Is something going on at The Guardian?

[Doobigetta]

Four articles in the last few days:

• Praising Obama for denouncing cancel culture- and we all know he said “verbs” but he meant “pronouns”. The article says “you can make people change the words they use, but you can’t make them change what they think”.
• One about a support group in Australia for women whose husbands come out as gay in later life, highlighting the particular unfairness of having to watch your husband being praised for his bravery in ripping your life out from under you. No mention of trans widows but the parallel is very obvious.
• A review of “Who are you calling fat” asks “what are the limits on matters of self-identification? Where do we end up if there are no such things as facts?”
• And then finally Catherine Bennett in her column about the abuse of MPs specifically included the treatment of TERFs as evidence of misogyny in public debate.

This seems quite a shift from a year ago, when only Hadley Freeman even came close to voicing GC thoughts. Is the tide turning?

Another word on Cologne-gate. The NYE attacks happened in other German cities that night and I happen to know two young women, a friend's daughters, who were out and got caught up in the frightening chaos. They are from a Middle Eastern Muslim background themselves. So Gaby can gtf with her narrative of rich German princesses and their smartphones being attacked by poor migrant men who don't know any better. This was male violence and male sexual abuse of women and we have to condemn it outright.

My polite comment to that effect was deleted.

Didn't Gaby Hinsliff ask on Twitter whether women were concerned enough by TWAW that it might change their vote and when hundreds of women said it would... tumbleweed

Did let a thug who threatened women at the Jam Jar meeting write an article saying 'I regret doing that but terfs are still bad'

Didn't cover the intimidation or the meeting at the time or give right of reply to the thug's article to the meeting chair Jeni Harvey

It was Hinsliff's Cologne article that changed my feeling towards them permanently too. If they're now starting to realize that the public isn't appreciating their comically biased coverage then better late than never I suppose but given that they still employ Hinsliff, Jones, etc I don't have much faith that they actually understand why former readers have dropped them in droves.

That piece was one of the ones I read too - I was wondering where the rest of the article was and why they had spectacularly missed the point.

In fact, Hinsliff's Cologne article didn't just put me off The Guardian, it was a turning point in terms of my feelings towards the sort of pseudo feminist, wanting desperately to seem woke but actually appallingly racist, generally off kilter political perspective that if represents. It was a moment where I realized that many of the people claiming to share my political viewpoints really, really don't. and that there is a class of professional opinion havers who are attempting to exert control over society who seem to have no genuine sense of ethics or empathy towards other human beings at all. It was like one of those horror movie scenes where the mask slips off and you see what's underneath, and it's horrifying.

Have they covered the police recording crimes by self-identified gender not sex?

The Guardian was always a bit strange though. I remember some of their op-ed pieces in the late 90s as being very odd to read for someone like myself who had come from a northern, working class, mixed culture background.

It wasn't until the mid noughties that I started to pick up on what lay behind the mentality: it's a kind of neo-imperialist, elitist attitude towards all groups in society they perceive as "lesser than." They tend to group all minorities and all regional and class identities into specific, almost infantile blocs that need the elite to tell them what to do and think, and they negotiate between them in the same way that a Victorian civil servant in India probably did. It's very divide and rule - - and hellishly arrogant and patronising.

I stopped reading the paper because I gradually began to feel that a lot of the content was insidiously racist and patronising towards both minority individuals and the white working and lower middle class.

Furthermore, from a traditional leftish perspective, they advocated for policies and phenomena that were bound to create human rights issues and political discontent further down the line. To my mind, there's no point in pursuing and supporting policies that lead to civil unrest in future years or a political inability to offer asylum to people actually fleeing a very real war.

Catherine Bennett in her column about the abuse of MPs specifically included the treatment of TERFs as evidence of misogyny in public debate

Yes I noticed that. I don't buy the paper anymore. I cancelled my sub and told them why. But I still read it for free. If they want me to pay they can stick it behind a paywall or be a bit more woman friendly. I confess I get a kick out of reading it for free and not paying. I pay for loads of other things, eg Times sub which has been very good on this issue and Private Eye.

Maybe the Guardian is slowly realising that we women make up about, oooh, half of their potential readership. So shouldn't their paper be a little bit more sympathetic to our feelings? They have an editor who identifies as a woman after all...

