It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Manchester Guardian / the Independent!

Use this board for general non-cycling-related chat, or to introduce yourself to the forum.
Psamathe
Posts: 10695
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby Psamathe » 21 Aug 2017, 4:26pm

Mick F wrote:
661-Pete wrote:
Mick F wrote:This evening, our parrot showed what she thinks about newspaper.
It looks more like a comment on a specific politician.
Yep. :lol:

Environment Secretary Andrea Leadsom Western Morning News Jan 11th 2017

Talking of which
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/andrea-leadsom-men-paedophiles-childcare-workers-hired-sensible-a7139351.html wrote:Andrea Leadsom says men should not be hired to do childcare as they may be paedophiles

(It's NOT a spoof article but a report from the same interview where she thought she's make a better PM because she has children and other candidates "don't").

Ian

blackbike
Posts: 2492
Joined: 11 Jul 2009, 3:21pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby blackbike » 24 Aug 2017, 2:42pm

Not many people love the Guardian.

That's why it asks people for money at the end of every article.

The paper is a vanity publication of a bigger business empire which absorbs its huge losses.

blackbike
Posts: 2492
Joined: 11 Jul 2009, 3:21pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby blackbike » 25 Aug 2017, 5:24pm

Not many people love the Guardian enough to pay for its version of the news and its opinion.

I can't say I'm surprised.

If you do love it why not give it some money?

It certainly needs it.

https://subscribe.theguardian.com/offer ... wh6foa9avg

brynpoeth
Posts: 11947
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby brynpoeth » 26 Aug 2017, 10:34am

blackbike wrote:Not many people love the Guardian.

That's why it asks people for money at the end of every article.

The paper is a vanity publication of a bigger business empire which absorbs its huge losses.


It asks for money but one can read everything without paying

Maybe the patrons are *doing the right thing for the wrong reason*

I love the diversity of the paper, sure there are things that do not interest me and sometimes one does not know what to believe. There was a report about David Cameron's barber who shifted the PM's parting from right to left and later got an award for services to hairdressing :wink:
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life "597"

Psamathe
Posts: 10695
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby Psamathe » 26 Aug 2017, 10:51am

brynpoeth wrote:
blackbike wrote:Not many people love the Guardian.

That's why it asks people for money at the end of every article.
......


It asks for money but one can read everything without paying......

I think that is relevant. Saying "it asks people for money at the end of every article" fails to understand that there are different business models that different companies can adopt. Some only show you a couple of lines of an article before requiring you pay a subscription, others fill their pages with commercial ads, some use nag-ware if you block their ads (some block you out completely), some ask for voluntary donations, etc.

All are perfectly valid business models, just different approaches to revenue and to claim any one approach shows "Not many people love the Guardian" shows a failure to understand how companies adapt and respond to providing content on the internet.

Ian

PDQ Mobile
Posts: 3342
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby PDQ Mobile » 26 Aug 2017, 12:58pm

blackbike wrote:Not many people love the Guardian.

That's why it asks people for money at the end of every article.

The paper is a vanity publication of a bigger business empire which absorbs its huge losses.

Surprising in some ways, for you have very often posted about the fact that you are a liberal and tolerant person.
I would have said the Guardian is pretty liberal.

Still I guess the Daily Mail offers you some solace.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby meic » 26 Aug 2017, 1:06pm

I would have said the Guardian is pretty liberal.

Pretty liberal? I thought it was liberal in a totalitarian way. :mrgreen:
Yma o Hyd

PDQ Mobile
Posts: 3342
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby PDQ Mobile » 26 Aug 2017, 1:11pm

Everybody has their own take on it of course.
But compared to some of our National newspapers, IMHO, it has been quite liberal on many issues.

Perhaps you would care to define "Totalitarian Liberal" for it seems something of a paradox.

User avatar
meic
Posts: 19355
Joined: 1 Feb 2007, 9:37pm
Location: Caerfyrddin (Carmarthen)

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby meic » 26 Aug 2017, 2:30pm

They do not tolerate any dissent from their current liberal fashionable thinking.
Yma o Hyd

Psamathe
Posts: 10695
Joined: 10 Jan 2014, 8:56pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby Psamathe » 26 Aug 2017, 3:55pm

meic wrote:They do not tolerate any dissent from their current liberal fashionable thinking.

That is very true - post a comment pointing out shortcomings in an article written by their staff and it is often quickly deleted. They can be more tolerant with non staff/guest articles.

Ian

PDQ Mobile
Posts: 3342
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby PDQ Mobile » 26 Aug 2017, 6:19pm

meic wrote:They do not tolerate any dissent from their current liberal fashionable thinking.

It's a broad palate sort of statement without much concrete criticism.
My perception is that the paper generally publishes differing and opposing views about political and other matters. It's just my HO, of course.

As to not being critical or allowing criticism of itself.
Today's (paper version) carries thee letters about the cyclist in court for having a fatal collision.
All three letter point out shortcomings in the Guardian's reporting of the case. One of which is quite scathing. Just quick example.

blackbike
Posts: 2492
Joined: 11 Jul 2009, 3:21pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby blackbike » 1 Sep 2017, 9:24pm

PDQ Mobile wrote:
blackbike wrote:Not many people love the Guardian.

That's why it asks people for money at the end of every article.

The paper is a vanity publication of a bigger business empire which absorbs its huge losses.

Surprising in some ways, for you have very often posted about the fact that you are a liberal and tolerant person.
I would have said the Guardian is pretty liberal.

