Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login

The Guardian - classic or dud?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Disingenuous, moi?

(NB mods, if this is a bad idea, feel free to delete the thread)

― Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:26 (twenty-two years ago)

Classic. Only paper I can be bothered to buy, and even then only on a Friday.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)

The tabloid section has started to really get on my tits - dud. The Friday and Saturday Review sections are classic, though.

― P.J.Harvey-Nicks, Monday, 22 September 2003 12:29 (twenty-two years ago)

The fact that it's related to The Observer with their god-like Monthly magazines (tho I haven't yet read the inaugural Music Monthly) is a big plus. I like it, it feels totally adapted to who I am at my stage of life. However, I have stopped buying it during the week in an attempt to read more novels. It's working.

― Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I just started reading it regularly (online) in the past few months. (I would read it before, but usually because I found a link to it, not because I went there directly.) Classic.

― Al Andalous, Monday, 22 September 2003 12:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I generally buuy it. I would get the Independent but I don't like letters that all start "Sir"

― Matt (Matt), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Also Mark C = OTM re Observer magazines.

― Matt (Matt), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:35 (twenty-two years ago)

Not disingenuous don't worry Mark. I doubt too many of the browsers will get as far as ILE anyway.

I buy it every day - solid tube reading and I feel like I've got to know most of their op-ed, arts, sports writers by now so I know how to interpret their wack(i)er opinions.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:36 (twenty-two years ago)

drives me barmy

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:39 (twenty-two years ago)

It occurs to me that soon the Observer will be launching a TV and Film monthly magazine and wondering about whether to do a science one.

― Tim (Tim), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I had precisely the same thought yesterday.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

obs music mag = not good, certainly a lot worse than sport and even food (possibly this is because i'm much more used to reading about music then sport or food, or possibly because it's full of the usual old farts saying the same things).

read the grauniad a couple of times a week, for JOBS and education gossip on tuesday and to be rude about the snide and weak-end on saturday...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

what's all this about the guardian anyway, has ILM been featured in it?

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

not yet...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Tim; they can surely only do 4, can't they? Otherwise they wouldn't be monthly...

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I hate The Guardian. It is so smug and self satisified that it has spent much of the last seven years kowtowing to the government rather than challenging it. Its position as the only left wing broadsheet and its own pandering to its social worker activist fanbase suggests a newspaper heavily out of step both with society and a large potential audience that it is frankly scared of.

Tabloid sectiojn is glib, the Snide - their great innovation - is now a carping critic on all of culture rather than admitting liking anything. I prefer Th'Indie.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:51 (twenty-two years ago)

they could do two in the same week possibly

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Every three months they could have a guest monthly, Nick, since a month is about 4 and a third weeks long.

― Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:52 (twenty-two years ago)

"Waiting for Guardot"

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:55 (twenty-two years ago)

do I win the drole award?

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:55 (twenty-two years ago)

So it would be a three-monthly then, not a 'guest' monthly. Mentalist.

― Nick Southall (Nick Southall), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:57 (twenty-two years ago)

Asshat.

― Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:57 (twenty-two years ago)

quarterly

droll

pedant

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 22 September 2003 12:57 (twenty-two years ago)

saturday Review has been declining for some time, less and less of it I want to read.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:01 (twenty-two years ago)

It is so smug and self satisified that it has spent much of the last seven years kowtowing to the government rather than challenging it.

Nonsense... it's pretty much impossible to pick up a Grauniad without finding at least five or six Blair-bashing pieces. I agree with you on its essential smugness though, and it's godawful WHINGEING at every opportunity (second only to the Daily Mail, actually, although coming from the opposite-ish direction).

The problem with the Guardian is I don't trust it as far as I could throw it, it has so many loaded news articles and I think there are far too many people on the impressionable student-and-beyond left who take it as gospel. Nevertheless, I still read it regularly and what annoys me the most about it is I get the feeling it EXPECTS me and people like me to agree with it.

G2 is k-rub, as is the observer, but it does have some good serious columnists and well as a boatload of awful ones, exacerbated by high levels of David Aaronovich.

I also prefer the Indie, and strangely enough The Observer.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I actually mean "G2 is k-rub, as is the sports section"... dodgy typo there.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:06 (twenty-two years ago)

I make a point of reading Roy Hattersley's column, mind.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:07 (twenty-two years ago)

i have worked at the guardian and it was full of of overprivileged, bourgie, middle-class twats and this is reflected in its editorial line

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Equally important question, what would you LIKE it to be?

(I'd always thought the Independent took a generally more left-leaning approach than the Guardian, despite the presence of token Tory columnists)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I quite like the Guardian, but I don't read any of the other English papers so my reference is only with Irish ones. I find the lifestyle columnists to be quite good, over here they always seem like 30 something David Kitt fans, cos they are.

I also read it for the global news coverage which we don't get to the same extent in our papers. That said I agree with Matt that it is something of a bible for "student-and-beyond-left".

I get very sick of the endless articles about precocious middle class teenagers/children, I mentioned this before and I wish they'd stop. Maybe they remind me of myself.

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Equally important question, what would you LIKE it to be?

i don't want the guardian to be anything - i hate it and wish it would close down. in fact, i hate newspapers pretty much even-handedly as i spend a lot of my time working at one and have worked at pretty much all of them in the course of my career.

― Dave Stelfox (Dave Stelfox), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Dave Stelfox, that must be exactly why I like it so much :/

(x-post - I mean your second-to-last comment)

― Mark C (Mark C), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:18 (twenty-two years ago)

My favorite line from recent times was an article about Carlos Menotti the Argentinean football manager who the Guardian said had experience of managing at the top level since 1878.

I believe the Guardian is total self parody. How else could you explain it?

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I check it out at least a couple of times a week, it is one of the papers I skim through to get a non-U.S.-centric view of the news. I find the editorial tone a little bit annoying, and a lot of their columnists are simply dreadful. Their music articles tend to be pretty meh, but I have liked the interviews they do with musicians.

― Nicolars (Nicole), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I read the Guardian most days; to my mind, it's simply the least bad paper. There's lots in it that annoy me, but a lot less than other papers. I get infuriated with most of the things mentioend above, but to counter it, it features writers who I enjoy reading, columnists I engage with, arguments I appreciate and so on. Since the perfect paper which pleases me greatly and never annoys me is never going to happen, then I tolerate it with pleasure, if that's not a contradiction.

I do get totally narked off with typical guardian readers - ie, those who create a subculture if you will of people who are the same by virtue of their reading of the paper; such people are generally smug and insufferable. The difference between being a Guardian reader and a reader of the Guardian - I'm the latter.

