The Guardian job cuts

Being a bit optimistic here, but I think the BBC is going in the opposite direction to the Guardian. A year ago they were completely pushing the TRA message, but now, there are critical voices starting to emerge in places like the Today programme and Newsnight. The battle isn't won but it's clear that dissenters are making their case and being heard.

Their definition will be something like: people who have the same world view and values as us.

Haha, yes. We value diversity in everything except when it comes to opinions.

Their definition will be something like: people who have the same world view and values as us.

Recent decisions to spend £100m on a diversity programme while culling regional and local provision shows that the BBC heading in entirely the wrong direction.

I can't believe they are doing that - they are shooting themselves in the foot. There are so many organisations out there invested in getting the license abolished and they are handing the evidence to them on a plate. Do they even have a definition of 'diversity' ?

It's heart-breaking isn't it?

The BBC is definitely following the same trajectory as the Guardian.

It will take a huge and painful volte-face plus many years of dedication to undo the damage already done.

Recent decisions to spend £100m on a diversity programme while culling regional and local provision shows that the BBC heading in entirely the wrong direction.

This is where a publicly funded BBC has a brilliant opportunity. Many media outlets are fragmenting into tribal allegiances and losing themselves in heavily spun information or plain misinformation, and there is a hunger from significant segments of the public in the UK and everywhere else for impartial and less agenda-driven news. The BBC could step into this role, similar to how it's been perceived in the past. It would require the BBC to undergo a thorough reformation including strong enforcement of standards of impartiality that would cause heart attacks throughout the organisation. It would mean cutting back on its entertainment operations, stuff that the HBOs of the world are doing better these days in any case.

The BBC still has a globally recognised brand that would enable it to do this. Unfortunately the vested interests against this are massive, and enough to steer the BBC down a path that in some ways could follow the trajectory of The Guardian.

[quote Kit19]Oh joy another article riddled with gender stereotypes

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jul/20/i-forgot-how-to-cry-as-a-man-hrt-gave-me-a-range-of-emotions-i-never-thought-possible[/quote]
Problem in a nutshell. Here’s an opinion piece given to one male about their experiences with hormone “replacement” therapy. It ignores information about side effects, says too much is focused on genitals then goes on to talk about erections from watching birds drink, and paints a picture of how it would have been better without the “havoc” of puberty.

Yet they rejected Laura Dodsworth’s article on female detransitioners who are giving the reader the other side of treatments.

It’s pure, unadulterated propaganda.

In general something I've noticed about these people, and those who seem to be associated with this sort of thinking, is that they are very lacking in imagination and the ability to make connections. Things just are what they say.

Here is a perfect example...(Not the Guardian admittedly But almost as bad)

www.independent.co.uk/voices/game-of-thrones-gay-asha-greyjoy-ellaria-sand-give-a-break-a7857271.html

1. Since when did Game of Thrones ever treat any character ‘nicely’?
2. Why would a TV adaptation ‘owe’ anything to characters just because they are LGBT?
3. And this is the big one..... Book fans were absolutely livid at the depiction of LGBT characters in the book to show adaptation for entirely different and, in my opinion, much more legitimate reasons. One quite important one was omitted completely as was another minor one. The one the Independent article focused on (who should be called Asha and is straight in the books) is effectively involved in a rape scene in the file photo as the sex worker she is ‘engaged’ with is actually a sex slave.

The ‘reviewer’ is demonstrating a fundamentally shite understanding of the book material on which the TV series was based. For all its many flaws, the book series has a large and dedicated following and most (Actually all) would just think this article is an utter pile of trash from someone who has absolutely no grasp of the series.

This link might be useful to people who've been mulling over the same patterns referenced above.

www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

Yes, there's a peculiar sort of simplistic thinking and inability to anticipate longterm consequences there. It reminds me of what I guess I'd call the perpetual now of childhood, where nothing much matters beyond what's happening that day and the next, and life is all about short term gratification in a very straightforward way. There's a sort of focus on the self and resentment of the idea that others exist and have needs of their own that I associate with small children, and while it's a totally normal and acceptable developmental stage for children it's quite disconcerting to see it in adults.

In general something I've noticed about these people, and those who seem to be associated with this sort of thinking, is that they are very lacking in imagination and the ability to make connections. Things just are what they say. They aren't able to anticipate complications, or how things like a change in the law could play out in, say, 50 years.

Oh joy another article riddled with gender stereotypes

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jul/20/i-forgot-how-to-cry-as-a-man-hrt-gave-me-a-range-of-emotions-i-never-thought-possible

One of the most odd things, and a huge coup for the elite, has been convincing the left that somehow, concerns about local/national industry, moving industry out of the country, and labour in, is right-wing and racist.

Hear hear.

BBC played a role too, so head in the sand is good for journalism. Better tell those kids taking courses, they don't need to look further than their own noses and a job and the Guardian or in the Beeb is guaranteed

By the time the last election happened I'd realized that it would be stupid to trust the Guardian's assessment of the situation, but it did make me wonder how many people are seriously misreading the political climate and general tone of public opinion due to that style of "fuck the opposition, let's just pretend they don't exist" reporting.

Royal I remember that Helen Pidd article (v. good) and the Twitter outrage (how dare you actually interview people and confirm what evil "centrists" were telling us in the run up to the election, namely that Momentum had made themselves unelectable. La la la fingers in ears can't hear you Rebecca Wrong Daily and Russell Woke Beard for the win...").

Ditto highame - again, there's a whole tranche of people who really are constitutionally incapable of realising that the Conservatives won because the Labour Party made themselves unelectable. Labour should have been shooting at a fucking open goal with Boris the Buffoon in charge. It speaks volumes that Momentum skyed it over the bar.

How can it be good reporting if you're not seeing all sides.

peadarm: not quite true to say that they "never" speak to anyone who isn't middle-class. John Harris has done lots of articles in which he talks to working-class people.

Helen Pidd wrote this piece recently talking to people in Wigan about what they thought of Sunak's budget statement. The wokesters on Twitter went apeshit because she dared to interview someone who voted Conservative:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/08/imagine-the-state-wed-be-in-if-corbyn-had-been-in-charge-the-view-from-the-red-wall

The most jaw-dropping phrase in that letter from 338 Guardian staff denouncing Suzanne Moore was the assertion that the Guardian "gives voice to people underrepresented in the media".

The Guardian does the exact opposite. It gives voice to people already hugely over-represented in the media: privately-educated Oxbridge graduates.

Never, ever do they speak to or give voice to anyone who isn't middle-class.

@nauticant thanks for sharing - that one passed me by. I unsubscribed earlier today, and this just confirms that I am glad I did!

"I really feel it's time to stop using the term trans woman. Complying with it has, predictably enough, led to "trans women are women! Trans is the adjective and woman is the noun!"

Does MNHQ allow trans "men" and trans "women" ?

Yes, on the Brexit issue. As an overseas Brit reading coverage mostly in the Guardian seriously distorted my view of what was going on, to the point where it took a couple of years after the vote for me to figure out why some people hadn't voted the way I'd assumed they would.

It also played into the poor quality of the debate on Brexit. It became unsayable on the left to articulate the thought that there might be left wing reasons - the sort that Tony Benn used to articulate - to have reservations about the increasing centralisation of Europe, the unfettered free movement of labour, which primarily benefited the middle classes - 2 years on secondment to Paris with no paperwork, building your exciting, and cheap nannies and plumbers when you came back home (not to mention the ongoing issue that for all they painted themselves as a form of civil service, the Commission in fact wielded massive political power while not being directly elected - on the left, German politician Martin Schultz was the only person I saw discuss this; there was silence on the issue from UK Labour).