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.....?

@Antibles

Their (non) coverage of Cologne was the end of my patience with them. They deserve to go broke.

Yes, mine too.

I was horrified by that. Several days of complete silence, then used one of their female journos (shame on her for letting herself be used that way) as a human shield to put up a victim blaming "well if they would flaunt their mobile phones in public" article. Then used the official stats (based on the at-the-time flawed definition of sexual assault in German law which basically said it was only sexual assault if the victim could prove she physically fought back) to under-report the number of assaults by a factor of ten. It was beyond shocking.

Those comments!

There are a couple of "you're not fair to transwomen", but soooooo many saying what I feel - The Guardian doesn't care about women (the cunty type). And it's funny how many are about pip-squeak Owen Jones.

This cannot be news to them. Surely at some point someone high up must have said 'hang on, we're at odds with our readers, maybe we should re-think this".
I wonder if things would have been different if Ian Katz had got the editorship. He seems to have his head screwed on.

The Daily Telegraph and Spectator have paid the government back for all the furlough wages but no sign of the Guardian doing so.

Just had a chance to read the comments. Has the tide turned actually turned on the anti-women echo chamber that is Twitter? I'm noticing a gradual sea-change and I'm convinced it's taken place following the furore about J K Rowling.

She knew precisely what she was doing when she posted those tweets. She deserves thanks for standing up for women who know fine well they'd be 'cancelled' if they discussed this particular hot potato openly.

I'm a woman, I don't exist.. People who don't exist can't buy subscriptions.

@aliasundercover

Those comments!

There are a couple of "you're not fair to transwomen", but soooooo many saying what I feel - The Guardian doesn't care about women (the cunty type). And it's funny how many are about pip-squeak Owen Jones.

This cannot be news to them. Surely at some point someone high up must have said 'hang on, we're at odds with our readers, maybe we should re-think this".
I wonder if things would have been different if Ian Katz had got the editorship. He seems to have his head screwed on.

I don't know.

I mentioned up thread I think how they stopped allowing comments on their feminism articles. The fact was, they were 95% terrible shit, full of statistical errors and shallow. They would be terribly criticised BTL, and even the comments that were in bad faith pretty much landed because there was just no real intellectual credibility.

At one point they allowed an open comment discussion with the editor of the section about how to deal with all these comments - moderate more, whatever. They clearly had zero conception that there was anything off with the writing, they just thought the commenters were trolls - even though many were regular readers and BTL commenters on other kinds of articles.

In the discussion there were many many people who said - comments will improve if you have better articles, better writers, get someone to check the facts, get someone to check the math.

The result - no more open comments on feminism articles.

I don't think they had a real clue what the problem was, they really thought that they were being inundated by trolls.

They can't afford to. The other papers can.

@Binterested that article is horrendous. Alter the pronouns and it would have caused a massive, massive scandal. As is? Aww, diddums.

I'm sure the Guardian must have some decent journalists, but I am also furious about its coverage of Mexico where I live. The last article about Mexico that I saw was full of downright lies. How could I take any of their other reporting seriously when its reporting on the issues I know about is so off the mark.

Well maybe they might take note of the comments - but probably not.

I'm not going to cry if they fold.

I cancelled my subscription a few years ago in favour of The Times.

Well maybe they might take note of the comments - but probably not.

I'm not going to cry if they fold.

I cancelled my subscription a few years ago in favour of The Times.

I feel so sad about the Guardian, actually. Reading those Twitter comments is hard. I grew up with it, too. I used to sprawl on the carpet avidly reading it all, and it taught me so much about the world, and ideas, and ways of seeing. I can remember the TV guide and the whole format being so exciting - that and Time Out were the backdrop to my teenage years, really. I mean, I read all the papers at school, because I always thought you should, to learn. But the Graun was the only one we had at home.

I would never have believed they would morph into cheerleaders for male supremacy, as they have done. Never believed they would display such naked contempt for women, and demonise any women unprepared to wave pompoms in applause.

This says everything about Owen Jones. Everything.

I think the rot set in when they thought they were being a pace setter and first allowed online commentating.

And it turned out they hadn't even thought through that many online are outright misogynists who lurk in cyberspace and vent their spleen on women.

So when they started getting loads of comments they were thrilled and (which probably shows how shallow their values are) sort of accepted that the loudest voice MRAs must be the voice to be listened to.

Even when moderators started to get a bit toughter they would side with the male view that any woman expressing an opinion about male privileged they took the MRAs view that it was just women who were feminazi's. They even gave some of the loudest male voices newsprint columns.

Many of us endlessly signed up under different names to try and get women's voices heard but we were endlessy blocked from commentating. This must have been 10-15 years ago.

Many of us and other commentators gave up because of the moderation (there was a whole other forum for blocked commentators) and they had a whole review and survey about how to stop CiF from being so toxic.

And they went for this almost confirmation that MRAs are the dominate and therefore right voice and needed them. So all they did was stop comments on any feminist articles. (Although feminist isnot really true as they have only ever allowed a very small fraction of feminism to be published.)

And this create the men's rights consensus that meant they could employ OJ and not think it an issue.

Journalistically they have always been a bit sloppy but now it seems worse as the interns (probably their sons and daughters) who do the research have no idea.

So take an issue like housing, they dont build on the existing knowledge that is in the years of Guardian coverage but endlessly have breatheless first year students going oh my gosh I've just found out that housing policy doesn't help those most in need.

