The Guardian: a right wing trajectory?

[kyser_soze]

I'd like some concrete examples of this 'smug' thing quoted if it's possible - or is it just a general 'feeling' about the paper itself?

And are you talking about it's news coverage or Op-ed pages? The two are very, very different don't forget.

I do concur with the comment made tho - not saying anyone here on this thread is guilty of it, but there is a very strong 'I want the media to be exactly as I want it' around here sometimes.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I keep trying to read the staggers . . . but I can't get over the difference between what it is now and what it used to be.

I don't think the Staggers has much chance really. The Right has most of the intellectual self-confidence these days and without it, the Left will struggle to put together a magazine like the NS used to be.

But of course we're discussing different things.

 

[Idris2002]

I'd like some concrete examples of this 'smug' thing quoted if it's possible - or is it just a general 'feeling' about the paper itself?
.

Well, there was a Polly Toynbee column about her fears of ending up in an old people's home with demented screamers.

Someone wrote in the next day asking 'Polly, how do you know you won't be one of the demented screamers, hmmm?'

 

[hibee]

The mainstream as determined by anti-working class mass media you mean?

Whichever way you measure it, I am way outside the mainstream - whether that's the mainstream of public support, or the mainstream of the media, or however you count it. Most people don't share my views - no point pretending otherwise.

I think the Guardian's politics are shit, but then I think all papers' politics are shit. It's not worth getting defensive about it, as many on these boards do. It's not worth continually stating the extremely obvious fact that its politics are shit either, as anyone from a leftwing persepctive with a brain in their head can see that.

 

[kyser_soze]

I don't much like Hastings. He can write well, but I really don't need to know that he had a bad time at the opera earlier in the week or see him recoup his ticket price several times over for writing a column about it.

TBH I get that overall feeling about most colmunsists who get paid to write stuff that they don't have to answer for and would be taken to peices over if they posted on Urban...or indeed actually NICK stuff from here. Not that's ever been proven but still...

 

[mk12]

I'd like some concrete examples of this 'smug' thing quoted if it's possible - or is it just a general 'feeling' about the paper itself?

And are you talking about it's news coverage or Op-ed pages? The two are very, very different don't forget.

I do concur with the comment made tho - not saying anyone here on this thread is guilty of it, but there is a very strong 'I want the media to be exactly as I want it' around here sometimes.

So because some people don't like a paper, that means we "want the media exactly as" we want it?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Someone wrote in the next day asking 'Polly, how do you know you won't be one of the demented screamers, hmmm?'

There's an extremely obvious gag there....

 

[Idris2002]

The Right has most of the intellectual self-confidence these days.

Does it? When all's said and done they're still the stupid party.

The problem is that the 1968 generation are demoralised and their kids haven't been brought up to the same intellectual standard.

 

[kyser_soze]

Whichever way you measure it, I am way outside the mainstream - whether that's the mainstream of public support, or the mainstream of the media, or however you count it. Most people don't share my views - no point pretending otherwise.

I think the Guardian's politics are shit, but then I think all papers' politics are shit. It's not worth getting defensive about it, as many on these boards do. It's not worth continually stating the extremely obvious fact that its politics are shit either, as anyone from a leftwing persepctive with a brain in their head can see that.

Ummm...it's shit from your perspective, not shit in any kind of definitive way. Unless of course the left is the True Path to Salvation eh?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

So because some people don't like a paper, that means we "want the media exactly as" we want it?

Frankly, in terms of a national newspaper, it pretty much does. To have such a thing it has to appeal across a broad spectrum. I think Rusbridger's spectrum is somewhat different to the one I'd prefer, but any such spectrum would necessarily include a lot of middle-class people in the political centre.

 

[Idris2002]

Unless of course the left is the True Path to Salvation eh?

But it is, isn't it?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Does it? When all's said and done they're still the stupid party.

The problem is that the 1968 generation are demoralised and their kids haven't been brought up to the same intellectual standard.

Kids today eh?

 

[kyser_soze]

So because some people don't like a paper, that means we "want the media exactly as" we want it?

I'm making a more general comment about various media threads I've read over the years of being here that some people's complaints are so specific they are basically arguing that the 'media' is shite because it doesn't reflect their views/choice of stories etc.

 

[Idris2002]

Kids today eh?

In my day we had to make our own entertainment.

And we were grateful.

 

[kyser_soze]

But it is, isn't it?

Oh yes, absolutely the True Path.

 

[kyser_soze]

In my day we had to make our own entertainment.

And we were grateful.

No oranges, bananas or PS2 for us.

We had a wooden hoop and stick and were happy.

