Reading the Guardian

The Guardian has made it clear that it does not want readers who know that women are adult human females. It could hardly make it more explicit.

Who would have thought that I'd pine for the days of Alan Rusbridger?

All media except for the BBC takes funding from advertising and other sources, the guardian has never been any different. I am a journalist, I know what this industry’s like, I’ve seen unfair treatment and what Suzanne experienced is... not that. She had an incredibly cushy role filing one column a week and never having to go into the office and being paid more than most journalists will ever achieve. As an op-ed writer and a supposed champion of free speech she should be open to the notion of people disagreeing with her. The letter wasn’t even about her specifically - she wasn’t named - but a growing trend of articles the signatories took objection to. Surely they are as entitled to their stance as Suzanne is to hers? I’m afraid to say that among my peer group of other journalists, all of us who work for various national outlets, there is zero support for her.

I had a sub to the FT for a while too, they do proper journalism, but can’t justify 2 daily subs in one household. the husband held out bitterly for the times and I let him win 🙄

Former Grauniad fan here, too. I now read The Times on my husbands sub, New Statesman weekly in hard copy, plus titbits from BBC news/sky news/international papers as my interest takes me. I also still guiltily flick through the graun, and sourly take pleasure from not giving them money any more.

their arts coverage is better ! but yes the times is good I read it online

I used to get The Guardian as my free paper at Waitrose, having been brought up to believe it was the only newspaper that was worth reading. It turned out that it wasn't even worth getting for free, so now get my news & comment from a variety of sources. I read people like Hadley occasionally online, and some of the journalists can now be found in other publications.

The Times. I like the FT but it won’t cover this issue and it was responsible for Pips Bunce on the 100 Business Women of the Year list a couple of years ago. I wrote to Lionel Barber to complain and he acknowledged that this person’s use of TERF was offensive but missed the point that the idea that Pips is a woman three days a week is offensive to women. Frankly it would be offensive even if they were full time but most people do struggle with the Bunce story.

Country life is a good read if you like property porn, art and finding out about dog breeds

I thought at the time it was interesting how many US staff signed. It certainly makes me wonder about the nature of this 'partnership'.

NotBadConsidering

A fair number of US and Australian based staff on that list. I was intrigued by their "job" titles, what is an "Agile Scrum Master"?

Here are the signatories:

www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1sr64n9

If you have Amazon Prime you can read The Spectator for free. Various Guardian writers have written articles on there recently.

the music editor was a total knobhead long long twitter thread on HIS twitter

I'm pretty sure Laurie Penney didn't sign but I don't think she writes for them regularly. Admittedly I'm not clear on who counts as Guardian staff as opposed to occasional contributor.

Most of the signatories weren't writers. The names were published on Buzzfeed and Moore also tweeted them. As I recall, Eva Wiseman was one, also Simon Hattenstone (a personal disappointment) and a music editor who's so good their name escapes me. And, you will not be surprised to learn, Owen Jones.

I might treat myself to a Times subscription for Christmas, although it’s pretty pricey. Others have recommended Private Eye. Currently I read a blend of newspapers from the news updates on my phone - guardian, DM, mirror etc. Anywhere that’s not paywalled.

I share your anger on Suzanne’s behalf. I hate those self-righteous woke bullies. I was surprised not to see Laurie Penny on the list of signatures though but maybe I missed it. Owen Jones was on there of course. It was also ridiculous with that person who had already left for unrelated reasons who now ‘resigned again’ due to the horrific transphobia.

The TRAs of course deny that Suzanne’s name was mentioned in the letter, call her a racist as well as a transphobe and laugh at her claiming she is being silenced because some papers have printed her story. Typical gaslighting and bullying behaviour of course. It’s one of the most loathsome part of that movement, their straight up denial that any of this stuff is happening whereas they would be up in arms if the tables were turned.

Open Society Foundation that should be.

I've been telling him for months that it takes external funding from 'philanthropists', which I think is inexcusable in terms of press ethics.

It's not any different from taking advertising. The Guardian publishes articles that are paid for by the Open Source Foundation, and they are clearly marked as such. It also publishes articles sponsored by a range of other organisations, again clearly marked as such.

Other newspapers also take funding for sponsored content, though I believe the Telegraph has recently closed down its sponsored operation.

There is a wider issue here of course, which is how newspapers are to make money when they offer their articles for free.

IMO the FT is the most balanced, and the best journalism. and, no, I don't work there

Where is the list? I have subscribed to Letters from Suzanne, as I am horrified at her treatment. However, I’m hypocritical as I also subscribe to the online Guardian. I live overseas, and I enjoy what used to be G2 and the Saturday Guardian. There’s nothing like that here.

I think twice about clicking on guardian links now just like I do with daily fail links. Their misogyny really makes me sick.

I don’t get the guardian but read it occasionally when I visit my in-laws as they get the Saturday paper (which has shrunk considerably over the years). I have noticed a considerable decline over the last ten years, maybe helped by the fact I only read it every few months then read a lot of it (something to do at the in-laws). I think what made me realise the journalists lived in a separate world and could not see beyond their walls was an article on drugs. The starting point was everyone took drugs and the article was built on this assumption. There was not even a nod to the harms and damage of the illegal drug trade.

DH read Suzann Moore's article on UnHerd. I think that opened his eyes a bit: I've been telling him for months that it takes external funding from 'philanthropists', which I think is inexcusable in terms of press ethics.