Reading the Guardian

[littlebitupset]

Always read the Guardian but didn't fully realise what was happening to Suzanne Moore until she left. Am horrified at her treatment.

I'm now conflicted with some of the remaining columnists, who I previously admired but now wonder how they can stay and, in my opinion, look like they support the signature list that went around even if they didn't sign it. (I don't know who did sign it).

Hadley Freeman springs to mind the most.

Where is the solidarity?

I thought at the time it was interesting how many US staff signed. It certainly makes me wonder about the nature of this 'partnership'.

Country life is a good read if you like property porn, art and finding out about dog breeds

The Times. I like the FT but it won’t cover this issue and it was responsible for Pips Bunce on the 100 Business Women of the Year list a couple of years ago. I wrote to Lionel Barber to complain and he acknowledged that this person’s use of TERF was offensive but missed the point that the idea that Pips is a woman three days a week is offensive to women. Frankly it would be offensive even if they were full time but most people do struggle with the Bunce story.

@littlebitupset

Any recommendations of alternative newspaper? All seem right wing though maybe The Independent?

Spectator, Times, Private Eye....

I used to get The Guardian as my free paper at Waitrose, having been brought up to believe it was the only newspaper that was worth reading. It turned out that it wasn't even worth getting for free, so now get my news & comment from a variety of sources. I read people like Hadley occasionally online, and some of the journalists can now be found in other publications.

their arts coverage is better ! but yes the times is good I read it online

@ScribblingPixie

If you have Amazon Prime you can read The Spectator for free. Various Guardian writers have written articles on there recently.

Hah, so you can! Thanks for the tip. I trialled a subscription for a while, but it didn’t grab me enough to fork out again, but good to be able to read the odd article online.

Former Grauniad fan here, too. I now read The Times on my husbands sub, New Statesman weekly in hard copy, plus titbits from BBC news/sky news/international papers as my interest takes me. I also still guiltily flick through the graun, and sourly take pleasure from not giving them money any more.

I had a sub to the FT for a while too, they do proper journalism, but can’t justify 2 daily subs in one household. the husband held out bitterly for the times and I let him win 🙄

@littlebitupset

Any recommendations of alternative newspaper? All seem right wing though maybe The Independent?

The "Independent" (ironic title) is even worse than the Guardian. It's constantly publishing anti-woman trash.

All media except for the BBC takes funding from advertising and other sources, the guardian has never been any different. I am a journalist, I know what this industry’s like, I’ve seen unfair treatment and what Suzanne experienced is... not that. She had an incredibly cushy role filing one column a week and never having to go into the office and being paid more than most journalists will ever achieve. As an op-ed writer and a supposed champion of free speech she should be open to the notion of people disagreeing with her. The letter wasn’t even about her specifically - she wasn’t named - but a growing trend of articles the signatories took objection to. Surely they are as entitled to their stance as Suzanne is to hers? I’m afraid to say that among my peer group of other journalists, all of us who work for various national outlets, there is zero support for her.

The Guardian has made it clear that it does not want readers who know that women are adult human females. It could hardly make it more explicit.

Who would have thought that I'd pine for the days of Alan Rusbridger?

People are welcome to disagree with her. But they do that through argument and telling us what exactly she said that was wrong, inaccurate or unfair. Other papers manage this. The Guardian has lost its moral compass.

As an op-ed writer and a supposed champion of free speech she should be open to the notion of people disagreeing with her. The letter wasn’t even about her specifically - she wasn’t named - but a growing trend of articles the signatories took objection to. Surely they are as entitled to their stance as Suzanne is to hers?

Well as a journalist you should be aware that their grievance was not with what she had written, but that it had been published. From the letter:

We are also disappointed in the Guardian’s repeated decision to publish anti-trans views. We are proud to work at a newspaper which supports human rights and gives voice to people underrepresented in the media. But the pattern of publishing transphobic content has interfered with our work and cemented our reputation as a publication hostile to trans rights and trans employees.

Are you saying that because they were exercising their right to free speech themselves, it doesn’t matter that they were calling for someone else to have that right removed?

And can you point out what Moore wrote in the offending article that was ‘anti-trans”?

I worry for you really. You say you’re a journalist but support a group of people who called on their editor to stop publishing someone for writing things they didn’t like. One day it could be you.

@NotBadConsidering

As an op-ed writer and a supposed champion of free speech she should be open to the notion of people disagreeing with her. The letter wasn’t even about her specifically - she wasn’t named - but a growing trend of articles the signatories took objection to. Surely they are as entitled to their stance as Suzanne is to hers?

Well as a journalist you should be aware that their grievance was not with what she had written, but that it had been published. From the letter:

We are also disappointed in the Guardian’s repeated decision to publish anti-trans views. We are proud to work at a newspaper which supports human rights and gives voice to people underrepresented in the media. But the pattern of publishing transphobic content has interfered with our work and cemented our reputation as a publication hostile to trans rights and trans employees.