 

[comstock]

a bunch of militant, hardline unionists who for decades have had their way in everything and who are quite determined not to make the least concession, even if that means the company's bankruptcy. '

Sounds like the sort of pillocks who brought Labour down in this country and gave us 18 years of Tory rule

 

[Donna Ferentes]

I think the Guardian's politics are shit, but then I think all papers' politics are shit. It's not worth getting defensive about it, as many on these boards do. It's not worth continually stating the extremely obvious fact that its politics are shit either, as anyone from a leftwing persepctive with a brain in their head can see that.

I'm not sure you can really talk about the paper having a certain set of "politics" anyway. I don't think there's really a line, not even an undefined one. Of course I appreciate they're not going to publish many editorials calling for support for strikes, but maybe we'd be better off thinking in terms of "limitiations" rather than "politics"?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Sounds like the sort of pillocks who brought Labour down in this country and gave us 18 years of Tory rule

Y'know, comstock, I find that sort of comment really, annoyingly, shallow and thoughtless.

 

[hibee]

Ummm...it's shit from your perspective, not shit in any kind of definitive way. Unless of course the left is the True Path to Salvation eh?

As I said, from a leftwing perspective. It's not really edited for someone like me, all these stories about the media industry and magazine features about fashion. So I don't feel any more or less attatched to it than I do about the Telegraph or the Express.

Why people continue to get so worked up either way about a paper so few people read is beyond me.

 

[comstock]

Y'know, comstock, I find that sort of comment really, annoyingly, shallow and thoughtless.

??why??

 

[kyser_soze]

a bunch of militant, hardline unionists who for decades have had their way in everything and who are quite determined not to make the least concession, even if that means the company's bankruptcy. '

I hate to say this TL, but there are examples in the TU movement in Germany who do exhibit that kind of myopia when it comes to conceding that to save some jobs it may be necessary to loose others - nothing new there at all. It's the 'principles over survival' position, something I've never understood.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

As I said, from a leftwing perspective. It's not really edited for someone like me, all these stories about the media industry and magazine features about fashion.

This, I agree with: if you're not part of the affluent metropolitan world a lot of that stuff is not only not for you, but it doesn't really acknowledge your existence. It's why I don't buy a Sunday paper.

Why people continue to get so worked up either way about a paper so few people read is beyond me.

Well, you have been known to get worked up about papers of rather smaller circulation.....

 

[Donna Ferentes]

??why??

Because it's a glib and one-sided description of a many-sided and difficult situation.

 

[Idris2002]

I hate to say this TL, but there are examples in the TU movement in Germany who do exhibit that kind of myopia when it comes to conceding that to save some jobs it may be necessary to loose others - nothing new there at all. It's the 'principles over survival' position, something I've never understood.

It may be tactically misguided, that's true.

But the neo-liberals (Blairite third way included) aren't interested in making a few adjustments to help the welfare state survive.

They want to destroy it.

They don't just want to end 'feather bedding'. They want to destroy trade unionism and any kind of worker's rights in their entirety.

 

[hibee]

I'm not sure you can really talk about the paper having a certain set of "politics" anyway. I don't think there's really a line, not even an undefined one. Of course I appreciate they're not going to publish many editorials calling for support for strikes, but maybe we'd be better off thinking in terms of "limitiations" rather than "politics"?

There's a looser editorial line than the Mail to be sure and opposing voices do get in, but it would be pretty crazy to suggest there isn't a general ethos of the paper which influences political coverage.

As I say I'm not exactly part of their target market.

 

[hibee]

Well, you have been known to get worked up about papers of rather smaller circulation.....

Which one's that? I can't remember ever posting about the SW if that's what you're talking about.

 

[Isambard]

the guardian is and always has been fanatically opposed to working class militancy and self organisation

Agree with this bit at least.

all their articles about germany recently have been about germany's need to except the anglo saxon model

Yup, outrageous.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

There's a looser editorial line than the Mail to be sure and opposing voices do get in, but it would be pretty crazy to suggest there isn't a general ethos of the paper which influences political coverage.

Oh, I think there is, yes, but it only really controls their editorials (which I don't read). Other than that it's loose enough not to matter much. Although Henley's a twat.

 

[Rob Ray]

I had a chat with one of the (now retired) journalists for the original Manchester Guardian a while back, he absolutely despises what the paper is now. Reckons it's a weak-kneed shadow of its former self, infested by liberal hand-wringers who would shit themselves if they ever found themselves near an actual left wing type of any worth.

Having also spoken to the Northern editor of the guardian briefly, a man for whom the word wiberal was invented, I can see where he gets that impression. The guy was straight out of oxford, accent so plummy Brian Sewell would have a fit. The paper is apparently full of these people, and only a tiny minority with pro-left beliefs. Monbiot is a sop, and a deliberately poor one. He's got a nice turn of phrase but rarely provides a powerful challenge to the readership, which I hardly need to note is a majority middle-class one.