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 22 September 2003 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

As its name (OK nickname) suggests the Indie in pre-tabloid form is rubbish - it's virtually identical in tone and editorial line to the Guardian except with a lot fewer pages and noticeably lower budget. I can't remember the last time I saw anything in it I cared enough about to even disagree with.

Dave B's post is sensible.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

i read the guardian occasionally and i am always smug and insufferable but not i think because i am a guardian reader

― mark s (mark s), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I find it to be incredibly slanted against America and Israel. Wasn't there a Guardian columnist who wrote recently that whenever someone writes in to defend Israel they check to see if they have a Jewish name and dismiss them if they do?

― bnw (bnw), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

(NB mods, if this is a bad idea, feel free to delete the thread)

the terrorists truly have won if it is considered acceptable for moderators to delete threads about the Guardian.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

In the run up to the EVIL WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST IRAQ I got fed up with the Guardian because it wasn't hostile enough to the USA and its little friend Israel. The Independent was much more dependable on this issue.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:21 (twenty-two years ago)

The war against Iraq was Israel's fault?

― bnw (bnw), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't find it at all slanted against America. Bush =! America. Besides, with their popkult they go America-mad.

Israel, however...not sure about that. They give a lot of exposure to people who don't get any in the NY Times etc.

What does bug me about the Guardian is their utterly depressing treatment of freelancers and in many cases, their own staff. Friend was deputy diarist there, invented New Media section essentially and did she get a salaried job? Did she fuck. And this despite being smart as a whip, great at job, judge's daughter, boarding school, brother in royal year at Eton and pretty much having all the incedental 'class' stuff Dave was whining about upthread.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Completely unrelated thing about newspapers that this thread reminded me of:

I was buying a paper this morning when my eye lingered on the cover of the Daily Star (or somesuch, possibly The People). The picture was of some generic man-faced overstylised lads mag totty in hotpants and the caption read "TV JAKKI HOTTEST TOPLESS PICS YET" - I thought blimey, rudey pics of transvestites in the Daily Star. Then I realised that they were talking about the other kind of TV.

I still have no idea who this "TV JAKKI" is though. Brambles? Clune? Corkhill?

― j0e (j0e), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

that thing on the PIMP trend in The Guide was just the sort of thing the Grauniad does well; it was something I hadn't even registered before (if it got mentioned before on ILX, then I missed it, sorry)

― zebedee (zebedee), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:48 (twenty-two years ago)

A classic example of the Guardian's anti-America slant to me was their headline when terrorists bombed that Bali nightclub, which read something akin to: America Causes Bombing in Bali. The story underneath being how America's war on terror was misguided. The leap from that story to that headline can only be explained in my mind by some eagerness to blame EVERYTHING on America.

― bnw (bnw), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Alternatively, an understanding that the way to beat the effects of terrorism is to deal with the causes of terrorism.

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 22 September 2003 14:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Bali is an awkward one in the context of this discussion though, far more so than suicide bombers targeting Western compounds or oil companies in Saudi Arabia, for example.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Never read it. Prefer the Telegraph, coz it has a great weather section.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:04 (twenty-two years ago)

Wasn't there a Guardian columnist who wrote recently that whenever someone writes in to defend Israel they check to see if they have a Jewish name and dismiss them if they do?

That was Richard Ingrams, in the Observer.

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:07 (twenty-two years ago)

I have a feeling David Aaronovich also wrote something along those lines, although without quite saying the above in so many words.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

David Aaronovitch IIRC wrote that he gets a disturbing number of letters accusing him of being either i) a Zionist because he has a Jewish name or ii) a traitor to Zionism because he has a Jewish name. The onus anyway was on his name not his correspondents'.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Would that headline have been "Bali night club bomb kills 180", "Cancel trips to Bali, Foreign Office says", "Finger of Blame pointed at Jemaah Islamiya", "Bombs kill at least 54 in holiday isle carnage", or "Terror strikes Indonesia's tourist jewel"?

Or it could be these, from two days afterwards:

In the shadow of terror
From Bali to Baghdad, truth is all
Bush aiming at wrong target, US critics fear
America's obsession with Iraq leaves others free to kill

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Richard Ingrams is a twat, so no surprises there.

Aaronovich is an odd case. ISTR his early 90s TV reviews in the Independent being pretty good. Then he started actually appearing on the telly. This seemed to go to his head, and a large degree of twonkishness set in. Now he's back in print and even worse.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:17 (twenty-two years ago)

Has anyone been following Aaronovich's TV global sex tour, or whatever it is? Personally, I can't imagine anything less appealing.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Matt. Please, I'm trying to EAT here.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:20 (twenty-two years ago)

Damn andrew, you search faster than I.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Has anyone been following Aaronovich's TV global sex tour, or whatever it is?

He's left a trail of deconstruction in his wake.

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

At least the Guardian keeps you up to date with obituaries of trade union leaders from the 1950's. Never heard of any of them of course. Still, beats reading about dead Lance Corporals in the Telegraph.

― Mikey G (Mikey G), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Dead Lieutenants surely. The Telegraph would never have other ranks on the obits page.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:36 (twenty-two years ago)

The war against Iraq was Israel's fault?

no, the war against the Palestinians was.

sorry to everyone else, this has increasingly little to do with the Guardian. my point really was that before the war the Guardian was too willing to give the benefit of the doubt to those lying bastards Tony Blair and George Bush, while the Independent from the word go was saying "This war is bullshit".

― DV (dirtyvicar), Monday, 22 September 2003 15:44 (twenty-two years ago)

I agree with every word the very wise Dave B says. (We could be the new The Pinefox and Jerry The Nipper!)

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Monday, 22 September 2003 16:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Why has no-one mentioned the Guardian crossword??? The first part of the paper I turn to: and it's no surprise that it's the only bit of the paper they think people might be prepared to pay for online access to.

― alext (alext), Monday, 22 September 2003 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I used to really enjoy the Quick Crossword; but now I borrow my boss's copy of the paper to read, so I don't get chance to do it. The main crossword is way beyond me.

― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 22 September 2003 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

It might have been this one I was thinking of "America's obsession with Iraq leaves others free to kill ."

Here is another great Guardian headline posted on ILx: "US to punish German 'treachery'"

Sounds like: B-52's dropping bombs on Berlin.
Is actually: U.S. considering removing army base in Germany.

― bnw (bnw), Monday, 22 September 2003 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)

the format of the online version is very easy to read < /target demographic>

― jones (actual), Monday, 22 September 2003 17:11 (twenty-two years ago)

G2 is absolutely half-assed, and the editor Ian Katz is an absolute twat (I can say from personal experience). Gareth McLean, the TV reviewer, is however very lovely.