The Guardian is a bit like all those parents who have taken the affirmative route in terms of brining up children and are now trapped into agreeing that everything their ignorant and complacently arrogrant brats say is totally, totally right.

So whilst reading the twitter thread listed above was quite heartening, it wont make any difference.

The Guardian, like many parts of the media, are no so locked into whatever children say is rights and I must not disabuse them by saying they aren't properly informed, that they cant stop now.

So they probably will stumble on, like other parts of media endlessly chasing what they think is the golden prize - to be approved on by young people who have no experience of the world, and think their inner feelings are the guidelines by which the world should work.

One of the weirdest discoveries for me in the last few years is that the Telegraph (I took out a sub in a "know your enemy" sort of spirit after Trump's victory in the US) is streets ahead of the Graun in its coverage of women in business, women in the workplace and women's sports (better than pretty much anywhere else when it comes to women's sports). They're actually surprisingly sound on coverage of sexual and domestic violence too (barring a few odd op-ed pieces - but as I've said elsewhere, I would rather have a plurality of views even if some of them are shite than the McCarthyite woke-fest single voice that is the Graun).

Virtually the entire publication consists of opinion pieces masquerading as news.

I'd noticed this.

It was the non-coverage of Cologne that was my peak moment. But the recent Billy Bragg piece against freedom of speech - flabbergasting.

One of the weirdest discoveries for me in the last few years is that the Telegraph (I took out a sub in a "know your enemy" sort of spirit after Trump's victory in the US) is streets ahead of the Graun in its coverage of women in business, women in the workplace and women's sports

I've noticed this too. And the Daily Mail is better on women's health issues. And women's safety campaigns generally. And the Times is better on policy as it affects women - and has more female writers that I respect. The Guardian's own writers hounded out its best feminist writer. I think it's best to let it die quietly tbh.

I'd be heartbroken if the Graun went under. I always hold out hope of it returning to the days of sharp, provocative, thoughtful writers (Burchill was a gem) and brave campaigns.

But I cancelled my sub a couple of years ago, now read the Times and various others. I couldn't pay to be patronised by that middle class woke wank anymore.

It is a shock to see all the Twitter comments, though. Kind of thought I was the only one.

Don't condescend to your readers and remain a UK paper instead of pandering to a US audience and you might just make it, Guardian.

Reading the Twitter comments was an entertaining way to spend ten minutes. Bye bye Grauniad.

This was the best comment for me:

I can learn the opinions of the misogynistic twitter mobs here, free of charge. What is to be gained by paying you to express your approval of them?

So true. Also what Goosefoot said - if you know they're outright lying in their coverage of one issue, how can you trust them on any other issues?

So they probably will stumble on, like other parts of media endlessly chasing what they think is the golden prize - to be approved on by young people who have no experience of the world, and think their inner feelings are the guidelines by which the world should work.

I have never understood the media's obsession with the youth market. It doesn't have any money, for a start.

But moreover, you convert someone in their 30s or 40s and you could have that reader for forty years plus. That's an entire generation.

And I also agree with your statement about building on existing knowledge. It seems to me that this problem started when the Guardian began to hire young journalists from one field, say, music or the arts, and allowed them to write about current affairs and politics.

I used to wonder why I was being expected to read an article about American foreign policy written by someone whose journalistic background was ten years at the NME. It seemed as though this blaise cultural commentary was suddenly worth more than actual facts and analysis.

The Times must be feeling very happy, seeing the number of tweets they’re tagged into on that thread.

One thing that's always struck me about The Guardian is how many committed readers say that they started reading it at university and are, well, were, still reading it decades later.

However, these days, I don't see that continuing to expand the readership no matter how woke The Guardian goes. But going more and more woke has been effective in alienating a significant part of the established readership.

The Times deserves more readers. It’s producing better journalism. I’ve always been a Guardian reader - but although there are writers there whose work is very good, I won’t be giving them a penny. I feel they think it is people’s DUTY to support them. Well, it isn’t.

@DianasLasso

One of the weirdest discoveries for me in the last few years is that the Telegraph (I took out a sub in a "know your enemy" sort of spirit after Trump's victory in the US) is streets ahead of the Graun in its coverage of women in business, women in the workplace and women's sports (better than pretty much anywhere else when it comes to women's sports). They're actually surprisingly sound on coverage of sexual and domestic violence too (barring a few odd op-ed pieces - but as I've said elsewhere, I would rather have a plurality of views even if some of them are shite than the McCarthyite woke-fest single voice that is the Graun).

Yeah, I'm the same. Their feminist coverage is excellent, consistent, and thoughtful. The Graun's is all about women's responsibility to prioritise the needs of men in every other marginalised group, because that's intersectional and therefore the only acceptable form of feminism.

What was that amazing comment a year or so ago - that persuading women that feminism was some sort of general be-nice-to-everyone movement, in which women coincidentally were expected to do all the practical and emotional labour, was the most breathtaking bait and switch in history? Yeah. That.

The Guardian only needs to look at the Independent to see where they're headed. It's a genuine shame. Both were once excellent.

I feel they think it is people’s DUTY to support them. Well, it isn’t.

That's what happens when you see yourself as the centre of all moral righteousness. You think the people should be on your side. Seems they've had a bit of a shock on that one, not dissimilar to Momentum after the GE. No doubt, like Momentum, the Guardian will find a way to blame the people rather than themselves.

In reality, they are a newspaper that's not very good at reporting the news.

Yes, wellbehaved, they're only a couple of pegs above the indie and sliding downwards.