Another day, another complaint to the Guardian

[Misiecle]

This is the third complaint I've made on trans issues coverage in the last month.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/may/07/montana-transgender-student-athletes-ban-bill - article states: "Supporters of the sports bills have said that they will ensure the playing field in girls’ sports remains fair. But there is no research suggesting that trans girls have an unfair advantage in school sports."

(Article quotes the 2017 review Sport and Transgender People: A Systematic Review of the Literature Relating to Sport Participation and Competitive Sport Policies pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27699698/)

I've pointed out that there is a lot of research showing just this (quoting the Sex Matters website).

Feeling a bit down about the need to fight. And should I give up the subscription? Or keep it in the hope it gives me a bit of leverage?

Why are you still subscribing?

Because I believe in paying for content. Because if I'm paying I have more of a stake in what they say. Because I like subscribing to a left-leaning newspaper and if not the Guardian - what?

Yes, why bother? It's become the Daily Mail for students, and American students at that.

Factually referenced complaints do have an effect. The Guardian/observer is not monolithic as the David Bell interview shows and they run corrections to articles

@Misiecle - I get the paying for content thing, I'm with you on that if I access a service I don't expect it for free. My subscription is up at the end of this month and I won't be renewing.

I can no longer support a publication that pushes what I deem to be a harmful narrative. I've been conflicted on this because they do some brilliant investigative journalism and there are still some very good writers at The Guardian but I'm not happy that my cash is contributing in part to the continued employment of the likes of LOJ and his merry band of fuckwits.

I've noticed that these days I read from varied sources and get a far more balanced view on subjects. I consider myself left wing but am feeling more and more that the left don't represent me or the issues that are important to me.

I don't think The Guardian can sustain itself for much longer. I suspect the readers they're courting these days are not used to - and don't appreciate the need for - paying for content.

The Guardian is blatantly not interested in you, or any other woman over the age of 25. Stop supporting something that despises you.

I switched to the Private Eye, which at least still does investigative journalism.

Yes, good points, and of course this is exactly what I'm struggling with. I'm subscribing to more newsletters and I think that's the way forward. I think I posted this to try to tip me over the edge!
Feel the same way about Woman's Hour tbh - also complained to them about not featuring the Forstater case (I mean, COME ON!) and then realised oh, they don't actually want me to listen, do they?

When you cancel your subscription they ask why, so it may be a more effective thing to do anyway.

I just wrote "Suzanne Moore", that was the final straw for me.

@GrownUpBeans

When you cancel your subscription they ask why, so it may be a more effective thing to do anyway.

I just wrote "Suzanne Moore", that was the final straw for me.

Epic reply!

There's a good piece (not in the Guardian, obviously) called 'The Truth is Paywalled but the Lies are Free - the Political Economy of Bullshit'. The Guardian has such a large youth readership because it is free, thanks to the support of adult subscribers and, I presume, donors.

That special status ought to mean it is even more careful about honesty and safeguarding when covering subjects attractive to youngsters, especially one that can push teenagers to have drastic surgery which will impact them for the rest of their lives, but it quite evidently is not (take a look at the piece on Hannah the Roblox gamer, 24/4/21). And it disables below-the-line comments under these topics and hounds journalists who dissent from its regressive, misogynistic and dangerous line off the paper itself.

Yes. All big media organisations want to know about readers and especially paying ones. Rather like Labour working out why voters weren’t interested. SM as ever captured something important about being patronised that could extend to some columnists still writing for the guardian

Graham Linehan has just asked for dissenting Grauniad journos to contact him about life under the regime. And there are dissenters.

This is the bit that annoys me most:
Some pointed to a Connecticut case in which cisgender girls’ families sued, alleging that two trans female sprinters had an unfair advantage. But two days after that lawsuit was filed, one of the cis girls beat her trans competitor in a state championship race

So fucking what? They still had an unfair advantage - the fact they don't win just shows they're not that good. If you give someone a 20m head start in the 100m and they don't win that doesn't change the fact they had a 20m head start.

And what is 'trans female'? I think it means 'men', but it's hard to be sure.

Exactly Alias
I would expect a peak fitness female to beat a mediocre male every so often. It doesn't change anything.

Good for her though.

@aliasundercover

This is the bit that annoys me most: Some pointed to a Connecticut case in which cisgender girls’ families sued, alleging that two trans female sprinters had an unfair advantage. But two days after that lawsuit was filed, one of the cis girls beat her trans competitor in a state championship race

So fucking what? They still had an unfair advantage - the fact they don't win just shows they're not that good. If you give someone a 20m head start in the 100m and they don't win that doesn't change the fact they had a 20m head start.

And what is 'trans female'? I think it means 'men', but it's hard to be sure.

Curious, isn’t it, that the moment attention is drawn to the glaring disadvantage the trans runner performs slightly less well? I don’t want to undermine the significant achievement of the natal female who beat the male in her race, but it is almost as if the male woke up to the optics of constantly besting the females in the women’s race. 🤔

I have given up complaining to The Guardian because they're not part of IPSO, so you're essentially complaining to the Editor, who signed the articles off in the first place.

I also agree with paying for content. However, I am actively not paying when I go on to The Guardian for two reasons a) They don't deserve it, and b) I am, albeit silently, expressing my disdain for their editorial practices.

The Guardian isn't a monolith. I despise the way they've covered trans issues (and their US operation is particularly awful) but the expose they did on Noel Clarke was top-notch. They have also done other excellent investigations, such as the ones on Windrush and Sports Direct. I really don't think it's helpful to refer to the paper as "trash".

The piece the OP links to is appalling. But it's from the US site, and you'll find that the coverage of the same issue by their UK sports writer Sean Ingle is far superior.

Thanks @Royal Corgi - tend not to read sports section so wasn't aware of Inglis, but that's good to know. And it's been really helpful reading everyone's views.

You'd probably feel more at home with the Daily Mail OP 😊

You'd probably feel more at home with the Daily Mail OP

Ooooh what a witty and original comment. Strangely, that no longer has the bite it might once have had. The Daily Mail does not have an active policy of opposing women’s single-sex rights.

Misiecle, I like your willingness to pay for what you use. But I won’t support the travesty that The Guardian has become.

I’m actually cringing for you Skyliner001.

@RoyalCorgi

The Guardian isn't a monolith. I despise the way they've covered trans issues (and their US operation is particularly awful) but the expose they did on Noel Clarke was top-notch. They have also done other excellent investigations, such as the ones on Windrush and Sports Direct. I really don't think it's helpful to refer to the paper as "trash".

The piece the OP links to is appalling. But it's from the US site, and you'll find that the coverage of the same issue by their UK sports writer Sean Ingle is far superior.

Ah but to me, regardless of any seemingly good work in any other areas, I now question the veracity and integrity of their reporting on those stories, because of their blatant lies when it comes to the clash between trans and women’s rights. I’m not suggesting they are lying about Clarke or Windrush, but where I once would have read such stories acceptingly before, I now stop and pause and think about how they might have spun things. Notably about Clarke, I read the Guardian report on him, then waited until I read other news sources backing it up before going back to it. This is a sad state of affairs, but if they’re prepared to publish some lies, you have to accept they could be publishing lies about anything, even a seemingly watertight exposé.

Their lies, and the editorial policy of allowing such lies to be published has undermined their whole status even when good people do good things there. Overall I think this is a good thing. I read all news stories - including the Daily Mail - with a critical eye regardless of the masthead and will accept or dismiss accordingly.

But if it came to the crunch, hell will freeze over before I give them any money 😆.