In the early days of smart phones I used to read both the Guardian and Mail Online for the simple reason they were free, whilst the Independent's app was too unstable to use.

It was fine. I disagreed with plenty in Dacre's Mail, and plenty in the Guardian so came to my own view.

I suspect it is too late for the Guardian. Unless Corbyn does really badly, and their wokeness is openly challenged I think they will continue to die a slow death.

Things changed after Corbyn was elected as Party leader. The first few days were interesting. Neither media outlet had much to say. As if Corbyn was too easy a target for the Mail whilst the Guardian had to decide on an editorial approach. After that I found myself reading the Guardian less and less. Too preachy, too insufferable. Whilst the Mail under Greig has become a bit more centrist, even though it is still to be read (as should all newspapers) with an understanding of where they are coming from.

My assumption has been that the shift of the Labour party towards the left/Momentum is reflected in the Guardian. There is a sense of a moral high ground and an unwillingness to listen or debate. I subscribe to the New Yorker which is obviously culturally US East Coast, yet seems far more intelligent.

I guess I really ought to get a Times or Spectator subscription. I like the way columnists argue their point of view rather than tell you what you should be thinking.

I find the only paper worth reading is the FT.

Re Cologne.
Are people aware of this having happened before? On NYE in about 1991 I saw a woman piled on by about 15 North African men on the Champs Elysee. It happened so fast - one moment she was standing there and the next she was buried under the pile and then they were gone. She was left lying on the road and looked so shocked and upset.
A smaller group had gone for me a few minutes earlier but not enough to knock me over. I was with a boyfriend but they surrounded me so quickly. They let go when I grabbed a groping hand and bit down as hard as I could.
I hadn't heard of this again until Cologne, had anyone else?

Only in videos doing the rounds filmed in Egypt. Like a pack of dogs.

The guardian seems to have decided that they are the newspaper equivalent of MLK or Mandela. Their advertising has got all 'want to change the world? Read the guardian.

It's very odd.

Sorry that happened to you Dilkhush and to the other woman. It turned out there was a name for it - taharrush gamea - which clearly meant it was a known thing elsewhere. I didn't realise it had happened so far back as the 90s in Europe. The sheer scale of the Cologne incident meant it could not be ignored, although as I recall the authorities had a jolly good go at brushing it under the carpet and many Germans were furious about it.

My assumption has been that the shift of the Labour party towards the left/Momentum is reflected in the Guardian
I think your assumption is incorrect - The Guardian hates Corbyn, and has done since he was made leader. They are not left wind at all, and are far more likely to support the Libs.

Slightly OT, but is Momentum really more left? I am not in the UK so my sense of it is only what I see in papers and such, but from what I can see they don't seem particularly leftist, not the way I think of leftism anyway.

I think Momentum policies are whatever one might expect a privileged Islington supper club member and his friends to agree on with their art student progeny when the kids come down to the kitchen with the munchies at midnight.

Yep, Momentum reflects the needs of the working class about as well as the party in general reflects the needs of women at the moment. They also seem determined to inculcate a downright culty mindset in their members - believe in Dear Leader, comrades, or else.

@antibles Thank you for telling me the name. It was very disturbing for the other woman I saw but I was lucky to not be upset myself.

Ah, ok, that was about my impression re. Momentum. I was confused because I keep hearing people say they are too left and are extremists, but it didn't really jive with the policy stuff I was hearing which seemed like standard state mediated neoliberalism to me.

Maybe they identify as leftists...

Ah, ok, that was about my impression re. Momentum. I was confused because I keep hearing people say they are too left and are extremists, but it didn't really jive with the policy stuff I was hearing which seemed like standard state mediated neoliberalism to me

My understanding of Momentum is their views are ultra hard left and extremist but if they had the opportunity of making their views reality they themselves would not practice what they preach.

Neil Kinnock did an excellent job of clearing out the dangerous, hypocritical lunatics in Militant Tendency and now they are back, welcomed with open arms.

It's the cult of personality around Corbyn that's a big part of the problem, imo, and Momentum is very actively encouraging it.

Carol - what you say about momentum makes sense to me. Helps explain why the labour party don't seem serious about getting elected and having power.