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Monday, 22 September 2003 20:14 (twenty-two years ago)

I know... let's go to the beach! And while we're there, we can write a whole issue about it!

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Monday, 22 September 2003 20:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Neville Brody's Guardian Unlimited is one of the best designed web sites ever.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 22 September 2003 20:21 (twenty-two years ago)

I only read it occasionally. It's a bit up itself, but hey, it's a broadsheet. It's better than the Sun, obviously. Mostly can't be bothered with papers, though... why waste money to plough through loads of fatuous bollocks to find the two interesting items hidden in there? Only to find, of course, that said two items are only moderately interesting fatuous bollocks anyway...

― ChristineSH (chrissie1068), Monday, 22 September 2003 20:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I like reading the Guardian online because I'm stuck in a city where my only options are shyte Canwest Global crap and the utterly boring Globe and Mail. Sure, I've got a few probs with the Guardian, but you folks in England should be so lucky. The only remotely left paper we've got in Canada is the Toronto Star.

― cybele (cybele), Monday, 22 September 2003 21:00 (twenty-two years ago)

thought exactly the same thing as carsmile upstairs about the observer music magazine and for probably the same reason. it seems to be the usual suspects reviewing the usual suspects. only thing i thought could be interesting is the bloke who will answer a different audition for a different band every month.

david bowie was stangely entertaining with his interview answers

andy

― koogs (koogs), Monday, 22 September 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

bnw you are a mentalist (no offence)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 07:32 (twenty-two years ago)

Here is another great Guardian headline posted on ILx: "US to punish German 'treachery'"

Yeah, fuck's sake, bnw, have you noticed who's in charge in the US recently? Have you noticed the stuff they're saying / doing? Have you heard the expression 'Don't kill the messenger?'

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 07:57 (twenty-two years ago)

The Guardian is fucking excellent. I read it every day on the web, and you tend to take it for granted until you look at other papers' sites, or just other papers, period. (I mean, go to The Times' site and you get some rat-faced toff in half-moon glasses giving you a guide to etiquette -- barf!)

Today's Guardian is totally justified for me by Adrian Searle's long piece about Jim Lambie's 'stripe tease' floors. Searle collides Lambie with some ideas from Ettore Sottsass of Memphis and comes out sounding genuinely perplexed. A sign that he's actually thinking and wondering about what he writes about, and what's more that the paper has given him license and space to think. Not a given, not to be taken for granted.

RIP Hugo Young.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:06 (twenty-two years ago)

'Philip Howard answers your etiquette questions' in The Times.

I mean, is this man a rat or what? And what sort of loser would ask him about etiquette in 2003? (Sorry, I was wrong, the half moon glasses are actually part of his face.)

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Actually, Searle's article is classic Guardian in many ways. Actually, perhaps it's classic 'newspaper covers specialist area' in many ways. Art coverage really shows up the newspaper's essential uncoolness and superficiality, its inability to get inside any of the areas it touches, except perhaps politics.

Searle's account of Lambie differs from what the art press would do in that it's not really committed to the art. But neither is it hip to the popular culture the art is referencing. Pop culture = another specialist area, perhaps? Searle's tone is uncool, avuncular, awkward, like Philip Larkin removing his bicycle clips before entering a church. Searle hates the word 'installation'. He reads the press release and can't work out why it talks about Memphis. (Surely he's read enough press releases, or seen Bank's critique of them, FaxBack, to know they're usually pretentious waffle?) He muses:

'Sometimes when you dig for meaning, you just end up in a hole. The answer, I suspect, is to just relax about it all.'

But relax into what? He has never seen Dallas or a male strip show. Clearly he isn't going to relax into 'common sense'. He's too lost in art and seriousness to do that (although it may be what the art itself is doing).

Is Searle doing a Matthew Collings, assuming a sly air of faux-naivete? Well, perhaps. But in a newspaper, you might as well act genuinely a bit baffled by art, even if you're the art critic. That way you keep the 'general reader' on your side. Whoever she is.

Anyway, I'm glad to read an account of someone being a bit baffled. That's okay. No doubt I'll read a 'cool' and 'insiderly' review of the same show in Frieze, and no doubt I'll trust it more. But I'm pleased that the man from the Guardian is there, removing his bicycle clips and advancing gingerly into the gallery.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Aside: Have you noticed that I say 'actually' a lot? Actually it's because I'm always 'actualising' my thoughts, updating them, updating them, making them 'actuel' or 'current' (which sounds like a running stream) as the context changes. Actually, scratch that, this is what I mean. Changing one's mind means thinking, updating, adjusting, becoming. Just like a frequently-updated website or a daily newspaper, which needs to be actuel a lot more than it needs to be right. Who needs a 'thunderer' when you can have a paper that says actuellement -- 'currently' (which sounds like a running stream)?

Talking to yourself, C/D?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Etiquette lessons like those featured in The Times (and that Philip Howard picture is there on the website every day, so it must be one of their defining self-images) are a classic 'status argument' pitch: essentially, The Times sells copies on the illusion that there is 'one right way' to do things, one correct code to live by. (As the Evening Standard used to say, 'Everyone needs standards'.) Here it is, learn The Truth! Embrace the Status Model!

The Guardian sells copies on the opposite assumption, a kind of constant self-contradiction or beard-scratching. Everything is situational, provisional. This is one of the basic divisions between right and left mindsets. I'd be surprised at their degree of uncertainty... if it weren't also my own.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh bollocks. The whole problem with ANY newspaper you don't happen to agree with is that you don't share their assumptions. Momus, you just don't notice the Guardian's massive level of axiomatic certainty about lots of things because you probably happen to agree with those axioms. It's got nothing to do with the right/left divide.

― Sam (chirombo), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:53 (twenty-two years ago)

If you were really interested in challenging your beliefs you WOULD read the Times.

― Sam (chirombo), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:54 (twenty-two years ago)

There's nothing quite like the odd scan through the Mail to make me happier about buying the Guardian.

― Alan (Alan), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:56 (twenty-two years ago)

The person who said the Guardian was in league with NuLabor needs to read this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/freedom/Story/0,2763,1047682,00.html

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 08:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm more interested in actualising my beliefs than challenging them. I could challenge the assumptions of what a thread is by chanting 100,000 words of Merz across the rest of this thread, but it wouldn't be good for my soul or the thread's.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 09:02 (twenty-two years ago)

Fair enough, but to suggest that the Guardian (or, as you seem to say, the left generally) is less likely to be dogmatic and opinionated than other newspapers/conservatives is ridiculous.

(Not that I think this necessarily is a bad thing. I find it hard to think of anyone who is less sure of what he thinks than Iain Duncan Smith. He could do with some dogmatism.)

