The Guardian: now kind of irrelevant?

[CrotchBurn]

I mean with the online version. There used to be a time (only four or five years ago I'd say) where almost all articles were open for comment, and you could really get stuck into reading users' debates. You'd get some smart and informed posters discussing stuff in detail, it was really interesting.

Now it seems basically one out of every ten articles only ( if that) has comments enabled. There used to be a weekly thread where some posters even had their own little community. What's going on?! For a few years now it's felt like a proper ghost town.

To be honest the hounding of suzanne moore was the final nail in the coffin for me personally. But even putting that aside - you used to have these articles ("the UK is an evil place!", "why men should hate themselves!" Etc etc) but at least "below the line" was a laugh.

Anyone noticed the same?! Where else is good with an interesting collection of posters comments?

[quote CrotchBurn]@everybodysang

You think the hounding of Suzanne Moore makes the Guardian "free journalism"? That's the kind of editorial journalism you enjoy supporting, is it?[/quote]
Yes it is, otherwise I wouldn't have taken the time to respond on a thread, would I? I am aware that I'm not in step with the MN majority view on that particular issue, and I fully understand why that would drive GC parties away from The Guardian, but it's fine with me.

There are plenty of other editorial outlets with a GC stance, which have been named on here, so it's not like voices are being silenced. I'm happy to see my viewpoints represented and I know there are outlets I can look to to see contradictory viewpoints. If there weren't, then I would have a big problem with it even if it goes against my own view.

Fortunately - although our media has huge, huge faults - we live in a country where press freedom still does exist (35th out of 180 in last year's World Press Freedom rankings - though that was a downgrade as we were 33rd in 2019 - shooting of Lyra McKee and journalists arrested for protecting sources were factors there) - and so we can have a variety of editorial viewpoints. And I certainly do enjoy supporting that.

Comment sections on online news sites are cesspits, I’m not surprised they are all limited now.

The comments are no longer open on many articles because it’s the Guardian equivalent of putting their fingers in their ears saying “la la la la! Can’t hear you! I’m right, can’t hear you!” They can’t stand it. When comments are open and they don’t go the way they thought, they’re closed as soon as possible. And that’s not from abuse, it’s because their ideology is challenged and they hate it editorially.

But the thing that has led me to the Times and away from the Guardian is the rank hypocrisy. They deplore censorship of certain things while censoring things themselves. They deplore the “right wing” media for its agenda and try to make us believe they aren’t guilty of manipulating the news themselves. They champion themselves as bastions of integrity while also employing misogynists who hound women journalists for daring to have an opinion that isn’t part of the Manifesto. At least the Murdoch press doesn’t pretend to be something it isn’t.

@TheOtherBoelynGirl

"Each to their own. You don’t like it, fair enough. I do like it and just don’t feel the need to start a thread telling everyone why. People can make their own minds up. I don’t need or look for the good folk on here to tell me what I should or shouldn’t like."

OK? Maybe internet discussion forums aren't for you? Because generally people will discuss things on here. If you aren't interested in the subject matter, I did hear that it's not strictly necessary to comment, but I could be wrong.

I rarely comment because I find most people on here are way more articulate than me and give better advice than I can. When I do engage (with the exception of style and beauty which is my happy place!) it’s usually because I’m riled at something. This thread has riled me and I do take objection to ‘ have to be told what to think’. Which is what you said. No need for it. I may read the Guardian but I’m not a ‘woke snowflake’ unable to think for myself.

It’s been destroyed under the current editorship. There’s precious little journalism to be found in it these days. Instead it’s dominated by opinion pieces written by patronising, sanctimonious London-based, private-school educated twats playing at giving a shit about a working class they blatantly despise. And they don’t have a clue what they are talking about either; the whole publication rests on ideology, not facts. Their coverage of higher education (the sector which I have knowledge of) is often woefully inaccurate.

The comments section has always been awful though, dominated by aggressive men. I changed my posting name at one point to something which sounded as if I were male, and it was astonishing how male posters stopped patronising and jumping on me. The comments on any articles relating to feminism really opened my eyes to how aggressively misogynistic some left wing men can be.

I think the reason why some of us care about what's happened to the Guardian is that for decades it was the sensible voice for anyone on the left or centre left and now its just not: its a bizarre hybrid of irrelevant views with no clear audience.

The paper seems now to be edited and managed by the sorts of people who drove the rest of the country to vote for Brexit: extremely privileged and cossetted North London types who don't have a fucking clue what goes on outside the M25, but also it is trying to speak for some notional industrial class in its tone and failing to speak to or for either of these extremely different groups of people.

Hence the appalling mash-up between the kind of wokery on the website straight out of North London central casting: "how to be an activist classes" etc, the antifeminist ramblings of Owen Jones, with occasional and very odd echoes of the industrial past in the form of columns from people like John Harris.

It's a bit like watching someone dressing up in clothes from two clashing eras and wondering who on earth who they have come to the party as.

Its probably past its point of usefulness now but some of us are still emotionally attached to it for reasons of history.

I know what you mean about comments, the people writing the comments were often more informed than the journalist (obviously the journalist had to write the article quickly, and the commenter may be an expert on that subject).

Also Suzanne Moore's treatment was bad, anyone that doesn't fit the exact narrative gets thrown under the bus.

Maybe the Times is a better option? (You have to pay)

RE: the reader figures someone quoted, they were actually physical copies only, however I would say that it feels like online newspapers have also peaked and people and getting news/analysis from completely new source's (like YouTube, specialist blogs, Reddit)

Absolutely agree, yet another thread bashing the guardian
I think it's covid coverage has been pretty good speaking as someone who has had alot of experience working at the frontline.
Enjoy reading the food sections, felicity cloake, rachel roddy, ottam. Lots of the btl commentors are regulars and the banter is amicable and often funny.
I loved reading the running blog a few years ago, again lots of regulars and very supportive to newcomers. That stopped when the journo lef the paper.

