Yes the Guardian should benefit from his free labour
Why the Guardian is going down the pan!
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
If he had an ounce of compassion in him, he'd already have collected up all the back issues with his column in them, pulped them up with glue in a huge bucket, reformed them into a tree shape, painted it brown, stuck some branches and leaves on, sold it to the highest bidder as a work of art and donated the fee to Islamic State.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
At Inspiration Point, Artie starts pawing Marge, and she slaps him when he tears her dress. Marge asks to be driven home. Homer walks home. Marge sees Homer walking along the road as she is driven home.
Artie: Marge, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell anyone about my busy hands.
Not so much for myself, but I am so respected, it would damage the TOWN to hear it.
Good night.
Marge: Yeah, right.
Artie: Marge, I would appreciate it if you didn't tell anyone about my busy hands.
Not so much for myself, but I am so respected, it would damage the TOWN to hear it.
Good night.
Marge: Yeah, right.
Also, he could pimp his granny out to Dave Lee Travis and use the cash to buy a teddy bear for Edward Snowden.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
I've got a war diary anthology (secret annexe) that has loads of entries from him. The two entries that really angered me were his sadness at not being allowed to sleep in the same room and his wife, and the one where he details how many pfennigs he had to pay for his yellow star. They made them buy the damn stars.
Wait till he has to have his cat put down.
An olive tree?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm not sure their paper readership could be construed as any kind of "mass", frankly, however Rusbridger spins things.
It was an autocorrect error he meant muesli
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Perhaps in today's cross-platform multimedia paradigm he meant ‘it shouldn't Alpen to a VT’?
Favelado
J'adore South Shore
Oxbridge-educated Tory MP thinks plebs who turn up the doctors in their jim-jams are a worry. Also, we need to start charging people. Horrible.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/save-nhs-charge-abuse
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/18/save-nhs-charge-abuse
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Crap article. The assumptions are so thick in it, that it's constructed mostly on prejudice about working-class people - Those of the journo and the politician. My surgery (whose cachement is about 70% council estate, 30% young middle-class) has a very low rate of appt missing, purely because they make clear that it's fine if you phone up and cancel an appt, but if you don't, and have a history of missed appts, they suggest you use the "phone on the day" appointments instead. Most surgeries have systems in place to discourage appointment-skipping. Some will even take you off the books. I'm betting the journo didn't contact the RCGP or the BMA before writing this facilitatory dreck.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Says a Tory who more than likely uses private healthcare and who also failed to declare money she had received from a developer in her constituency.
Dyslexic, eh? That's not what I'd call her. Dishonest is nearer to the mark.
Sure you didn't.
The Bristol Post also claims that she will face a Commons investigation. No idea if the investigation has been carried out or what the results were.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/Bristo...nvestigation/story-21086999-detail/story.html
It seems she also fancies herself as a cast member of the long defunct Baywatch.
Here's her Search the Money entry.
http://searchthemoney.com/profile/365
Last edited:
Plus, I reckon the bit eulogising the stoical post war generation could well be bullshit as well. I remember my grandad going on about the NHS being introduced and, according to him, people were taking the piss left right & centre - Getting eight sets of false teeth just coz they could etc. He was still fuming about it forty odd years later.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Yup. Heard much the same from my grandparents - people who didn't need glasses going to get their eyes tested, just for the novelty of it and such - but apparently that sort of behaviour burnt out quickly, once people realised that the NHS wasn't going to be taken away from them.
Theisticle
Well-Known Member
Reader's editor on the racist Palestinian blood libel advert:
"I think the Guardian should have rejected the language of the advertisement and attempted to negotiate change with the authors, something they indicated to the Times that they might consider.
I agree with the readers that whatever the intention, the biblical language, the references to child sacrifice, all evoke images of that most ancient of antisemitic tropes: the blood libel. The authors may believe that they have steered a careful course by aiming these matters at an organisation, Hamas, rather than all Palestinians, but the association is there. If an advertisement was couched in similar terms but the organisation named was the IDF rather than Hamas, I can’t imagine the Guardian would run it – I certainly hope it wouldn’t. I think that’s the issue."
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
"I think the Guardian should have rejected the language of the advertisement and attempted to negotiate change with the authors, something they indicated to the Times that they might consider.
I agree with the readers that whatever the intention, the biblical language, the references to child sacrifice, all evoke images of that most ancient of antisemitic tropes: the blood libel. The authors may believe that they have steered a careful course by aiming these matters at an organisation, Hamas, rather than all Palestinians, but the association is there. If an advertisement was couched in similar terms but the organisation named was the IDF rather than Hamas, I can’t imagine the Guardian would run it – I certainly hope it wouldn’t. I think that’s the issue."