But nonetheless, part of actualising your beliefs is to question their foundations. I do not believe that the Guardian does this enough.

― Sam (chirombo), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 09:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Christine, I know what you mean, but you are only spending 55p to get a hell of a lot of potentially interesting stuff. Reading what I'm interested in in The Guardian normally takes me 45-60 minutes, which is pretty good value compared to, say, drinking beer, going to a football match etc. And the crossword is good - when I'm unemployed I do it online every day. Oh - it seems I should say *did* do it every day as it's now a paid-for service. Fair enough, I guess, though it makes me a bit sad.

― Mark C (Mark C), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 09:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Simon Hoggart with another reason today's Guardian is worth buying:

'Alastair Campbell's diaries exploded on top of the Hutton inquiry like a shellburst over the chateau where the officers are billeted.

They were sensational! Right in the very first paragraph he wrote: G[eoff] H[oon] and I agreed it would fuck Gilligan if that was his source."

We gasped. We reeled. The thought that a senior official in the British government would use the word only once in the pages of his diaries was unimaginable!

This is a man who probably reads his children stories like Now We Are Fucking Six and The Wind in the Fucking Willows. Were the diaries a forgery? It seemed likely.'

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 09:34 (twenty-two years ago)

By the way, here's where you read it first: the Guardian will throw its weight officially behind the LibDems at the next election.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 10:20 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.guardianlies.com/Contents.html

A glowing testament to the paper's huge influence in British society, courtesy of some of its enemies and victims.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 10:24 (twenty-two years ago)

A warning to the people of America is an astonishing piece of (paradoxically aggrandising) Grauniad-hate courtesy of Guardianlies.com, in which

'Jonathan Boyd Hunt warns President George W. Bush and the people of the United States to take account of the proven, very real threat to democracy posed by the British newspaper The Guardian - or suffer the consequences'

The bombing of Farringdon Road starts in five minutes!

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 10:30 (twenty-two years ago)

At what point did the press genuinely start to take the LibDems seriously? The Sun is actually bothering to attack them now, which is significant indeed.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 10:46 (twenty-two years ago)

When it became painfully painfully obvious that the Tories were never going to pull back from the brink.

― Anna (Anna), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 10:54 (twenty-two years ago)

its very hard to pull anyone back from plummeting towards the jagged rocks below.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 10:59 (twenty-two years ago)

the Guardian will throw its weight officially behind the LibDems at the next election

Would make sense. Negative choice though, one based on despair at the NuLab juggernaut + the utterly useless Tories rather than the LibDem's own merits. Historic opportunity for them, they just don't seem to be doing much with it eg Kennedy's opportunistic approach to Gulf War II. They don't seem to be able to decide whether to out-flank NuLab from the left - not difficult- or replace the Tories (Robin C. to thread). A few more Brents + Blair may be gone anyway. I'll miss Hugo Young's views on it all RIP.

― stevo (stevo), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 11:03 (twenty-two years ago)

Kennedy's playing his cards just right I think - he's not pushing policies or promises, he's leaning very hard on the ordinary-bloke bit which is appealing given the press has ridden so hard on Blair for 'spin'. He's playing the long game.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 11:12 (twenty-two years ago)

The Local Income Tax Idea that they adopted today is both a very good and and very popular idea. Council tax could be the issue that breaks the Labour government.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 11:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Lib Dems RoXoR UR all Sports Labor.

― DV (dirtyvicar), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 11:15 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't buy the Guardian because their sports coverage is rubbish.

― Dr. C (Dr. C), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 11:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, what exactly was the government thinking of with regard to removing the cap on council tax rises? Surely they know that whatever councils do, people will blame the government, thus giving other parties big pointy stick with which to shaft Blair?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 11:23 (twenty-two years ago)

i think the prime mover was to repeal a bit of thatcherism. Also it was seen as a way of getting more money into public services without touching income tax.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 11:32 (twenty-two years ago)

The Guardian does seem to have missed two very important stories today.

The Times reports that the US-appointed Iraqi governing council has voted to expel al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya reporters from Iraq, putting Paul Bremner in the embarrassing position of having to alienate the govt. by vetoing the ban or alienate the Iraqi people by supporting it.

And BBC reports that, for the first time in 3000 years, the largest block of Arctic ice has split in two because of rising temperatures.

I assume they'll be in tomorrow's paper.

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 11:58 (twenty-two years ago)

Well, I hope they didn't miss David Beckham sneezing yesterday. I'm sure everyone else got that.

― ChristineSH (chrissie1068), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 12:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus the reporter expulsion thing is in it, I read it this morning and I've not seen any other news sources.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 12:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the fact that The Guardian will print 'fuck' on the front page. What's the point in printing 'f***' - it's not like people don't know what the full words is?

― caitlin (caitlin), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 12:48 (twenty-two years ago)

i wz sad abt hugo young's death also: since they are not smart enough to have sacked simon hoggart years ago, i suspect they will not quite realise how much they have lost in hy

― mark s (mark s), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 12:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Not too sure about the way Charles Kennedy uses HY's obit as an excuse for self-promotion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/hugoyoung/story/0,13920,1048120,00.html

― Chuck Tatum (Chuck Tatum), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 14:46 (twenty-two years ago)

So anyway, what is all this about ILX being featured in Thursday's Guardian? How do you know? Where is it being featured? Has someone been interviewed?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:11 (twenty-two years ago)

'We like to appear in the newspapers, so long as we are in the right column.'

T.S. Eliot

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I hope the Guardian's approach to interviews is more ethical than that of the Telegraph. I was actually approached for an interview with the Telegraph about seven years ago (I can't be bothered explaining why).

Anyhow, in spite of my furiously paranoid attempts to ensure the reporter didn't misrepresent me (inc. refusing to be photographed clearly -- I held a magazine in front of my face!), he did anyway. Worse, he actually rung me up and summarised his hatchet-job on the phone to me, which included an off-the-record comment placed entirely out-of-context.

I do get lucky sometimes: the article was dropped before publication. Never again! (Which, BTW, is highly unlikely, lest anyone think I'm someone famous with a pseudonym...)

― ChristineSH (chrissie1068), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:24 (twenty-two years ago)

What about the IoS Music Issue?

S Price's piece was like a Tom Ewing of 10 years ago -- or something.

Bracewell was possibly above-par.

The Guardian is OK but naturally I agree with the Vicar.

― the pinefox, Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:37 (twenty-two years ago)

So anyway, what is all this about ILX being featured in Thursday's Guardian? How do you know? Where is it being featured? Has someone been interviewed?