Victoriacres In fairness the COVID coverage has been quite good.

I still think the Guardian has great reporters and a good website. It's the editing, the features and the awful editorial tone which I find so cringe inducing.

It does always amuse me that the Guardian's corporate structure was set up to avoid taxes.

I never forgave them for closing down the Guardian Unlimited Talkboard, literally overnight and with no warning.

I've been subscribed to The Times for the last few months, which usually has comments enabled. People are excessively critical on there, but there are some smart, informed views.

I have read the Guardian for 30 years, well until recently, the hounding out of Suzanne Moore was the last straw for me. I bought a copy every single day. It used to be a good paper, it used to have good journalism. I’m toying with the Times and I’ve been getting it for the last few months, I think I’m going to get a digital subscription but I do feel it’s too right wing. But I didn’t leave the Guardian, it left me so I’m left with no choice if I want a daily newspaper....

I read the headlines, John Crace Polly Toynbee and Marina Hyde, but furious about the editorial stance on women, feminism gender etc. So yes it has become pretty irrelevant. Shame

@thepeopleversuswork has it spot on.

Yes, there are a few threads criticising the Guardian but that's probably because there's quite a number of us who've read it for ages and are really disappointed in how it's changed in the last couple of years. Their Covid coverage was the last straw for me, it was so unbelievably hysterical that I stopped reading it at all for a while for the sake of my sanity. I now scan over the headlines and head straight for the Lifestyle and Culture sections where at least there's still decent content.

I do miss the comments sections, there used to be some good discussions and some posters, on the lighthearted columns, could be extremely funny. They clearly valued commenters; not that long ago they ran a feature on some of the most prominent ones. I understand that moderation costs and the amount of work that goes into modding controversial subjects, but why couldn't we comment on, say, the article about women choosing to remain single?

I have a sub to the Times but I never read the comments there; it's just a froth of indignation and intolerance.

"I rarely comment because I find most people on here are way more articulate than me and give better advice than I can. When I do engage (with the exception of style and beauty which is my happy place!) it’s usually because I’m riled at something. This thread has riled me and I do take objection to ‘ have to be told what to think’. Which is what you said. No need for it. I may read the Guardian but I’m not a ‘woke snowflake’ unable to think for myself."

Yes you do sound riled. Maybe you should go to your happy place.

Funny how quickly people get unpleasant when someone doesn’t follow the tone of the OP and pile-on bashing a paper which, for whatever reason, no longer suits them.

@LadyWithLapdog

Funny how quickly people get unpleasant when someone doesn’t follow the tone of the OP and pile-on bashing a paper which, for whatever reason, no longer suits them.

Are you Owen's mum? Cant think why else you would be this wounded by a conversation about a newspaper...

Guardian has been rubbish for a while, I skim it for news but there are better news sources than heavily biased journalism (I apply this to all papers). Only really read the Guardian because of Jay Rayner and his insights on things other than just food e.g. When he tried a shift doing pot washing and highlighting that aspect of the industry.

I hate online comments after articles, I rarely see anything other than people shouting at each other and being rude, not missed at all as it's just a space to be toxic and vile. I'm not interested in what someone unqualified has to say on important matters.

LadyWithLapdog

What a bizarre response: the OP posed a reasonable question and got nuanced and mainly respectful answers from people who care about the quality of the information they are getting. What's the problem exactly?

the whole publication rests on ideology, not facts.

Yup, this.

@BrightYellowDaffodil But the covid coverage wasn't hysterical. Were you there ? Did you work on a covid ward ? It was as bad as it was portrayed. People were dying, every day. We had a shift where 3 patients needed tubing successively and then subsequently proning in the space of a couple of hours, an arrest. Truly awful. So kindly don't call an accurate description of it hysterical and scaremongering.

So kindly don't call an accurate description of it hysterical and scaremongering.

Kindly don't tell me what to think. You have no idea what experiences other people have. But hey, your opinion apparently counts for more than anyone else's?

And yes, the Guardian WAS hysterical - so much of what they were publishing was conjecture, and it wasn't always healthcare-related (so you can wind your neck in on that front) - a lot of it was the Unions giving doomsday scenarios that never happened. Throw in their inability to publish stuff that was good news (funny that 'lowest daily figures' rarely got published as a headline, but 'highest ever' got prominence) and I absolutely stand by my opinion that they were hysterical, scaremongering and handwringing at a time when people's mental health was being shredded by a constant stream of negative press being fed to us wherever we looked. There is a way of presenting news and facts without doing the equivalent of screaming "YOU'RE ALL GOING TO DIE AND LOSE YOUR JOBS" in people's faces.

So the Guardian should have been falsely reporting that hospitals and NHS staff were fine and there was nothing to worry about?

I don't think Guardian was scaremongering at all, it's a news outlet, of course they are going to report how scary Covid is. Only covid deniers would have an issue with the reporting.

And I wouldn't be telling NHS staff who have witnessed what they have to 'wind their neck in'.

I think there's a pretty simple answer to why the interesting and informed debates in the comments below the line disappeared. When other newspapers, like the Telegraph, disappeared behind a pay wall, their posters started to move to the Guardian because it was still free. The sheer numbers of people commenting on the opinion pieces and live blogs these days makes it impossible to have a proper discussion with other posters compared to the early days of "comment is free". Of course, the more readers and comments, the happier the advertisers, though, which is essential for a paper without a paywall. So you end up with fewer intelligent, informative articles that prompt interesting btl discussions among a few genuinely interested readers and a lot more "clickbait" headlines and fluff attracting lots of knee-jerk emotive responses and, presumably, more advertising opportunities. C'est la vie.