Are you saying that because they were exercising their right to free speech themselves, it doesn’t matter that they were calling for someone else to have that right removed?

And can you point out what Moore wrote in the offending article that was ‘anti-trans”?

I worry for you really. You say you’re a journalist but support a group of people who called on their editor to stop publishing someone for writing things they didn’t like. One day it could be you.

Just because they called for that doesn’t mean the editor should’ve capitulated (she didn’t, and she didn’t sack Suzanne or ask her to leave, that was entirely her choice). Saying they’re entitled to their viewpoint does not mean an endorsement of it, but in a more general sense, yes, there is a conversation to be had about censorship and whether it’s in the public interest to publish certain views. Obviously feelings on this will differ vastly - journalists aren’t one homogenous group

namechange, if the letter wasn’t aimed at Suzanne (and it was written, IIRC a couple of weeks after she wrote a particularly contentious column), who else could it have been aimed at? The graun doesn’t really publish any other GC writers.

Also, Do you not find the concept that there are areas of debate too contentious to be mentioned at all just a wee bit chilling?

I just find it quite remarkable that a journalist like yourself can not feel any support for a fellow journalist who received no support - even if she wasn’t fired - from her editor for writing an article on women’s rights, but see no issue with hundreds of IT staff and others complaining about editorial content. It’s not only about censorship, it’s about the entire nature of your job. Do you run all of your copy past Tim the tech guy to make sure he approves before you submit it?

Do you think anyone at the Guardian can publish an article defending women’s rights now, after all this?

That list is laughable. Once you go to The Times you won't go back. Their letters page is full of the great and the good, people who are recognised for their decades of contribution to society in the arts, science, politics etc.

I couldn't give a monkeys what a non binary 'West Coast content editor' thinks about any subject whatsoever.

Thinking is allowed.

Call me old fashioned bu, if a journalist disagrees with something another journalist has written, why don't they write an article laying out their opposition? I find it very hard to believe the Guardian wouldn't have published it.

@namechangeforfriday

All media except for the BBC takes funding from advertising and other sources, the guardian has never been any different. I am a journalist, I know what this industry’s like, I’ve seen unfair treatment and what Suzanne experienced is... not that. She had an incredibly cushy role filing one column a week and never having to go into the office and being paid more than most journalists will ever achieve. As an op-ed writer and a supposed champion of free speech she should be open to the notion of people disagreeing with her. The letter wasn’t even about her specifically - she wasn’t named - but a growing trend of articles the signatories took objection to. Surely they are as entitled to their stance as Suzanne is to hers? I’m afraid to say that among my peer group of other journalists, all of us who work for various national outlets, there is zero support for her.

Hi Owen!

@Floisme

Call me old fashioned bu, if a journalist disagrees with something another journalist has written, why don't they write an article laying out their opposition? I find it very hard to believe the Guardian wouldn't have published it.

Because they couldn’t tolerate deviation from the party line. When the Guardian published an editorial in 2018 about how it was important to hear all sides, the instigator of this letter, Sam Levin and colleagues wrote a reply saying

our journalism should be grounded in the principle that trans women are women

So when someone - Suzanne - deviated from that it led to a call to action. They couldn’t tolerate the idea that the same newspaper could have differing views and be discussed and published from within. All that matters is everyone at the paper chants the same mantra, and you don’t, they’ll try and shut you down.

This is modern journalism at the Guardian. Predicated on a lie and any dissenters pushed out.

The music editor who signed it is Ben Beaumont-Thomas. There was a whole Twitter thing when he was calling for people to support the Guardian as Saturday section closed, and unsurprisingly women told him where to go. His sister relatively recently moved to the Women’s Prize.... so make the connection there.

So did the letter originate from US Guardian?

The Guardian jumped the shark years ago. Their Saturday listings guide painstakingly lists nightclubs as if the grime massive are finding out which underground clubs to smash by buying a fucking newspaper.

I’m afraid to say that among my peer group of other journalists, all of us who work for various national outlets, there is zero support for her.

That is simply not true. I know very many journalists who support her wholeheartedly.

And the fact that all your journo friends agree with you is hardly helping. We are supposed to be hearing a range of views and yet apparently all the journalistic profession thinks the same way. This is a problem. And also clearly not true outside of your bubble.

I’m actually not that much of a fan of Suzanne Moore. But the refusal of the Guardian to countenance women saying that they are women and that men are not is terrifying. I hope they go under - they deserve to for their dereliction of journalistic integrity and betrayal of women.

@Floisme

So did the letter originate from US Guardian?

I inferred as such, given his name was first. LOJ claimed at the time he only heard about it late which is why his name was last.