Our founding spirit Tom Ewing was interviewed a few weeks back.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:47 (twenty-two years ago)

These are lies and rumours spread by me. Ha ha , hee hee.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:51 (twenty-two years ago)

Ricardo Enterprises, Ltd.

― Nicolars (Nicole), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Oi!

― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 15:54 (twenty-two years ago)

Our founding spirit Tom Ewing was interviewed a few weeks back.

Our beloved leader! Did he mention the poison Kool-aid pact?

― Momus (Momus), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)

I mentioned you Momus!

I think. It was a week ago after all.

― Tom (Groke), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Surely you said you liked your Mom's Ass.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Bootleg!

― David. (Cozen), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)

There was an interview with Newman (of 'and Baddiel') the other weekend which was so sycophantic I haven't been able to go near it since.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 16:56 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure how pointing out the incredibly obvious anti-Israeli and anti-America reporting makes me a mentalist. I mean, its fine if you agree with it (or some of it) but denying the bias exists seems incredibly stupid. No offence.

― bnw (bnw), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:48 (twenty-two years ago)

all your bias are belong to us.

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:50 (twenty-two years ago)

http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/tv/guardian_trio.jpg

― Nicolars (Nicole), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 17:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm not sure how pointing out the incredibly obvious anti-Israeli and anti-America reporting makes me a mentalist.

First off, do you agree that there's a difference between what you remembered (that the headline for the Bali Bombing was "America Causes Bombing in Bali") and the actual headline (two days later, in an opinion piece, with a different slant)?

And for the second thing I consider interpreting "US to punish Germany 'treachery'" to mean "bombs away" to be pure mentalism. No-one except a rabid anti-American would believe that it implies a military rather than diplomatic move.

And obviously it's not anti-American in the same way that much of America is (allegedly) anti-French: It's anti-Bush.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 23 September 2003 18:49 (twenty-two years ago)

The action-packed mentalist brings you the fucking bombs.

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 02:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I would say that the guardian is (fairly) pro-peace and international justice, which kind of lines you up against Bush and Sharon.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 08:15 (twenty-two years ago)

Why have I not seen Ewing's interview?

What did he say?

― the pinefox, Wednesday, 24 September 2003 15:59 (twenty-two years ago)

its not in the paper till tomorrow

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

I just saw Guardian writer Nick Lezard outside my office!

It would be great if the board looked like some mental stalk-the-Guardian-writers thing tomorrow.

― Tom (Groke), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 16:03 (twenty-two years ago)

FAP in the Eagle then.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 16:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus, how can you reconcile your deep respect for the Guardian with your defense of the trashy bastion of libertarian/neo-con tripe that is Vice?

― cybele (cybele), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 16:10 (twenty-two years ago)

i "skim through" the website most days
it seems to be the best option when i comes to newspapers,i mean obviously it has its flaws and biases but that's inevitable really...
i had time to kill in stansted airport the other day,having been away in venice for a week (without meaning to sound like momus) and i bought the times...having gone through the whole paper in about half an hour,i bought the guardian and found several articles about things that weren't even mentioned in the times,as well as more in depth coverage of things that were...
admittedly i didn't try the independent (presuming it to be crap subconsciously cause the irish one is really bad)but the guardian certainly seemed like the best option available...
i though that about the libdems as well,by the way...

― robin (robin), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Momus, how can you reconcile your deep respect for the Guardian with your defense of the trashy bastion of libertarian/neo-con tripe that is Vice?

I address this on the Vice Throwdowns thread. The short version is, Gavin McInnes merely publishes Vice. I write it. And I am not neo-con. (Neither, as McInnes admits, are the huge majority of Vice readers.)

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 20:41 (twenty-two years ago)

Man, that thread is long. Can you link it for me. Please?

― cybele (cybele), Wednesday, 24 September 2003 23:43 (twenty-two years ago)

Vice Throwdowns. Right at the end.

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 25 September 2003 06:07 (twenty-two years ago)

So I'm looking for the ILX Guardian feature. It's The Myth of Satan's Web, isn't it? They've made a couple of mistakes, as usual, misprinting Tom Ewing's name as 'Bill Gates' and calling ILX 'Microsoft's Online Chatrooms' throughout. But I like Emily Bell's conclusion:

'If television killed the art of conversation, the internet restores it. If you have a
physical or mental disorder, however rare, your research materials and support groups are available online.'

That's my ilXor!

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 25 September 2003 06:44 (twenty-two years ago)

Oh wait, surely it can't be this piece about the 'self-involved, self-referential world' of music blogs? There is a passing reference to 'I Love Music, a hugely popular discussion board where music bloggers swap ideas and insults.'

Is that my ilXor?

― Momus (Momus), Thursday, 25 September 2003 06:53 (twenty-two years ago)

Nick Lezard (aka Slack Dad) is my hero.

― James Ball (James Ball), Thursday, 25 September 2003 07:40 (twenty-two years ago)

What's all this cant about the Groanydayd being 'left-wing'? Cos they say more money on butter, less on guns? Big deal. Poly Toynbee is the acme of this. It's terrible that minimum wage is ony 4 quid; it should be... 5 quid! Do one. Zoe Williams can be really good, tho.
As for the Schmindie's allegedly left-wing antiwar stance, um, Johann Hari anyone? Can he be explained?

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 25 September 2003 08:14 (twenty-two years ago)

Different writers in different opinions shocker.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 25 September 2003 08:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Which is one of the greatest strengths of The Guardian for me - the range of opinions.

― James Ball (James Ball), Thursday, 25 September 2003 08:27 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, up to a point of course. But probably working off similar premises. Or maybe actually I'm being conservative and a mag featuring John Pilger, Taki and Will Hutton would actually be mindblowing...

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 25 September 2003 08:37 (twenty-two years ago)

Toynbee "turned down" an offer to be guest columnist on the Spectator, or so she said in her dancing-on-Auberon-Waugh's-newly-dug-grave piece a while back

― robin carmody (robin carmody), Friday, 26 September 2003 02:33 (twenty-two years ago)

two weeks pass...
What's wrong with this article?

Republicans accused of electoral bugging

Julian Borger in Washington
Friday October 10, 2003
The Guardian

Democrats have accused the Bush administration of resorting to dirty tricks in a close and bitter election for control of Philadelphia after FBI listening devices were found in the mayor's office.
The FBI refused to explain the purpose of the bugs found in a routine police sweep of the offices of the mayor, John Street, on Tuesday, less than a month before the election in which Mr Street is being challenged by his Republican rival, Sam Katz. FBI officials admitted the bugs were theirs, but insisted they had nothing to do with the mayoral election. They did not disclose the purpose of their investigation.

