The Guardian - can you Reverse Ferret a Reverse Ferret?

[NotBadConsidering]

Articles published since that editorial calling for balance:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/22/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-is-a-poisonous-lie-used-to-discredit-trans-people

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/21/gender-recognition-act-reform-trans-people

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-feminist-self-identification-consultation

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/21/transgender-rights-equality-human-rights

So what’s the plan, Guardian? Is it going to be week on-week off in terms of “balance”? You’re lining up all your GC opinion pieces and articles now, just readying them for the next few days?

Or can you indeed Reverse Ferret a Reverse Ferret?

Somebody probably got a bollocking for that editorial piece so they’re desperately trying to claw back all their woke cookies.

Sadly, if you try to please everyone, you'll end up pleasing no-one...

I knew it was BS they apparently don’t care about women’s rights or all the potential readers they are alienating.

Was just pondering the same thing - one mild editorial then all out for the trans agenda with no critical thought or balance?

Love the first article’s complaint about “bad science” being used.

Roz Kaveney complained bitterly on Twitter that he felt promises to them had been broken, when that one editorial came out that acknowledged that, yes, human females have some rights, too.

So, obviously the Guardian makes good on that ‚betrayal‘. How did it happen, anyway? Was the person who can make and keep such promises, irrespective of what Karen Whites might come up, on holiday, feeling their duty had been done with the consultation closing?

Sorry, promises to them, not him. A genuine mistake.

• [Message from MNHQ - previous post now edited]

Wonder who made those promises. Little Lord Fauntleroy of Wokeington maybe?

We've had our biscuit
Despite anything they now do we know the truth. They see TRA for the bullies they are.

When I see brave and stunning people like this calling us terf scum I always just want to reply with that article

yes, I mean obviously the guardian are spineless bastards who don't give one jot about women and will never see a penny of my money.

BUT it's also a kind of bible for unthinking lefty woke want to be nice W1a types. You know the ones, they come on here and earnestly tell us that we should feel bad because the Daily Mail prints articles that we agree with.

That editorial effectively short circuits them, which is helpful, as they're incredibly fucking tedious.

Looking at the four pieces in the OP, I think we can ignore the last one as it's simply a news report saying the EHRC has come out in favour of self-ID.

The other three are all comment pieces. I think the editor of the Guardian's comment section, whoever it is, is fanatically pro-trans. I also assume they have a reasonable amount of independence from the rest of the Guardian - I think all those pieces appeared online rather than in the print edition.

I'm not excusing the Guardian, just trying to fathom why their leader was out of line with their comment section.

So they can try and claim two years down the line if it all explodes that they tried to calm the situation.

They can blame the columnists when the editorial line wanted balance.

The reverse ferret was an arse covering exercise.

I've long past ceased giving a shit about what the Grauniad does.

I hope the trust fund runs out of cash sooner rather than later.

I think pretty much every paper reserves the right to distance itself from comment/op ed pieces.

I hope the trust fund runs out of cash sooner rather than later

yup. makes me a bit sad though. in my teens and 20's I loved the Guardian. then it got a bit shit and I stopped caring about it so much

and now I think it's ideologically rotten and doesn't care about my rights and freedoms, and think it's time it folded

hackmum I did consider that last one as it was a report, but I couldn’t help but cynically think they wouldn’t have reported it had he said the opposite.

I’ve always disagreed with the view that an opinion piece isn’t reflective of the paper itself. If it’s published under their banner, surely they have ultimate responsibility? If someone published something libellous, who is responsible? The Independent, Fox and Owl all had responsibility for their error.

I get a bit bemused when people assume that everything a paper publishes is the absolute settled view of, well, the paper. Or its owners. Or someone.

Of course papers print contradictory pieces: they’re comment pieces from different people with different views, not holy writ. Especially in a section like Comment is Free, it’s be pretty boring if all the many and varied writers only had one view on whatever an issue was.

Of course papers have a slant, and of course they choose who gets published and who doesn’t. But to take everything published on CiF as “the Guardian’s view” and imagined there’s some careful plan or conspiracy behind it is nuts, in my view.

