The Guardian job cuts

Oh my goodness, this is really so true. And it's interesting to hear the rhetoric when someone complains that a film or movie has been so crammed with didactic drivel and virtue signalling that it affects the narrative - its all very, well, you just hate diversity and what to be able to say things that are wrongspeak, what's your problem with fighting $%#ism and &^phobia?*

Part of what's going on here, I think, is that the majority of people in the pro censorship group just aren't very creative or really all that interested in creative work. They want media that's aimed directly at their personal fantasy pleasure centers, kind of like if someone took their own fantasy life and just added a bit of professional polish and better special effects. When they get actual creative work instead they get irritated, because that's not what they seem to think media is for. I think we can see the same thing in the petulant responses to Rowling. They thought her job was fleshing out their fantasy lives for them and are very irritated to discover that she's a person with interests of her own instead and not particularly interested in being their service human, the creative version.

I don't know that I'm putting this very well but if you're someone who's involved in any sort of creative work yourself it's very obvious that what that group of people are looking to get out of reading or watching films or whatever is not what most of us look to get out of those things.

And by steadfastly refusing to report that one stakeholder group has been very effectively prevented from freely participating in a democratic process about a law reform, where - like all other stakeholder groups - they sought discuss how this legal reform may impact on their rights, the Guardian (amongst many other media outlets) has very firmly positioned itself not only in opposition to that stakeholder group but also in opposition to the democratic process itself.

Precisely. They are a newspaper that at an editorial level is actively opposed to both free speech and the democratic process. That's just not something I can support no matter how much nostalgia I feel for the paper they used to be.

MoltenLasagne

Oe 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.

Even when people know it's fiction, it colours people's view of the past as a time when people thought bad thoughts, and just ought to have known better, and any really good person would have thought like someone of today. At best, people's bad ideas were from ignorance, and they needed to be enlightened.

There is never a hint that people have thought about the whole issue in a different way, from a different set of first principles and experiences, that they would have seen totally different things as problematic and wrong.

It reinforces this idea that there is no real reason, nothing to understand about why other people come to such different conclusions. No need for the viewer to try and understand why a sympathetic or good character might have thought things that seem wrong to us, no need to reconcile seeing someone like that as good with our own principles.

And it makes for terrible drama. Why even say it has anything to do with Anne or L.M. Montgomery? Why not just make a new character in a modern setting?

The worst thing about The Guardian is that in its attempt to appeal to the US it has shifted from (at least pretending) to stand for the working class to being purely for the woke class.

Try and find a single article on the US Guardian that is critical of NAFTA for example. A policy that increased the wealth of the 1% through globalisation at a direct cost to the working class of America who saw their jobs shipped to Central America.

It is now pretty widely acknowledged to have devastated communities and shut down whole towns. Economists who worked on the deal have gone on the record to say they'd have built far more safeguards into the terms if they'd foreseen how rapidly the change would happen (the models assumed a move over 10 years that actually happened in less than 3). It was also something that Trump used to criticise Obama for being anti-American jobs.

It is the very thing The Guardian should be critically analysing through a class lens but it also feeds into the narrative of "Mexicans stealing our jobs" so it requires a skillful writer to deal with it. Instead, every article I've read has been obfuscation about it increasing net wealth in the US and avoiding the question of how that's supposed to help the families who have lost jobs and are moving states because the whole town is shutting down.

The Guardian have strayed from the indepth research and analysis required for such an article - now they just rehash opinions whilst carefully sticking to the woke consensus. Who would trust them for news any more?

This person needs to find some therapy. Or a conscience. Preferably both.

I was wondering that, but the voice sounds female. Brought up by narcissists, it would seem.

"The Guardian’s sneering condescending attitude towards the USA"
OTOH it is, like most UK media, US-centric. Terminology and slogans are adopted wholesale the minute they crop up in liberal US university circles. Usually without explanation never mind consideration...it takes a while to figure some of it out.

Which I guess makes those in the know feel good...once I'd figured out what it meant, I decided the Guardian may have been 'gaslighting' its readers!

I did wonder, @nauticant.

That person has been toxic for years Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g:

twitter.com/karengeier/status/1078244223084830720

Just another extremely unpleasant lefty driven by hatred of those they view as standing in the way of a progressive utopia.

I'm not convinced by their profile photo.

The posters on this thread have articulated how I feel about the Guardian- thank you.

Anne as a woke crusader who goes round fighting racism

Oh, yes, I'd forgotten Gilbert's friend Sebastian who the whole of Avonlea was aghast by until Anne showed them the error of their ways.

