butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Lordy. This same time last year, Jenkins, Wintour and Watt all wrote pieces like this trash, that was then followed by a series of Blairite attacks on Miliband, so i guess that will be pencilled in for next week.
Why the Guardian is going down the pan!
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
Jenkins is the new Mystic Mog
Awful film. Someone recommended it to me and I lasted all of twenty minutes. The film is like the trailer stretched out for over an hour.
It's Simon Jenkins. Long known as fruitcakely barking.
Jenkins is the new Mystic Mog
Quite right, his analysis is truly appalling in that one! On too many levels to list ...
Disability claimants pushed to the brink by 'faceless' benefits system -- Amelia Gentleman (Saturday)
There is a problem with welfare, but it's not 'shirkers' -- Seamus Milne (today)
Sorry to derail
There is a problem with welfare, but it's not 'shirkers' -- Seamus Milne (today)
Sorry to derail
cantsin
Well-Known Member
Andy Becket's embarassing Ed Miliband puff piece yesterday , Rise of the Iron Man ( lulz) equal parts comedic and tragic as the titles suggests - as piss poor a political piece as i remember reading in the G2, and that's going some - Andy Becket, hang your head :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/andybeckett
sample nonsense:
" In 2011, another important Miliband loyalist and thinker, the Labour peer Stewart Wood, wrote in the Fabian Review: "Neoliberalism began in the late 1970s with Margaret Thatcher " - uh, no - Hayek !940's , Germany 1950's, Friedman, Virginia Uni,, Chicago 1970's
"He has ostentatiously challenged orthodoxies, both New Labour and Tory, at regular intervals since: attacking Rupert Murdoch's newspapers "
-only after the Dowler revelation ( ie : 2 years after the tapping stories began to get exposed, and two weeks after shaking Murdoch's hand at the New Corps summer garden party, + a week after he'd snubbed the Durham Miners Gala....and what other orthodoxies has he challenged, not one is mentioned throughout the article?
""We've found being courageous works for us," says Wood (Miliband Flunkey ) . "We err on the side of boldness much more nowadays. " When ? Where? Just ONE example ??
etc etc .
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/andybeckett
sample nonsense:
" In 2011, another important Miliband loyalist and thinker, the Labour peer Stewart Wood, wrote in the Fabian Review: "Neoliberalism began in the late 1970s with Margaret Thatcher " - uh, no - Hayek !940's , Germany 1950's, Friedman, Virginia Uni,, Chicago 1970's
"He has ostentatiously challenged orthodoxies, both New Labour and Tory, at regular intervals since: attacking Rupert Murdoch's newspapers "
-only after the Dowler revelation ( ie : 2 years after the tapping stories began to get exposed, and two weeks after shaking Murdoch's hand at the New Corps summer garden party, + a week after he'd snubbed the Durham Miners Gala....and what other orthodoxies has he challenged, not one is mentioned throughout the article?
""We've found being courageous works for us," says Wood (Miliband Flunkey ) . "We err on the side of boldness much more nowadays. " When ? Where? Just ONE example ??
etc etc .
JimW
支那暗杀团
Her husband's Tory MP, ex FT journo and brother of Boris Johnson Jo Johnson - discovered this because he was in my local night before last talking with some other public school type (ETA getting a fact-finding type brief on China so presume a journo) and by ear-wigging worked out is was an ex-journo MP so looked him up to find out who he was when I got home. Wonder if she lectures him on effect of coalition's "reforms"?
Very poor by Andy Beckett's normally better(ish) standards that piece. He's capable of being a proper historian, his 70's book is good IMO, but he discarded any effort to be anything like one yesterday.
I'd heard this before, about the husband and Tory connections, but I'd forgotten. You wouldn't know it from her articles ....
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Could be on any number of threads but:
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
It is not just Jenkins. There have been shedloads of articles like this. They are a liberal paper and always have been. I have no idea why you have such difficulty grasping this. They run some great articles that you won't find elsewhere. They mostly run utter or partial drivel. It is my preferred paper because of the content I won't find elsewhere and because it raises my blood pressure more effectively than any other paper. Everything you could want from a newspaper.
Stop this, please. You don't need to defend your choice of paper on the grounds that it is near 100% quality, ffs.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Amelia Gentleman - married to Boris Johnson's brother IIRC, butchers has dirt. She writes some great stuff on disability and benefits - that does not put her or her paper beyond criticism.Disability claimants pushed to the brink by 'faceless' benefits system -- Amelia Gentleman (Saturday)
There is a problem with welfare, but it's not 'shirkers' -- Seamus Milne (today)
Sorry to derail
Seumas (not Seamus) Milne also writes some great stuff, but managed to trivialise rape and lie about the legal situation in defence of Assange. He also explicitly, and repeatedly, refused my requests for a correction despite my sending several impeccable sources in his direction.
Don't do this. Please.
As I've just posted, you wouldn't know about Amelia Gentleman's Tory connections from the actual articles.
I don't remember that Assange article by Milne, but I'm sure you're right about it. You don't happen to have a link do you?
Maybe I'd 'do this' less if others on this thread weren't so relentlessly negative about a paper that really isn't as bad as this thread makes out. It's not like I don't have plenty of criticisms of it myself -- read my posts -- but if the G really was as 100% awful as most on this thread dishonestly make out it would be far worse than it actually was. IMO like.
I don't remember that Assange article by Milne, but I'm sure you're right about it. You don't happen to have a link do you?
Maybe I'd 'do this' less if others on this thread weren't so relentlessly negative about a paper that really isn't as bad as this thread makes out. It's not like I don't have plenty of criticisms of it myself -- read my posts -- but if the G really was as 100% awful as most on this thread dishonestly make out it would be far worse than it actually was. IMO like.
