The Guardian

SillyUsername said:
Honestly stopped reading after the first paragraph. I don't think it's an "imbecilic suggestion" at all to say that Mrs Clinton is no different to Trump (although for entirely different reasons). I don't understand why anyone would get their news from an all right, or in the case of the Guardian, an all left organisation.
Click to expand...


Well what are those reasons?
 
DavidDeSchmikes said:
DhWEg0eW0AEFKvc.jpg
:wenger:
Click to expand...

berbatrick said:
my god
Click to expand...


I tried to read the whole thing...was it supposed to be funny? Maybe a parody? I still have no idea.
 
SillyUsername said:
Honestly stopped reading after the first paragraph. I don't think it's an "imbecilic suggestion" at all to say that Mrs Clinton is no different to Trump (although for entirely different reasons). I don't understand why anyone would get their news from an all right, or in the case of the Guardian, an all left organisation.
Click to expand...

Imbecilic. Stupid. Half-witted. Thoughtless. Daft. Or just plain wrong. It’s all of the above.
 
Hooray for Brexit!
 
This isn't exactly to o with the Guardian but it touched on a lot of themes that keep coming up with the articles in this thread. I'm not sure I agree with some of the stuff here but overall I really liked it:
https://dailyreview.com.au/television-critic-answers-critics/76799/

A TELEVISION CRITIC ANSWERS HER CRITICS
To place cultural goods within the context of a political economy is not a new thing to do. But, it’s a rare thing to do and it’s an unpopular thing to do, particularly if this critique is perceived to edge out the currently popular and purely feminist sort. While a criticism which takes identity and resistance by different identity groups into account is, in my view, essential, it is also a bit toothless and mystified if it continues to ignore all backgrounds save for that of misogyny, rape culture or whatever we have agreed to call this (frankly undefinable) thing.
...
Another response collected here at DR is, “Don’t you think we can walk and chew gum at the same time, Helen?” I may be misreading, but I believe the intention here is to “call out” the critic of political economy as one who is (a) insufficiently “nuanced” and too brutally simple in her reckoning and (b) condescending to an audience who are, apparently, already entirely aware of the critical framework she has employed.

It is true that this critic lacks nuance. But, some of us prefer grand narratives and our return to this tedious old modernist tradition of wondering about the working misery of the people who produce and consume culture is, however, inelegant, conscious. It is not true that the critic believes you to be stupid. This critic is one that renews her faith daily in the fact of mass genius. This critic is an optimist and believes not only that you can walk, chew gum and fill all your intellectual pockets with bombs. This critic believes that she is not half as fit for this “nuanced” work as you.
Click to expand...
 
Jesus, 62% sugar is pretty hefty tbf.
 
SillyUsername said:
Honestly stopped reading after the first paragraph. I don't think it's an "imbecilic suggestion" at all to say that Mrs Clinton is no different to Trump (although for entirely different reasons). I don't understand why anyone would get their news from an all right, or in the case of the Guardian, an all left organisation.
Click to expand...

It really is imbecilic to in any way equate Hilary with Trump. And the Guardian is almost dead center - certainly not far left.
 
Wibble said:
It really is imbecilic to in any way equate Hilary with Trump. And the Guardian is almost dead center - certainly not far left.
Click to expand...

How many mainstream media outlets in the UK do you know that are more left than the Guardian?
 
SillyUsername said:
How many mainstream media outlets in the UK do you know that are more left than the Guardian?
Click to expand...
With the Guardian, Mirror and Indy there are arguably only three mainstream left-leaning papers tbf.
 
Wibble said:
Being to the left of the predominantly far right UK press doesn't make you left wing.
Click to expand...

UK press is far right? By what definition?

On these shores, the Guardian is the left, the Telegraph and Times are the right. Doesn't mean they're "far" right or left.
 
SillyUsername said:
UK press is far right? By what definition?

On these shores, the Guardian is the left, the Telegraph and Times are the right. Doesn't mean they're "far" right or left.
Click to expand...
The DM has long declared all but open war on immigrants.
 
Jippy said:
The DM has long declared all but open war on immigrants.
Click to expand...

I'm not really interested in what the DM or Sun are doing. They're just two publications, they aren't the UK press as a whole and despite their large readership, I don't think I'd go quite so far as to claim the UK press is far right.
 
SillyUsername said:
UK press is far right? By what definition?

On these shores, the Guardian is the left, the Telegraph and Times are the right. Doesn't mean they're "far" right or left.
Click to expand...

How can you doubt that the UK press is predominantly far-right in nature? The Times, The Sun, Sky etc etc. They are generally aligned to the far right of the Tories who as a party have moved even further right than Maggie led Tories.
 
Wibble said:
How can you doubt that the UK press is predominantly far-right in nature? The Times, The Sun, Sky etc etc. They are generally aligned to the far right of the Tories who as a party have moved even further right than Maggie led Tories.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what you'd define as far right?

I read the Sunday Times, am I far right?
 
SillyUsername said:
I'm not really interested in what the DM or Sun are doing. They're just two publications, they aren't the UK press as a whole and despite their large readership, I don't think I'd go quite so far as to claim the UK press is far right.
Click to expand...
They are the dominant outlets, but maybe far right is overstating it. Hard right.
 
Wibble said:
I have no idea if you are but all of Murdock's papers are far right.
Click to expand...

I'd readily admit to not being the most politically engaged of people but I thought far right was some kind of Britain First or KKK type movement, or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

When I sit down with my breakfast and coffee on a Sunday morning with the Times, the thought has never crossed my mind that I'm reading far right material.
 
SillyUsername said:
I'd readily admit to not being the most politically engaged of people but I thought far right was some kind of Britain First or KKK type movement, or have I got the wrong end of the stick here?

When I sit down with my breakfast and coffee on a Sunday morning with the Times, the thought has never crossed my mind that I'm reading far right material.
Click to expand...

Britain first are so far right the Ghengis Khan is a bleeding heart liberal in comparison
 
Classical Mechanic said:
@Wibble being hyperbolic and ridiculous again.

Do you even read The Times given its been behind a paywall for years and you live in Australia?
Click to expand...

I try not to. But I can as my work has access to a huge range of media.

The Times is owned by Murdock. All you need to know about it's political agenda.
 
So what? Remain was the only sensible choice no matter what your politics. And it pandered to their readership I'd guess.

Even The Mail occasionally prints something less extreme than Ghengis Khan on marching powder if it thinks it will inflame its readership.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.