The Guardian job cuts

[MummBraTheEverLeaking]

twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283351434717782016?s=19

A lot comments standing up for women. What was that phrase again, go woke.....?

The worst thing about The Guardian is that in its attempt to appeal to the US it has shifted from (at least pretending) to stand for the working class to being purely for the woke class.

Try and find a single article on the US Guardian that is critical of NAFTA for example. A policy that increased the wealth of the 1% through globalisation at a direct cost to the working class of America who saw their jobs shipped to Central America.

It is now pretty widely acknowledged to have devastated communities and shut down whole towns. Economists who worked on the deal have gone on the record to say they'd have built far more safeguards into the terms if they'd foreseen how rapidly the change would happen (the models assumed a move over 10 years that actually happened in less than 3). It was also something that Trump used to criticise Obama for being anti-American jobs.

It is the very thing The Guardian should be critically analysing through a class lens but it also feeds into the narrative of "Mexicans stealing our jobs" so it requires a skillful writer to deal with it. Instead, every article I've read has been obfuscation about it increasing net wealth in the US and avoiding the question of how that's supposed to help the families who have lost jobs and are moving states because the whole town is shutting down.

The Guardian have strayed from the indepth research and analysis required for such an article - now they just rehash opinions whilst carefully sticking to the woke consensus. Who would trust them for news any more?

@KayakingOnDown

Yes *@Collidascope*, Anne with an E was dreadful. I couldn't watch it. So self-righteous and preachy.

Anne as a woke crusader who goes round fighting racism and advocating for LGBT rights.

It was so anachronistic and totally lacked credibility. It massively detracts from the quality of the art-form.

I think this sort of ting, where the charachters have completely anachronistic ideas and attitudes, has a terrible effect on people's ability to understand or sympathise with other ways of thinking.

Even when people know it's fiction, it colours people's view of the past as a time when people thought bad thoughts, and just ought to have known better, and any really good person would have thought like someone of today. At best, people's bad ideas were from ignorance, and they needed to be enlightened.

There is never a hint that people have thought about the whole issue in a different way, from a different set of first principles and experiences, that they would have seen totally different things as problematic and wrong.

It reinforces this idea that there is no real reason, nothing to understand about why other people come to such different conclusions. No need for the viewer to try and understand why a sympathetic or good character might have thought things that seem wrong to us, no need to reconcile seeing someone like that as good with our own principles.

And it makes for terrible drama. Why even say it has anything to do with Anne or L.M. Montgomery? Why not just make a new character in a modern setting?

MoltenLasagne

Oe of the most odd things, and a huge coup for the elite, has been convincing the left that somehow, concerns about local/national industry, moving industry out of the country, and labour in, is right-wing and racist.

And by steadfastly refusing to report that one stakeholder group has been very effectively prevented from freely participating in a democratic process about a law reform, where - like all other stakeholder groups - they sought discuss how this legal reform may impact on their rights, the Guardian (amongst many other media outlets) has very firmly positioned itself not only in opposition to that stakeholder group but also in opposition to the democratic process itself.

Precisely. They are a newspaper that at an editorial level is actively opposed to both free speech and the democratic process. That's just not something I can support no matter how much nostalgia I feel for the paper they used to be.

Oh my goodness, this is really so true. And it's interesting to hear the rhetoric when someone complains that a film or movie has been so crammed with didactic drivel and virtue signalling that it affects the narrative - its all very, well, you just hate diversity and what to be able to say things that are wrongspeak, what's your problem with fighting $%#ism and &^phobia?*

Part of what's going on here, I think, is that the majority of people in the pro censorship group just aren't very creative or really all that interested in creative work. They want media that's aimed directly at their personal fantasy pleasure centers, kind of like if someone took their own fantasy life and just added a bit of professional polish and better special effects. When they get actual creative work instead they get irritated, because that's not what they seem to think media is for. I think we can see the same thing in the petulant responses to Rowling. They thought her job was fleshing out their fantasy lives for them and are very irritated to discover that she's a person with interests of her own instead and not particularly interested in being their service human, the creative version.

I don't know that I'm putting this very well but if you're someone who's involved in any sort of creative work yourself it's very obvious that what that group of people are looking to get out of reading or watching films or whatever is not what most of us look to get out of those things.

@Goosefoot

MoltenLasagne

Oe of the most odd things, and a huge coup for the elite, has been convincing the left that somehow, concerns about local/national industry, moving industry out of the country, and labour in, is right-wing and racist.