Still I guess the Daily Mail offers you some solace.


I am very liberal and tolerant. I'm an easy going type of chap who is never offended and annoyed by what others say just because I don't agree with them. I enjoy a frank and open exchange of views on all topics and I would never seek to inhibit the free speech or free expression of anyone else.

I don't know why you are surprised by my comments in this thread. I was simply pointing out some facts about the Guardian. I haven't criticised it.

The paper is effectively a propaganda sheet for the Scott Trust which can afford to cover the paper's losses using the profits from its other business activities.

I have no problem with that at all. People and organisations are entitled to use their money to push their political opinions and view of the world, and many of them do so.

I disagree with you when you say the Guardian is a liberal publication. In my opinion it is the exact opposite. Its opinion columns are full of articles calling for more state control, legislation, regulation and censorship. The comments made by readers often express contempt for the opinions and abilities of the average person.

That's not my idea of liberal.

The Daily Mail is a profitable publication. I don't pay it a penny.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited

https://www.theguardian.com/the-scott-t ... cott-trust

brynpoeth
Posts: 11947
Joined: 30 Nov 2013, 11:26am

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby brynpoeth » 9 Sep 2017, 8:01am

Ian Jack writes about the Forth Bridges today, and how Fife and the *mainland* were so far apart a few decades ago when they were only connected by train or ferry, +1

Maybe he could report from the Dundee end of the kingdom in the same vein

Why, I think I might make a donation, or rather buy the paper on paper, it is still better than reading it on a screen :)
Entertainer, kidult, curmudgeon
Cycling-of course, but it is far better on a Gillott
We love safety cameras, we love life "597"

Flinders
Posts: 3014
Joined: 10 Mar 2009, 6:47pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby Flinders » 9 Sep 2017, 4:04pm

Tangled Metal wrote:Used to get it as a student because there was a deal for it at the student's union. Year before it was the telegraph because they had a deal for students. Last year it was independent which had a deal. This was 20+ years ago. I have bought a newspaper very infrequently since then. You don't need it!

I read news from papers around the world often based on the outputs of search engine's news pages. I used to read a lot of good output from an English language Chinese newspaper's website. Actually less biased than the self important uk broadsheets from the UK believe it or not. Even Indian newspaper websites are better, even when reporting the Indian rape issues.

Other nations websites in like are a couple of Aussie sites, Canadian and a few US ones too. In fact it's often fun to see one in particular sticking it to trump!

So I'm afraid I'd rather read the Lancaster guardian than the national guardian newspaper.

BTW the comment is free section of the guardian's website is pure carp! It's supposed to allow critical thought to be published but anything that doesn't fit in with the guardian's editorial line get thinned out. They have token right of centre commentators but they're weak. The one good right of centre commentator got sacked for making comments not in.The guardian's editorial line. I can't remember the details it was a few years back. Caused a bit of a media uproar but everyone moved on and guardian carried on censoring right of centre commentary on the CiF strand. BTW comments section gets heavily censored too


I have been reading the comments section BTL for many years, and though you occasionally see posts modded for reasons that are not obvious, most of the time it only happens when a comment is actionable- libel, etc.. That does tend to include more right wing comments, but that isn't the G's fault, it's the commentators. The paper can't legally allow racist posts or incitement, for a start, and that sort of post tends to come a lot more from the right, though of course not exclusively, as do other actionable posts, so it's inevitable that there may be more right wing posts modded.
I'd not want to see it become like some other comments sections, full of hate and malice to the extent I'm surprised they're legal.

It's ridiculous to suggest that all comments have to follow the editorial line. Look at what they allow under Toynbee's articles. The G does allow some very direct critical comments towards their writers as well, unlike other papers where such comments are wiped out or all comments cut, though some do get modded on occasion. If you want evidence, read below any of Jonathan Jones' articles. Most of the commentators can't stand him (and neither can I, so that's why I notice those).

PDQ Mobile
Posts: 3342
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: It is earnestly to be hoped - we love the Guardian!

Postby PDQ Mobile » 10 Sep 2017, 8:30pm

blackbike wrote:I am very liberal and tolerant. I'm an easy going type of chap who is never offended and annoyed by what others say just because I don't agree with them. I enjoy a frank and open exchange of views on all topics and I would never seek to inhibit the free speech or free expression of anyone else.

I don't know why you are surprised by my comments in this thread. I was simply pointing out some facts about the Guardian. I haven't criticised it.

The paper is effectively a propaganda sheet for the Scott Trust which can afford to cover the paper's losses using the profits from its other business activities.

I have no problem with that at all. People and organisations are entitled to use their money to push their political opinions and view of the world, and many of them do so.

I disagree with you when you say the Guardian is a liberal publication. In my opinion it is the exact opposite. Its opinion columns are full of articles calling for more state control, legislation, regulation and censorship.


It's just rubbish!
As is your continual and ad nauseum posting about how liberal and tolerant you are. You must have posted the same sentence 20 times!

In the past you have posted statements such as this:-
blackbike wrote:I think Mrs May's appointment of Boris is a masterstroke.

It sends a strong message to the simpering, obsequious, servile Brussels venerating Remainers who think that the UK has to humbly apologise and show the utmost respect to our continental friends for being so rude, impolite and ungrateful as to leave their beloved EU.

That message is Brexit means Brexit so get used to it.


Now that does not have a liberal and tolerant ring to me!
More like straight out of the (profitable!) Daily Mail.