as scab journalism when Guardian journalists are bravely striking to defend their four week sabbaticals. Anyone posting on P&P should be ashamed of themselves.
Commenting on progressive issues would not conflict with anything the Guardian does normally. ;) I see that the strike ballot is not really a strike ballot, it is an indicative ballot which could lead to an actual ballot if it is strongly carried. Given that the paper is losing money, the NUJ will doubtless negotiate away many jobs and conditions but hopefully will fight to get the best deal. The indicative ballot will reinforce them in their determination. I support the journalists as workers but not necessarily their political line as writers. The Guardian is neither of the left or progressive these days.
 
If sacking 100 of them saves £7m, then they are indeed downtrodden.
Not quite in the spirit of your post, but that £7m would not be saved on salaries alone but on office space, computers, and the infrastructure that supports 100 journalists. Also it will be an aspirational figure, and not necessarily immediate or even a true figure. Their accountants will work out ways of getting the savings sorted over a number of years to keep the shareholders happy.
 
The savings were from the editorial budget. That would normally be salaries and nothing else. Also, there are no shareholders, remember - the Scott Trust is answerable to a ghost, and Rusbridger is the man with the planchette.
 
Back
Top Bottom