The mystery has thrown the Street re-election campaign into turmoil. "It has been confirmed by the US attorney that I am not the target of any federal investigation and that's very important to me," the mayor said yesterday.

The FBI refusal to comment further enraged Pennsylvania Democrats, who said the affair left a cloud hanging over Mr Street's campaign. They questioned whether the timing of the affair was deliberate.

"I would normally say this wasn't political, but the thing that raises everyone's suspicions is that the FBI was so eager to say, two nights ago, that this is nothing to do with the political campaign," the Pennsylvania governor, Ed Rendell, said. He argued that the FBI had made sure to exonerate Republicans, but did nothing to clear Mr Street.

"We don't confirm or deny investigations," Linda Vizi, the spokeswoman for the FBI office in Philadelphia, said. "We have tried to be very fair, and we are limited by department of justice guidelines as to what we can say."

Legal experts said that any decision to send in one of the FBI's covert "black bag" teams to break into the office of a high-profile politician and plant a bug would have to be approved by John Ashcroft, the Bush administration's attorney-general.

"Do we believe that the Republican party, both at the federal level and state level, is pulling out every stop to get Pennsylvania in 2004?" said Frank Keel, a spokesman for the Street campaign. "Absolutely. Is the Republican Party capable of dirty tricks? I think that is well documented."

Both the Republican national committee and the FBI rejected the claim that politics had been involved in the bugging of the mayoral offices. Mr Katz claimed that any "political innuendo" around the affair was unfair.

Mr Street beat Mr Katz by less than 10,000 votes four years ago, and the rivalry has shaped Philadelphia politics ever since.

This year, the contest has been particularly ugly. In August, there was an abortive attempt to firebomb a Katz campaign office, and a Street aide has been charged with intimidation. Mr Street is black and Mr Katz is white, and each has accused the other of trying to make race an issue.

It ignores what is known about federal investigations that have been going on here, related to city contracts and traffic ticket "fixing" (or whatever the term was). After the fact that Street's office was bugged, the FBI swept through the business of a major city contractor and confiscated hard-drives and so forth. I don't entirely trust the FBI, but I don't entirely trust Street, or anyway, don't trust the people he surrounds himself with. Not sure what to think.

But anyway, the report here could at least make passing reference to investigations which appear to be related to the bugging. I also don't think a Republican mayor in Philadelphia is going to make it more likely that Bush will be re-elected.

― Al Andalous, Friday, 10 October 2003 12:47 (twenty-two years ago)

four months pass...
Ho ho ho I am evil.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 4 March 2004 13:46 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't think any of the cunts have actually turned up.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Thursday, 4 March 2004 13:48 (twenty-two years ago)

Do you feel like one of the outwitted jocks in a teen movie?

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 4 March 2004 13:50 (twenty-two years ago)

I'd love one.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Thursday, 4 March 2004 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...
Berliner

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:43 (twenty years ago)

There's going to be a riot.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:47 (twenty years ago)

They're redesinging it all too. I've already sent a letter in saying I don't like it.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

Actually they're redesigning it.

But Re-de-singing sounds like ripping James Blunt's vocal chords out for the second time, which can only be a good thing.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:49 (twenty years ago)

I'm no expert on these things, but I find that blue really yuck and weak.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:50 (twenty years ago)

Looks alright.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:52 (twenty years ago)

There's going to be a riot.
-- Mädchen (madchen_in_unifor...), September 9th, 2005.


THE KAISER CHIEFS PRE etc

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

Looks like The European.

Andrew Collins' Radio Diary has been lost in the reshuffle. Not that I ever read it, mind.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

people probably complained back in '88 but that redesign was hella influential.

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

It's the same colour as the Bucks Examiner.
(crosspost)

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

the new typefaces are arse but the layout is good, a lot like the catalan daily, La Vanguardia, which is a great paper.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:55 (twenty years ago)

the blue could change to another colour with each edition. in the same way that The Guide letters are different colours every Saturday.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:55 (twenty years ago)

color on every page, apparently.

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 11:56 (twenty years ago)

Why is the masthead a third of the way down the page?

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:57 (twenty years ago)

Because it's such a pretty picture of Judi.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 9 September 2005 11:58 (twenty years ago)

nice use of egypt

― Fontly Speaking, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:03 (twenty years ago)

Sport on the CENTRE pages?!

I like it, but think that "guardian" should have a capital letter.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:03 (twenty years ago)

Fuckers.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

Sport on centre pages = grebt idea. Massive goalscoring centrefold montages ahoy.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

La Vanguardia great? I think it's awful claptrap.

I was hoping for a flood of The European nostalgia.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

hmm. the masthead is beautiful. the rest of the front is less impressive than i hoped. but fuck it, dummies tell you nothing. i'm reserving judgement until monday.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:13 (twenty years ago)

The blog of one of the main guys behind it which has background on the whole process and the work behind the scenes.

― Dave B (daveb), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:13 (twenty years ago)

I really agree with JtN about the lower case 'g'. Surely all-lower-case typography is on the way out?

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:15 (twenty years ago)

au contraire

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:16 (twenty years ago)

I'M SICK OF IT. IT LOOKS WEEDY AND MID-90S TO ME.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:17 (twenty years ago)

looks OK

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:19 (twenty years ago)

not brilliant but

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:19 (twenty years ago)

(NB mods, if this is a bad idea, feel free to delete the thread)

-- Mark C (boyincorduro...), September 22nd, 2003. (1 trackback)

eh?

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:20 (twenty years ago)

I like the berliner format

I'm finnicky about formats

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:21 (twenty years ago)

It looks like the new-style Press Gazette.

Online activity includes "takeovers" on websites including Channel 4, which will feature an interactive 3D demo of the new Guardian.

And here's me thinking that newspapers are flat: http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,14173,1566474,00.html

Also, the sports section is going all "citizen journalism". Yay for blurry cameraphone pictures of the back of people's heads at Old Trafford! http://sport.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,10488,1564671,00.html

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:21 (twenty years ago)

paRt of me woUld prefEr 'theguardian' to be in HelveTica of couRse.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:22 (twenty years ago)

USE HELVETICA

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:24 (twenty years ago)

how much smaller in CMs is it ? i mean roughly?
the picture of LE MONDE makes it look almost the same as the current size.

i ilke the redesign. it is as stevem says 'alright'.

― piscesboy, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:24 (twenty years ago)

the onlie time i haf actually bought der guardian in the last few years was when i had a letter in it, so the format change = meh, although i hate broadsheets, so not meh at all but 'yay'. if they fired polly toynbee and [all the other guardianistas i've hated on] then they could easy save the space.

nb: BEMBO

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:24 (twenty years ago)

On the whole I like it, which worries me a bit, since in my inexpert opinion I think a redesign that's going to last has to look a bit shocking at first. Seems a bit safe. The headings seem too close to the line above them, but that's a minor thing I'll probably get used to.