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
It's a thread about the decline of the Guardian.
It's faced with a profit squeeze - and a potential NUJ fightback hence it's articles are tending towards a soppy 'Pity the poor immigrant disabled benefit claimant'. It's trying to propagandise against the NUJ (see Media columns) in favour of responsible anticuts sentiment (actually procuts sentiment hence bigging up Ed Miliband again now that the Lib Dems are collapsing)
Seumas Milne is an exception to the overall liberalist but he's been affected by being a star columnist too long - hence the automatic trend to ally with whatever Michael Moore and Ken Loach were saying about Assange, plus maybe.
Again you're accusing people of dishonesty and saying the Guardian is not as bad as it is on this thread. It's a grossly meaningless statement, rather like a Mail reader saying: 'If you actually read the Mail most of it is about property, cooking, celebrities and holidays and travel - it's not as bad people make out only a handful of news articles actually blame poor people'.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Things never change, Part 782
"At a mass meeting in Manchester's Free Trade Hall, on New Year's Eve 1862, attended by a mixture of cotton workers, and the Manchester middle class, they passed a motion urging Lincoln to prosecute the war, abolish slavery and supporting the blockade [of the Southern, cotton supplying, states] - despite the fact that it was by now causing them to starve. The meeting convened despite an editorial in the Manchester Guardian advising people not to attend. [Later they wrote of] ‘the chief occupation, if not the chief object of the meeting seems to have been to abuse the Manchester Guardian' "
"At a mass meeting in Manchester's Free Trade Hall, on New Year's Eve 1862, attended by a mixture of cotton workers, and the Manchester middle class, they passed a motion urging Lincoln to prosecute the war, abolish slavery and supporting the blockade [of the Southern, cotton supplying, states] - despite the fact that it was by now causing them to starve. The meeting convened despite an editorial in the Manchester Guardian advising people not to attend. [Later they wrote of] ‘the chief occupation, if not the chief object of the meeting seems to have been to abuse the Manchester Guardian' "
dishonesty, again? Fuck you.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
was annoyed to find that the fabian society is still a real thing and can command a 1000 attendees to its annual meeting. Why aren't these people dead yet
Because they have far more power and influence than you would like - as soon as they stop being able to actually infuence public policy their support will melt away; but how to do that?
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
My best mate's great greats were amongst those cotton workers.
I really think you need to stop reading this thread - I like you and think you're a sound fella, but you're a real dick here defending people who despise you day in day out.
Haven't read this thread. Dunno if you've had this one yet..apologies if you have
#The working-class Manchester and Salford Advertiser called the Manchester Guardian "the foul prostitute and dirty parasite of the worst portion of the mill-owners".The Manchester Guardian was generally hostile to labour's claims. Of the 1832 Ten Hours Bill the paper doubted whether in view of the foreign competition "the passing of a law positively enacting a gradual destruction of the cotton manufacture in this kingdom would be a much less rational procedure."The Manchester Guardian dismissed strikes as the work of outside agitators – "... if an accommodation can be effected the occupation of the agents of the Union is gone. They live on strife ...#
Everything about the Guardian's self-image stands in contrast to the actual history. It always has been the lapdog of the bourgeois classes and connived at every point in the subjugation and immiseration of working people. It was particularly aggressive in its campaign for the repeal of the Corn laws at the behest of the mill owning class. In effect, since wage were already at subsistence level, the only way to further cut labour costs without inducing mass starvation was to reduce the price of bread.
It's not much more than a mutual appreciation society these days for tweedy liberal hypocrites and an employment agency for their fatuous offspring.
#The working-class Manchester and Salford Advertiser called the Manchester Guardian "the foul prostitute and dirty parasite of the worst portion of the mill-owners".The Manchester Guardian was generally hostile to labour's claims. Of the 1832 Ten Hours Bill the paper doubted whether in view of the foreign competition "the passing of a law positively enacting a gradual destruction of the cotton manufacture in this kingdom would be a much less rational procedure."The Manchester Guardian dismissed strikes as the work of outside agitators – "... if an accommodation can be effected the occupation of the agents of the Union is gone. They live on strife ...#
Everything about the Guardian's self-image stands in contrast to the actual history. It always has been the lapdog of the bourgeois classes and connived at every point in the subjugation and immiseration of working people. It was particularly aggressive in its campaign for the repeal of the Corn laws at the behest of the mill owning class. In effect, since wage were already at subsistence level, the only way to further cut labour costs without inducing mass starvation was to reduce the price of bread.
It's not much more than a mutual appreciation society these days for tweedy liberal hypocrites and an employment agency for their fatuous offspring.
frogwoman
No amount of cajolery...
I was annoyed to get fabian spam yesterday
How the fuck did they get my email addres?Just one of the Guardians many Hurrah for the Blackshirts moments
I was annoyed to get fabian spam yesterday
Their stuff is worth reading sometimes if you want to get a feel for what the next Labour government is going to do.
Can't say your advice is wrong tbh
The reason I keep getting stuck in, time waste though it is to persist, is probably because I actually read the fucking thing, one of the very few on this thread to do so (as opposed to selectively picking the very worst Guardian bits and only them, from the website).
I appreciate I make myself unpopular on this thread.
I also think the level of contempt I get for being a tad more balanced about a paper that really isn't as bad in reality as made out, is unjustified.
And I'll always respect a good historian, even though I last had a tweed jacket in the wardrobe over 20 years ago and I never found any kind of job through the paper ...
No probs with the abuse, I expect little else on this particular thread, but I'm still right about the dishonesty point (>>#1647 and others).
I've read sihhi's post too but I'll get back to that one another time.