I think it's the unthinking and naive conflation of globablisation and internationalism.

It also played into the poor quality of the debate on Brexit. It became unsayable on the left to articulate the thought that there might be left wing reasons - the sort that Tony Benn used to articulate - to have reservations about the increasing centralisation of Europe, the unfettered free movement of labour, which primarily benefited the middle classes - 2 years on secondment to Paris with no paperwork, building your exciting, and cheap nannies and plumbers when you came back home (not to mention the ongoing issue that for all they painted themselves as a form of civil service, the Commission in fact wielded massive political power while not being directly elected - on the left, German politician Martin Schultz was the only person I saw discuss this; there was silence on the issue from UK Labour).

Yes, on the Brexit issue. As an overseas Brit reading coverage mostly in the Guardian seriously distorted my view of what was going on, to the point where it took a couple of years after the vote for me to figure out why some people hadn't voted the way I'd assumed they would.

"I really feel it's time to stop using the term trans woman. Complying with it has, predictably enough, led to "trans women are women! Trans is the adjective and woman is the noun!"

Does MNHQ allow trans "men" and trans "women" ?

@nauticant thanks for sharing - that one passed me by. I unsubscribed earlier today, and this just confirms that I am glad I did!

The most jaw-dropping phrase in that letter from 338 Guardian staff denouncing Suzanne Moore was the assertion that the Guardian "gives voice to people underrepresented in the media".

The Guardian does the exact opposite. It gives voice to people already hugely over-represented in the media: privately-educated Oxbridge graduates.

Never, ever do they speak to or give voice to anyone who isn't middle-class.

peadarm: not quite true to say that they "never" speak to anyone who isn't middle-class. John Harris has done lots of articles in which he talks to working-class people.

Helen Pidd wrote this piece recently talking to people in Wigan about what they thought of Sunak's budget statement. The wokesters on Twitter went apeshit because she dared to interview someone who voted Conservative:

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2020/jul/08/imagine-the-state-wed-be-in-if-corbyn-had-been-in-charge-the-view-from-the-red-wall

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

Yes, on the Brexit issue. As an overseas Brit reading coverage mostly in the Guardian seriously distorted my view of what was going on, to the point where it took a couple of years after the vote for me to figure out why some people hadn't voted the way I'd assumed they would.

Friends of mine in France were staggered too. They also had difficulty believing Conservatives won a landslide in December.

How can it be good reporting if you're not seeing all sides.

Royal I remember that Helen Pidd article (v. good) and the Twitter outrage (how dare you actually interview people and confirm what evil "centrists" were telling us in the run up to the election, namely that Momentum had made themselves unelectable. La la la fingers in ears can't hear you Rebecca Wrong Daily and Russell Woke Beard for the win...").

Ditto highame - again, there's a whole tranche of people who really are constitutionally incapable of realising that the Conservatives won because the Labour Party made themselves unelectable. Labour should have been shooting at a fucking open goal with Boris the Buffoon in charge. It speaks volumes that Momentum skyed it over the bar.

By the time the last election happened I'd realized that it would be stupid to trust the Guardian's assessment of the situation, but it did make me wonder how many people are seriously misreading the political climate and general tone of public opinion due to that style of "fuck the opposition, let's just pretend they don't exist" reporting.

BBC played a role too, so head in the sand is good for journalism. Better tell those kids taking courses, they don't need to look further than their own noses and a job and the Guardian or in the Beeb is guaranteed

One of the most odd things, and a huge coup for the elite, has been convincing the left that somehow, concerns about local/national industry, moving industry out of the country, and labour in, is right-wing and racist.

Hear hear.

Oh joy another article riddled with gender stereotypes

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jul/20/i-forgot-how-to-cry-as-a-man-hrt-gave-me-a-range-of-emotions-i-never-thought-possible

@TheProdigalKittensReturn

Oh my goodness, this is really so true. And it's interesting to hear the rhetoric when someone complains that a film or movie has been so crammed with didactic drivel and virtue signalling that it affects the narrative - its all very, well, you just hate diversity and what to be able to say things that are wrongspeak, what's your problem with fighting $%#ism and &^phobia?*

Part of what's going on here, I think, is that the majority of people in the pro censorship group just aren't very creative or really all that interested in creative work. They want media that's aimed directly at their personal fantasy pleasure centers, kind of like if someone took their own fantasy life and just added a bit of professional polish and better special effects. When they get actual creative work instead they get irritated, because that's not what they seem to think media is for. I think we can see the same thing in the petulant responses to Rowling. They thought her job was fleshing out their fantasy lives for them and are very irritated to discover that she's a person with interests of her own instead and not particularly interested in being their service human, the creative version.