The Berliner size itself = obviously a good thing. The Times, Scotsman and even the Independent still look squeezed, fat and wrong to me. On a Saturday, they're revolting.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:26 (twenty years ago)

they need to justify the 5th column.

(ha ha, the 5th column. do you see?)

― koogs (koogs), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:26 (twenty years ago)

BLACK CHANCERY

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

bear in mind my catalan is non-existant so I use my knowledge of french and Italian to get the gist of what La Vanguardia is going on about.

― Ed (dali), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:28 (twenty years ago)

According to the Press Gazette, Alan Rushbridger says that the changes will "signal a move towards the political middle ground for the traditionally left wing paper".

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:29 (twenty years ago)

oh great!

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:29 (twenty years ago)

a fair and balanced layout.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:32 (twenty years ago)

I'd like to see that quote in context. I mean, the Guardian is already in the middle ground, in many senses.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:32 (twenty years ago)

can't wait! the middleground!

― cozen (Cozen), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:33 (twenty years ago)

how much smaller in CMs is it ? i mean roughly?

12cm shorter and 6cm narrower.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:33 (twenty years ago)

So where does that leave readers who actually want a left-leaning paper? Especially as "the middle ground" does seem to have crept inexorably rightward over the last coupla decades. Fuckers.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:33 (twenty years ago)

Why would you want a more biased paper either way?

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:35 (twenty years ago)

man in focus group: "i'm really interested in politics; i'm staunchly of the middle ground."

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

http://www.lavanguardia.es/

I was hoping it would have a pciture of itself in real form, but no.

It's in Spanish, not Catalan. Perhaps you are thinking of El Peridoco.

http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idioma=CAT

I think there are others too, but I have had my memory wiped of the whole experience.

I just don't like those regional papers very much, they are about as smug as the Maidenhead Advertiser.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

The "middle ground" quote was in a news story and not the main interview, and wasn't as direct speech, so it's probably something he's let slip off the record.

Sport on centre pages = grebt idea. Massive goalscoring centrefold montages ahoy.

As if the centre pages won't be given over to huge two page adverts.

Channel 4 has a video report on this on their website. Quite interesting when the eds of the Independent and Times are asked if their papers actually make a profit.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

they'b be better off firing the arts and culture department and using the money to hire some decent people rather than doing this. however, i actually like the look of it. what's the redesign got to do with its politics, norm? i'm asking this coz i can't be arsed to read the whole thread and have probably missed something here.

― stelf)xxxx, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

An impartial newspaper would be v.staid and probably impossible, stevem.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

I only ever buy it on Saturday. I hate the fact that they constantly have some crap group on the cover of The Guide - like yer dad desperately trying to be hip

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:39 (twenty years ago)

yes I do mean el periodico

― Ed (dali), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:39 (twenty years ago)

What have you got against my dad trying to be hip?

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:40 (twenty years ago)

Dave S, I was responding to:

According to the Press Gazette, Alan Rushbridger says that the changes will "signal a move towards the political middle ground for the traditionally left wing paper".

-- James Mitchell (jxmitchell@gm

I would see a "move towards the political middle ground" as a move rightwards in this case. If that is true, I don't think it's a good idea at all. It would kind of disenfranchise, well, ME for one! Plus, I'd kind of fear "middle ground" = to some extent "both sides disagree, so we'd better give them equal time, even though one side is WRONG" type outlook, of which there is too much.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:41 (twenty years ago)

Not your dad, his dad (xpost)

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:42 (twenty years ago)

the bold headings (Football, Finance etc) uses a non-lining figures weight of Egypt. just saying like

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:42 (twenty years ago)

The blog of one of the main guys behind it

not got much to say for himself, has he? and i'd query "main" too :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:51 (twenty years ago)

my guardian mole says: "it's exciting but am already mainlining coffee. the TV ads go out tonight and they are sensational."

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:52 (twenty years ago)

EXCITEMENT!!!! WE HAVE THE FONTS!!!! GET SOME, MURDOCH!!!!

― N_RQ, Friday, 9 September 2005 12:53 (twenty years ago)

If the TV ads don't make use of "Ich bin ein Berliner" I'm not watching them.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:55 (twenty years ago)

So where does that leave readers who actually want a left-leaning paper?

Click for answer!:

http://www.poptel.org.uk/morning-star/graphics/starmove.gif

― Huey (Huey), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:57 (twenty years ago)

there's already a very tedious article by one of the designers about that in tomorrow's preview thing. please god no.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 9 September 2005 12:58 (twenty years ago)

Will this mean more free arthouse movie dvd's every weekend?

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Friday, 9 September 2005 13:31 (twenty years ago)

Front page of tomorrow's preview edition

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 9 September 2005 14:13 (twenty years ago)

Actually, here's the whole thing

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 9 September 2005 14:16 (twenty years ago)

the pdf doesn't look right, this image is better:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/site_furniture/2005/09/09/specialreportheader.gif

The rest of the paper looks good, but this in particular is very disappointing. I wonder what will happen to the best newspaper website ever.

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 9 September 2005 16:24 (twenty years ago)

I really do hate that new masthead. but I like the section-by-section at the bottom of the front.

― stet (stet), Friday, 9 September 2005 16:41 (twenty years ago)

They didn't go with my suggestion:

http://www.rotovibe.com/images/tehguardian.gif

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Friday, 9 September 2005 16:48 (twenty years ago)

They're dropping Pass Notes! For some reason this makes me awfully disappointed.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Friday, 9 September 2005 17:23 (twenty years ago)

oh, come on! it's about time.

i love the masthead. love it to bits.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Saturday, 10 September 2005 08:21 (twenty years ago)

http://www.rotovibe.com/images/tehguardian.gif

ha! splendid. now do the new one! prefer teh grauniad obv.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Saturday, 10 September 2005 09:20 (twenty years ago)

What is quite annoying is how the bloody thing is today crammed with self-promoting twaddle. If the "is medium the new large" G2 feature the other day wasn't desperate enough, today we have that upsetting pull-out rag (it looks like a trade newsletter) and some other feature that I can't be arsed to read about the magazine's new cartoonist. Fair enough, give yourself a pat on the back, but this is overkill and bordering on smug.

― Zoe Espera (Espera), Saturday, 10 September 2005 09:24 (twenty years ago)

Yes, well.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 10 September 2005 09:27 (twenty years ago)

> some other feature that I can't be arsed to read about the magazine's new cartoonist

b-but, new cartoonist is david shrigley

― koogs (koogs), Saturday, 10 September 2005 09:48 (twenty years ago)

Oh.


