Suzanne Moore - naming and shaming

[Haworthia]

Suzanne Moore is naming and shaming her Guardian colleagues/friends who signed the letter condemning her column. She’s obviously feeling completely betrayed but I’m worried this is going to backfire for her. Tell you what - massive balls though.

[Manderleyagain]

Lordfrontpaw that's what happens when someone goes private - only followers can see, and no retweets.

[SheilaTakeABow]

JustHadAThought, it was referenced earlier in the thread. 7.05. Apologies, I'm crap at adding pictures.

[tobee]

I would have been staggered if Nick Cohen was a signatory. Is Hinsliff still working there? Would have thought she would have signed.

Eva Wiseman - meh! Never rated her.

Simon Hattenstone always seems very self involved. I remember he wrote a piece about interviewing Simon Wiesenthal and seeming annoyed to be kept waiting!! Hattenstone by Wiesenthal.)

[BitOfFun]

Just posting quickly, apologies if it's already been posted, but I've just seen this article on the topic.

[FrankieManca]

Hmmm. To be fair tho’ Viner told the staff that they had no business trying to suppress opinion amongst staff with differing views. It looks as if the letter is a reaction to her response to the original backlash against Moore.
Moore writes article
Backlash on Twitter etc
Editorial Mtg: during which Viner has her say (doubtless among much TRA outrage)
Letter.

[BovaryX]

Hmmm. To be fair tho’ Viner told the staff that they had no business trying to suppress opinion amongst staff with differing views

So what? The Guardian routinely fails to report news which conflicts with its blinkered, insular, ideological viewpoint. Its editor presides over a paper whose news reports are dire or non existent. Now 322 or whatever of its alleged journalists are engaged in a witch hunt denunciation campaign against Suzanne Moore for daring to question the wisdom of giving 18 year old masectomies as a birthday present. As Douglas Murray scathingly quipped. What's Viner's response to this letter? Does anyone at the Guardian understand diversity of opinion or freedom of speech? Or news reporting?

[franke]

Is Hinsliff still working there? Would have thought she would have signed.

I think that's unfair. Just because somebody isn't 100% gender critical it doesn't automatically mean they don't believe in free speech or understand what the journalism is. Ditto Zoe Williams not signing. I'm pleased to see the absence of Guardian 'top' journalists on there, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're on 'our side'. They just aren't bullies and weasels.

[Ikeasucks]

The letter being anonymous was unfair to everyone, especially those who didn’t sign - who are high profile and know Suzanne personally. I’d be angry that folk might be wondering, might assume i had signed it

[GCGayDad]

A good article from NZ mentioned in response to S Moore’s tweet.

The writer, Rachel Stewart, had this piece pulled by the mainstream newspaper the NZ Herald. And the event she refers to in the article was actually cancelled by the university concerned before her article couple be published:

speakupforwomen.nz/the-rachel-stewart-column/

[RoyalCorgi]

I would have been staggered if Nick Cohen was a signatory.

Nick Cohen is very much on Suzanne's side on this - I was looking at Suzanne's FB, which seems to be public, and he has made a sympathetic comment on a post she has about it.

Irvine Welsh is also supporting Suzanne.

twitter.com/IrvineWelsh/status/1240874631730511872

[FrankieManca]

I'm pleased to see the absence of Guardian 'top' journalists on there, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're on 'our side'. They just aren't bullies and weasels

Quite. The whole point of a free press is free speech. Moore as a professional doesn’t expect everyone to agree with her. She rightly expects to be able to operate without censorship and states that this is a free speech issue.

[FrankieManca]

Also the bollocks trotted out on Twitter about revealing the names in public is violating ‘whistleblower’s’ safety and women’s ability to report abuse privately.

Bollocks; the whole point of a mass signing is safety in numbers / solidarity. And how these idiotic people can protest that revealing names endangers women’s safety when this has been a mass signing against one woman, I don’t know.

Totally different to a lone employee talking in confidence.

[Ikeasucks]

How did they actually execute it and approach folk though? Keeping it quiet all the time? Were likes of Cohen approached, was everyone approached?

[BovaryX]

revealing the names in public is violating ‘whistleblower’s’ safety and women’s ability to report abuse privately

Seriously? It takes some industrial quantity of disingenuous to pretend there is any equivalence whatsoever between the signatories to this letter. And whistleblowers.

[RoyalCorgi]

The whistleblower thing is hilarious. The whole point of whistle blowing is that you publicly reveal bad or dangerous practices that are currently being hidden by the organisation. As Suzanne's article was published for the whole world to see, it's hardly whistle blowing to draw people's attention to it. Idiots.

Does anyone remember Hattenstone's recent interview with Baroness Hale where he constantly whinged that he had to address her as Lady Hale and she wouldn't let him call her Brenda? Perhaps not so surprising after all that he turns out to have a problem with clever women.

[Xanthangum]

This response from signatory Katherine Purvis is interesting.

It suggests that a) people signing weren't expecting their names to be anonymised, and b) that she hasn't yet made the link between the letter and Suzanne Moore.

To be fair, if all you had to go on was the letter, and took it at face value that your newspaper had been publishing vile transphobic slurs (and hadn't actually seen them yourself), you would probably have signed it too.

Conclusion: letter authors were duplicitous in how they asked for signatories, and also some Guardian staff don't read the stuff their paper publishes.

[Xanthangum]

Sorry: link mobile.twitter.com/katherinepurvis/status/1240576121319628800

[SophocIestheFox]

So it looks like the signatories have gone for one of four options: I didn’t read it properly (so I’m slipshod and don’t research things, and can be easily compelled to sign any old bumwash); I expected it to be kept anonymous (so I’m a backstabber and a weasel and I don’t own my actions); I didn’t understand the implications of what I was signing (so I’m a bit dim), or lastly, owning it and saying “yes, I stand by this” (so I’m a bully and don’t think a newspaper should publish opinions that differ from my own).

Pretty sorry state of affairs all round, really. Don’t blame Suzanne for hitting the nuclear option.

[definitelygc]

I've got zero time for people saying "it's just about trans rights". You're a journalist for goodness' sakes. The letter specifically references anti-trans articles published by the Guardian - surely the least you'd do is ask which articles and read them.

[aliasundercover]

he constantly whinged that he had to address her as Lady Hale and she wouldn't let him call her Brenda? Perhaps not so surprising after all that he turns out to have a problem with clever women

That's more likely to be a problem with being told to use snotty, divisive, and class-ridden titles ... isn't it?
Titles area bit like pronouns - it's up to the speaker what words they choose to use.

[HebeMumsnet]

Morning, everyone. Just a reminder that we'll have to delete any posts that look to be personal attacks (against someone on the thread or specific named signatories of that letter). Thanks.

[Butterymuffin]

Marina Hyde and Hadley Freeman are worth fifty of anyone else at the Guardian. So pleased they didn't sign. And that Zoe Williams, who I also like, clearly recognises the need to agree to disagree - good for her.

[Horseradishfemish]

I wonder what else guardian staff have got up to in secret? Fuckers.

[tobee]

No that's is correct @franke. I was being unfair. I shouldn't have put that but.

[tobee]

Bit not but