I don't know that I'm putting this very well but if you're someone who's involved in any sort of creative work yourself it's very obvious that what that group of people are looking to get out of reading or watching films or whatever is not what most of us look to get out of those things.

No, I think you're very clear and it's a perceptive observation. There is no sense for this group that art or literature is meant to present some sort of coherent idea, or be challenging, or difficult. I think this is why you get people who are in their 30s and still reading HP.

In general something I've noticed about these people, and those who seem to be associated with this sort of thinking, is that they are very lacking in imagination and the ability to make connections. Things just are what they say. They aren't able to anticipate complications, or how things like a change in the law could play out in, say, 50 years.

Yes, there's a peculiar sort of simplistic thinking and inability to anticipate longterm consequences there. It reminds me of what I guess I'd call the perpetual now of childhood, where nothing much matters beyond what's happening that day and the next, and life is all about short term gratification in a very straightforward way. There's a sort of focus on the self and resentment of the idea that others exist and have needs of their own that I associate with small children, and while it's a totally normal and acceptable developmental stage for children it's quite disconcerting to see it in adults.

This link might be useful to people who've been mulling over the same patterns referenced above.

www.iep.utm.edu/solipsis/

@Antibles

One of the most odd things, and a huge coup for the elite, has been convincing the left that somehow, concerns about local/national industry, moving industry out of the country, and labour in, is right-wing and racist.

Hear hear.

Hear hear

In general something I've noticed about these people, and those who seem to be associated with this sort of thinking, is that they are very lacking in imagination and the ability to make connections. Things just are what they say.

Here is a perfect example...(Not the Guardian admittedly But almost as bad)

www.independent.co.uk/voices/game-of-thrones-gay-asha-greyjoy-ellaria-sand-give-a-break-a7857271.html

1. Since when did Game of Thrones ever treat any character ‘nicely’?
2. Why would a TV adaptation ‘owe’ anything to characters just because they are LGBT?
3. And this is the big one..... Book fans were absolutely livid at the depiction of LGBT characters in the book to show adaptation for entirely different and, in my opinion, much more legitimate reasons. One quite important one was omitted completely as was another minor one. The one the Independent article focused on (who should be called Asha and is straight in the books) is effectively involved in a rape scene in the file photo as the sex worker she is ‘engaged’ with is actually a sex slave.

The ‘reviewer’ is demonstrating a fundamentally shite understanding of the book material on which the TV series was based. For all its many flaws, the book series has a large and dedicated following and most (Actually all) would just think this article is an utter pile of trash from someone who has absolutely no grasp of the series.

[quote Kit19]Oh joy another article riddled with gender stereotypes

www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/jul/20/i-forgot-how-to-cry-as-a-man-hrt-gave-me-a-range-of-emotions-i-never-thought-possible[/quote]
Problem in a nutshell. Here’s an opinion piece given to one male about their experiences with hormone “replacement” therapy. It ignores information about side effects, says too much is focused on genitals then goes on to talk about erections from watching birds drink, and paints a picture of how it would have been better without the “havoc” of puberty.

Yet they rejected Laura Dodsworth’s article on female detransitioners who are giving the reader the other side of treatments.

It’s pure, unadulterated propaganda.

This is where a publicly funded BBC has a brilliant opportunity. Many media outlets are fragmenting into tribal allegiances and losing themselves in heavily spun information or plain misinformation, and there is a hunger from significant segments of the public in the UK and everywhere else for impartial and less agenda-driven news. The BBC could step into this role, similar to how it's been perceived in the past. It would require the BBC to undergo a thorough reformation including strong enforcement of standards of impartiality that would cause heart attacks throughout the organisation. It would mean cutting back on its entertainment operations, stuff that the HBOs of the world are doing better these days in any case.

The BBC still has a globally recognised brand that would enable it to do this. Unfortunately the vested interests against this are massive, and enough to steer the BBC down a path that in some ways could follow the trajectory of The Guardian.

The BBC is definitely following the same trajectory as the Guardian.

It will take a huge and painful volte-face plus many years of dedication to undo the damage already done.

Recent decisions to spend £100m on a diversity programme while culling regional and local provision shows that the BBC heading in entirely the wrong direction.