It all reminds me of that bit in Good Omens where Crowley and Aziraphale are discussing the fact that the only film you can watch in heaven is The Sound of Music, and you have to enjoy it because it’s the only thing you can watch. Eventually, we’ll all just be endless watching I, Daniel Blake and Noughts and Crosses over and over again.

@YgritteSnow, can you imagine if they tried to make GoT now? There is absolutely NOTHING that isn’t far too problematic to be adapted without a major rewrite.

Yes @Collidascope, Anne with an E was dreadful. I couldn't watch it. So self-righteous and preachy.

Anne as a woke crusader who goes round fighting racism and advocating for LGBT rights.

It was so anachronistic and totally lacked credibility. It massively detracts from the quality of the art-form.

I tried to watch Anne with an E on Netflix. Admittedly, as someone in their 30s, it's probably not meant for me, but I was feeling nostalgic. God, it was didactic. It was a bingo card of positive mantras and 21st century ideology. It wasn't enough for Anne to lighten up Avonlea with her imagination and oddness. She had to go preaching about LGBT issues and the injustices done to Native Americans etc.

Most of the ones I follow have become increasingly disillusioned over the last few years about how woke ideology has taken over pop culture and ‘ruined’ certain genres.

I see this in my own children. They watch all the old teen shows from Nickelodeon, like iCarly, Drake and Josh and Victorious etc. It's one of the things that as teen siblings they are willing to do together. When they ran out of these series to watch I suggested some of the recent teen aimed stuff coming out on those channels and both said "no we've tried them, they're boring now, the stuff they do and say in the old shows and the things that were funny, they'd never get away with without being cancelled now". It's depressing, younger kids will only ever know sanitised, preachy media unless there's some kind of huge swing back.

But every time the Guardian publishes a piece that fails to mention important facts,
Thing is, how do we know when they're doing that? If I'm reasonably widely read on the topic then I might spot it but otherwise how? I'm not particularly well up on US politics for example and I don't read their coverage of Trump any more because I can't trust it.

This from Rod Liddles piece in the times today. Worth a read, there's a link in the Pink News Topic but this bit also caught my eye. Last sentence 😁

Alvarez says we should all boycott The Guardian for the good of our mental health — something I have been urging for years. She thinks the paper is too right wing, of course. (Hell, wait till she sees the Express.) But, whatever the reasoning, it’s good enough for me. Her tweet to this effect has 2,500 heart emojis from people whom one supposes have taken up her clarion call. Soon the only people still buying The Guardian will be from the BBC.

Perfect, @StrangeLookingParasite!

[quote SparklingLime]@SerenityNowwwww: Maybe the need to change their name. The Pink Guardian?

THE GUARDIAN OF THE PRICK[/quote]
Someone on one of the Twitter threads referred to it as the Gonad. Seems appropriate; they could have a big bollock as the masthead.

Agree 100%, Notbad.

100% agree. I have completely changed - for the better - my approach to news generally. I used to be of the ilk that The Guardian is the morally “right” sort of paper to read and the Daily Mail is morally “wrong”. I used to believe all of the coverage in the Guardian. Now, as a result of this issue I am more analytical and skeptical of all issues, not just this single issue. I appreciate that there are good journalists and bad journalists, and there are issues some papers are good at covering and some they are terrible at covering. The Daily Mail is good on this.

The biggest revelation has been that the Left will twist its own narrative too. I was clearly naive in thinking otherwise, but I see the biggest difference is insight: the Right know when they’re twisting the narrative and own it, those who are typically left wing just cannot possibly entertain the very idea that they would be just as bad. But every time the Guardian publishes a piece that fails to mention important facts, or doesn’t allow comments on articles to let its readers correct things, or deletes comments that are completely accurate, they are also controlling the narrative. They see themselves as being oh-so-superior and not remotely like the Murdoch press, and they have that begging note talking about independence and it’s just one big, fat, lie because I’ve seen the manipulation happen with my own eyes.

It’s the hypocrisy I can’t stand.

Well, they were. I've radicalised my sister already

They're also startled by my loathing for LOJ. No idea about the misogyny.

The way I see it, if I can't trust them to report on women's issues, then why should I trust what they say about the government? Or , the economy? Or the Labour Party? Or Donald Trump? or climate change?

I feel exactly the same. I used to fundamentally trust what the Guardian printed and was never aware of just how much they omitted from their coverage. One example is the way they talk about Ilhan Omar. It creates an utterly distorted picture of her and her opinions which are incredibly misleading.

The Guardian’s sneering condescending attitude towards the USA is perfectly matched by the NYT’s sneering condescending attitude towards the UK.