In fact the only comment piece that can be said unambiguously to represent a ‘Guardian view’ is the editorial. Which just published a GC piece.

I do believe there are issues with the way the Guardian has (or hasn’t) covered this issue and I think the PP who said the editor of CiF is probably pro-TRA might well be right. Or it might just be that the commentators who submit articles to CiF are overwhelmingly of the woke demographic. But I do get a bit frustrated on here when I see people taking one comment piece from one writer, in any paper, and assuming that’s the view of the paper. It’s not how newspapers work.

I’ve always disagreed with the view that an opinion piece isn’t reflective of the paper itself. If it’s published under their banner, surely they have ultimate responsibility? If someone published something libellous, who is responsible? The Independent, Fox and Owl all had responsibility for their error.

Cross posted with this. It’s the difference between opinion and fact. Owl’s piece was full of factual errors and it libelled FPFW. That’s why the Indie paid damages. There is still a distinction to be made between publisher and writer. The publisher has a duty to ensure the piece is basically factually correct and not libellous, it doesn’t mean they have to agree with it.

But I do get a bit frustrated on here when I see people taking one comment piece from one writer, in any paper, and assuming that’s the view of the paper.

The problem is, though, that the Guardian's comment sections have published dozens of pro-TRA pieces and almost no gender-critical pieces. It's really striking. On almost any other contentious issue - Brexit, Israel, etc - they will try to publish views across the spectrum. It's even part of their stated policy to do that. But when it comes to transactivism and self-ID they will publish any old shit by people who don't even have proper credentials as either journalists or politicians or policymakers. So people like Shon Faye, Owl etc. Nothing by people like Linda Bellos or Helen Steel or Ruth Serwotka or Bea Campbell or any of the very many well-respected and senior feminists who have spoken out on this issue.

Mumsnet could be sued for libel if they let libellous posts stand here. Does that mean they agree with every single post? Does Justine?

Yes, I agree Hackmum. I’m not saying there isn’t a problem. It’s just when people jump onto the latest piece written by someone completely different and say it “contradicts” another piece. It’s mistaking opinion for editorial. I do agree with you about the (shocking lack of) balance generally and I’m another one who stopped giving that rag money over it.

But I do get a bit frustrated on here when I see people taking one comment piece from one writer, in any paper, and assuming that’s the view of the paper.

It's not just comment pieces though, is it? It's reporting as well. Look at Helen Pidd on Lauren Jeska - where she basically framed a premeditated attempted murder resulting in life-changing injuries to a grassroots sports volunteer as just deserts for "transphobia". And that's just one of dozens of straight reporting articles from the Grauniad I could mention off the top of my head.

The Grauniad, recent luke warm editorial included, is a highly partisan newspaper on this topic - including the range of comment pieces published, the straight reporting angle taken, censoring of BtL comment, and editorial stance over a number of years.

It's been desperately trying to manufacture consent for a long time.

Thing is, it's the reverse ferret editorial that was the "one piece", and there are dozens of pieces arguing the TRA perspective and demonizing the GC side. So if the editorial team isn't actually full of TRAs that would be rather odd, since they are able to refuse to run pieces.

The reverse ferret was an arse covering exercise

Agree with RedToothBrush as I often do. I never doubted this for a second. One piece was never going to compete with the onslaught that went before it and will no doubt follow.

I get a bit bemused when people assume that everything a paper publishes is the absolute settled view of, well, the paper. Or its owners. Or someone.

I rarely assume that one piece or even 2 are indicative of a newspaper's ethos. However, when they publish pieces running into double figures all pushing a certain angle it is a reasonable educated guess that the newpaper's sympathies lie in that direction. If you couple that with the heavy handed moderation beneath these pieces then you have further evidence of a prevailing view. I've read The Guardian since I was 14 (that's a long time ago alas) and the one sided view was so prevalent that I stopped, I never thought that would happen. I think you can make reasonable assumptions about where a paper's prevalent view lies by the quantity of articles taking one side, its journalists and its attitude towards its readers (moderation). I'm a bit bemused when people don't see bias when it is so stark.

a news report saying the EHRC has come out in favour of self-ID.

Let's remember that it was an EHRC ruling that caused the GRA in the first place.