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...al&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Theisticle
Well-Known Member
Oh yeah, and fuck you, Alan Rusbridger:
After discussing the advertisement with some senior editors, Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, said that while it was very difficult, on balance he decided that it should run for the following reasons:
• Advertisers ought to be able to pay to place material in newspapers which the newspapers themselves disagree with or even deplore.
• He believed there was a strong argument in terms of freedom of speech “which is doubtless why the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New York Observer and Washington Post all printed it”.
• It’s in the name of Elie Wiesel, a Nobel laureate and considerable public figure.
• The claim that Hamas has been using women and children as human shields - thereby “sacrificing” them - has been made repeatedly on the Israeli side of the conflict.
• The advertisement was judged to be within the ASA guidelines.
He also said that the Guardian had traditionally always believed in giving people a voice in circumstances where other newspapers “would run a mile”.
“I think most Guardian readers expect that from us and appreciate it. We don’t agree with it [the advertisement], and don’t endorse it - like much of the advertising in the paper,” he said.
“JS Mill said the best response to bad argument was good argument. It was useful to see how a hugely respected figure, Elie Wiesel, allows his name to be used in such advertising. But I am saddened that, for some readers, it appears that the amazing, brave reporting by Guardian journalists, staffers and stringers in Gaza, to get the suffering and news out of there, at risk to their own lives, counts for less than one advertisement - of the sort that allows us to do such reporting. So it’s a shame that the controversy over the advertisement eclipsed the unflinching work that the Guardian has done in being the world’s eyes and ears, including going to the hospitals where the injured and dead children were being taken.”
After discussing the advertisement with some senior editors, Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian’s editor-in-chief, said that while it was very difficult, on balance he decided that it should run for the following reasons:
• Advertisers ought to be able to pay to place material in newspapers which the newspapers themselves disagree with or even deplore.
• He believed there was a strong argument in terms of freedom of speech “which is doubtless why the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, New York Observer and Washington Post all printed it”.
• It’s in the name of Elie Wiesel, a Nobel laureate and considerable public figure.
• The claim that Hamas has been using women and children as human shields - thereby “sacrificing” them - has been made repeatedly on the Israeli side of the conflict.
• The advertisement was judged to be within the ASA guidelines.
He also said that the Guardian had traditionally always believed in giving people a voice in circumstances where other newspapers “would run a mile”.
“I think most Guardian readers expect that from us and appreciate it. We don’t agree with it [the advertisement], and don’t endorse it - like much of the advertising in the paper,” he said.
“JS Mill said the best response to bad argument was good argument. It was useful to see how a hugely respected figure, Elie Wiesel, allows his name to be used in such advertising. But I am saddened that, for some readers, it appears that the amazing, brave reporting by Guardian journalists, staffers and stringers in Gaza, to get the suffering and news out of there, at risk to their own lives, counts for less than one advertisement - of the sort that allows us to do such reporting. So it’s a shame that the controversy over the advertisement eclipsed the unflinching work that the Guardian has done in being the world’s eyes and ears, including going to the hospitals where the injured and dead children were being taken.”
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
Alan Rusbridger said:
What a dick
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
Why is that
Why does the Guardian give column space to Tories to spout their NHS privatisation agenda?
Why does the Guardian give column space to Tories to spout their NHS privatisation agenda?
teqniq
DisMembered
DairyQueen Why indeed? Tbh though, the Graun has imo been responsible for stories with negative spin in relation to the NHS or even completely failing to report pro-NHS/anti-cuts demos like the one that happened in London earlier this year. I had to come here for pix and info on that. From this I feel it is not so hard to see where their interests lie.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Because it's going dahn the shitter.
DairyQueen
Well-Known Member
The Guardian has turned into a place for 'fashionable' academics. The ostensibly left-wing ones who stand up, claim they have a cure for poverty which, for some reason or other, involves privatising railways.
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
...and here's the boy Jones in "Guardian ad? What Guardian ad?" mode at the London Gaza demo*:
*I ran out of bloody water at this point of the speeches
e2a: I wasn't wrong about him using his phone for his speech!
He was bragging about being hungover for this
J Ed
Follow Back Pro Expropriation
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
That's Rory Carroll who flew 1588 miles from LA to Ferguson to moan about outside agitators turning up in Ferguson. Outside agitators of course means non-liberals who give a a shit about what's happening in society. What he's actually doing here is joining in with classic red-baiting that's all over the place in US media right now - and the main target is joey johnson, the Commie who got the laws against flag-burning rescinded in 48 states back in the 80s.
Last edited:
DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
$50 a day and a free packed lunch!
Similar threads
