Suzanne Moore left the Guardian

[DialSquare]

I've just seen this on Twitter. That'll be even more lost readers then. Not that I'm one of their readers.

Sorry CaraDune I apologise! It absolutely is not good on representing what science means in relation to current affairs and issues, and making sense of statistics (like most media). But it is good, IMO at covering apolitical science stories, often quite obscure ones, and has often surprised me with the amount of detail and coverage, which is more relevant to me. I'll retract what I said and say it often covers interesting science.

I am not a scientist but I work in a related area. I wouldn't for a second take what the DM says on a science topic as an accurate report (nor the BBC or most other mainstream sources) but I do often find things there that lead me to find out more via primary sources.

I've just checked and the science editor I was thinking of, Fiona MacRae, is now freelance and not Mail staff, but she has a microbiology degree, is a respected science writer and may have been behind the science articles I liked. Whereas a non-science journalist trying to write about something with a political agenda is more likely to misrepresent, or just not understand.

So another woman hounded out of her job for not being on message www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8958283/Columnist-Suzanne-Moore-quits-Guardian.html

And once again it's the DM highlighting a woman's right to speak out and the hallowed Guardian doing the hounding - it's sure been a strange old year

Now that article is definitely the DM having a good day - hell of a lot of material, covered very clearly.

It is good to see the DM go into that kind of detail, but they segued into the issue of cancel culture as a whole and don’t think it did any good by tacking the example of that idiot Lawrence Fox on the end, as it risks linking GC thinking with being racist/ far right etc.

Also, good God I wish people who comment on that website had a brain cell between them. Under that story could be a place to start a decent debate, but it’s just an absolute embarrassment.

Friends, in unison ‘That man is Bobby Gillespie of^ Primal Scream’^

Betty drinks beer.

I am looking forward to her ‘tell all’ piece.

And yeah, if the Times scoops her up, that’s Suzanne Moore and Janice Turner in one publication - and that food section. Eminently subscribeable.

I have spent the years since the referendum trying to come to terms with my MC superiority and the affront I felt at people voting against my wishes - that sounds truly terrible doesn't it. However, that's what the divide in our country is. Those whose views are thought out and refined and those whose views are thought out and have no edge.

I felt a peace descend when I finally realised that democracy, free speech and women's rights were more important to me than my intellectual snobbery. I may not like what you say but I will defend your right to do so. I heard Lawrence Fox talking in depth and whilst I am not a follower or a fan, he didn't say anything I deemed idiotic.

Now you all need to answer this, if Suzanne starts writing GC for the DM and suddenly starts a conversation with Lawrence Fox, how high is she on your list.

highame Moore should talk to Fox or anyone else she wants to talk to. It would not change my positive view of her 30 year career centering women.

I see where you are coming from, BTW. I'm not quite in the same place, but in a similar reflective process.

Now you all need to answer this, if Suzanne starts writing GC for the DM and suddenly starts a conversation with Lawrence Fox, how high is she on your list.

Bit of an odd question. You can defend someone’s right to free speech without actively agreeing with what they say.
As for an imagined conversation with Lawrence Fox? Depends on what she says as to whether I agree with her doesn’t it? If she says stuff I disagree with, the fact that she’s Suzanne Moore makes no difference. I’m not going to champion someone for whatever she says just because she’s a woman. I agree with what Suzanne says now but if she were to start writing racist and misogynistic stuff, I would change my mind. I also think there is a line in journalism. I don’t agree with the right-leaning columnists like Amanda Platell but I don’t think she should lose her job. I do however think it was right for Katie Hopkins to lose her job for making overtly racist remarks.

And although the DM has the odd piece by someone who writes critically about gender, it also has a lot of ‘women should be tradwives’ stuff. I think they had something nauseating yesterday about women getting a ‘mummy wage’ from their husbands that they could ‘spend on little luxuries’. So I don’t get the sudden reverence for the DM on here because in general it’s pretty misogynistic.

As I remember, Suzanne Moore wrote for the Mail on Sunday at one stage. They didn't (again as I remember) try to change her, and there were no staff petitions about anything she wrote. I think her and Lawrence Fox in conversation would be a hoot.

Now you all need to answer this, if Suzanne starts writing GC for the DM and suddenly starts a conversation with Lawrence Fox, how high is she on your list.

Because of course by writing for the DM, Suzanne Moore's suddenly going to abandon a lifetime's committment to socialism and turn into Katie Hopkins .

What do you mean by "conversation"? Do you mean "interview"? Because part of a journalist's job is interviewing people whose views they disagree with (often with the intention of using probing questions to hold those views up for scrutiny).

If you mean "fawn all over", I think this would be vanishingly unlikely.

@BraveBananaBadge

It is good to see the DM go into that kind of detail, but they segued into the issue of cancel culture as a whole and don’t think it did any good by tacking the example of that idiot Lawrence Fox on the end, as it risks linking GC thinking with being racist/ far right etc.

Also, good God I wish people who comment on that website had a brain cell between them. Under that story could be a place to start a decent debate, but it’s just an absolute embarrassment.

I know, it's like they don't understand what they've just read.

Laurence Fox does strike me as a bit of a wind-up merchant really, so I give him a wide berth for that in general. Other than that I’d probably take a look at an interview between him and Suzanne Moore as it would presumably give more context than any lesser journo looking for their ‘gotcha, bigot!’ viral moment (or alternatively, going in with an agenda and sucking up to him to stir the pot). She has bags of experience, and her younger critics can’t and won’t appreciate that, but I digress.

Those who immediately associate JKR with transphobia will do the same with him and racism - and sack them off without any critical thought, is kind of what I was getting at. And the attempt to dismiss GC feminism as being an evil anti Semitic far right effort is a stupidly popular conspiracy theory for the hard of thinking.

All the names here

I think Lawrence Fox may have MH issues, or at least that’s how it came across from an interview I read about him a few months ago. I am not sure his new role as a figurehead for the far-right is helping him at all.

Am I the only person who thinks LF and SM would have a perfectly civilised chat?

Not to derail, but obituaries are just news articles announcing the death of someone, with details of their life.

Betty, you're just always so damned cool.

Yes I don't really get the obituary fuss. I'd totally expect to see an obituary of a well-known murderer - I'd want it to be tasteful and not dwell on horrible details or glorify the person, but I'd consider it a normal thing to do. It's a bit like a funeral - a kind of closure on their life, whether bad or good.

I do think the media should use his name and not his grim nickname which must be upsetting for victims' loved ones.

An obituary, to me, is a mark of respect. I put Sutcliffe on the same footing as I would a terrorist, as that was what he did to women living in West Yorkshire / Greater Manchester in the early 80s. So it feels in pretty bad taste to put it mildly, maybe not a deal breaker on its own (for me) but grim nevertheless.

But isn't that a bit of a slippery slope? I have no respect for PS but I also have no respect for a lot of other people who have done a lot of harm - arguably even more in some cases - but who you would expect to see an obituary of, like I don't know Mugabe, Bin Laden, etc. If obituaries are only for people who deserve respect then it becomes a value judgement and could end up with people being cancelled for other reasons.

I think an obituary is for people of note.

Yes I do take your point and 'of note' is probably a better way of putting it than 'respect'.
It still felt like The Graun giving me - and all the other women who endured Sutcliffe's reign of terror - the finger.

Have they done obituaries for other serial killers? Ian Brady or Myra Hindley for instance.