I have been blinded by the smugness.

I have become irrational.

Must calm down.

― Zoe Espera (Espera), Saturday, 10 September 2005 09:53 (twenty years ago)

Once nearly fell over at work surfin his site. Think it was some cartoon asking what you wanted

Do you want this leg?
Do you want this toast?
etcetc
Well what the fuck do you want then?

Souper.

― Zoe Espera (Espera), Saturday, 10 September 2005 09:56 (twenty years ago)

Shrigley blimey that is v.good news. Hurrah for smugness!

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 10 September 2005 11:10 (twenty years ago)

Actually I am not sure how this will work but hurrah it can surprise me.

― Alba (Alba), Saturday, 10 September 2005 11:12 (twenty years ago)

haha i liked the "special report"!!! i liked reading about the presses and typefaces.

el periodico publishes spanish and catalan editions everyday, one is red, one is blue. i think el periodico is a good paper, and i hate the look of la vanguardia.

think the size of "the guardian" is far too small on the masthead, proportionate to the blue background. sort of not sure about the new typeface.

losing any radio features is an awful awful thuing. fuck that.

― ambrose (ambrose), Saturday, 10 September 2005 16:37 (twenty years ago)

ha! splendid. now do the new one! prefer teh grauniad obv.

Ta Da!

http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/8640/tehgrauniad7kl.gif

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Saturday, 10 September 2005 20:13 (twenty years ago)

I have too much time on my hands:

http://img340.imageshack.us/img340/2831/tehnewgrauniad5bf.gif

Do you think that the "g" and the "e" aren't meant to be at the same height on purpose?

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Saturday, 10 September 2005 20:25 (twenty years ago)

reminds me a little of the sunday herald

― cozen (Cozen), Saturday, 10 September 2005 20:29 (twenty years ago)

the top bit of a t is higher than most other letter in many fonts - it's usually level with the dot above an i.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Sunday, 11 September 2005 14:09 (twenty years ago)

design wise it looks like a weekly Student Union University newspaper

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Sunday, 11 September 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

does anyone know if the paper stock they used for the preview issue is actually what they're going to use for the paper? it's very...white.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Sunday, 11 September 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

er, no, it won't be. trust me on that.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 14:42 (twenty years ago)

the serifs on that flag font are all out of whack. the tail of the 't' is wider than the left-most base serif on the h, and those on the 'u' and the 'n' don't match. It doesn't look as if it's done properly for effect either, just a shit re-cut of an even poorer original font (one never designed for body text to boot). Did they just mac it about randomly?

That masthead's a horrid mis-step, whacked in at the last minute as they began to lose their nerve. Actually, the photos of the press in that promo section show the papers with the old-style flag, which has become genuinely iconic, even if they try to talk it down as "eighties" inside. Talking of fashion -- that all-lower-case thing is so early 2000s, as is the insipid blue. Fuck, they might as well have called it the|guardian.

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 September 2005 15:20 (twenty years ago)

Or theguardiandotcom

― Alba (Alba), Sunday, 11 September 2005 15:26 (twenty years ago)

The logo's a lot like The (Newcastle) Journal.

http://images.icnetwork.co.uk/upl/icnewcastle/sep2003/5/8/000D7D25-B784-1F54-813680C328EC0000.gif

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Sunday, 11 September 2005 15:44 (twenty years ago)

Hmm, it's nothing like it really.

― Billy Dods (Billy Dods), Sunday, 11 September 2005 15:46 (twenty years ago)

no, but i think the newcastle journal might have had a *touch* of inspiration from farringdon road circa 1988.

stet: did you read all the guff yesterday about "how we did the redesign"? six months' worth of meetings to decide on a leading of 9.5pt ... heheh. it makes us look super-efficient.

i'm kinda intrigued by all this, because the guardian is not swimming in cash right now (at least, according to private eye, who are normally dead-on about these things). they're giving the impression of comfortable profligacy, but i have a feeling that anything other than sustained circulation growth - not just the big spike this will give them for a couple of weeks - will be disastrous for the rusbridger regime.

everything they've done so far has been preaching to the converted. sure, they might claw back a few readers who defected to the independent etc, but there are millions of people out there who would rather shoot themselves in the face than read the guardian, no matter what size it is. hence all these rumours about a shift to the centre ground ... which, of course, could seriously piss off existing readers.

and they've admitted they're going to be charging less for ads (stands to reason: they're smaller), so ... interesting times.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:13 (twenty years ago)

calling all newspaper geeks

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:14 (twenty years ago)

"news pages (G1) have sent 11 pages."

at 5.34pm! how many have you got away, stet? :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:15 (twenty years ago)

hey, david marsh has a trendy new haircut!

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:17 (twenty years ago)

The TV adverts do not fill me with confidence.

― Ed (dali), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:24 (twenty years ago)

i haven't seen them. i was told (by, er, someone at the guardian) that they're "beautiful". but, as i know only too well, beauty != sales.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:25 (twenty years ago)

(that was from my time as a gigolo, see.)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:26 (twenty years ago)

after holding the preview thingy from yesterdays i think this is pretty classic already. i had slight problems with the logo initially but now i like it. i would still prefer The Guardian rather than theguardian but i think we can all agree on that. The font is lovely to read judging by the mock up, but that was on extra thick, very white paper so we'll see. i'm quite excited about tomorrow's edition and plan to get up extra early to make sure i get one.

does no one else think it's quite wierd that the very last Guardian in it's current incarnation had the massive heads of Ant and Dec across the logo, though?

― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:37 (twenty years ago)

I found myself getting v. excited (ooh I can't wait until monday) but I was v. disappointed by the little preview paper on Saturday. I am really fucking bored of the Guardian, so perhaps I will take this as an excuse to read something else / give up daily (national) newsprint. If only the FT wasn't so sodding expensive.

― alext (alext), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:53 (twenty years ago)

how many have you got away
GTF, GF. We have much bigger pages to fill. Or something.

The adverts are indeed lovely -- but say almost nothing beyond "it's getting a bit smaller".

does no one else think it's quite wierd that the very last Guardian in it's current incarnation had the massive heads of Ant and Dec across the logo, though?

Yes, but the sunset orange was a nice touch. And that backpage was definitely poignant (for an admittedly desperately sad newspaper apologist)

xpost: or the Economist. Sod daily news. [shoots self in foot]

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 September 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

Alex, Freaky Trigger is free. I'm not sure its news coverage is quite as extensive as the Guardian's, though.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 11 September 2005 17:13 (twenty years ago)

HEHEH. From their blog:
If you're a design purist don't look too closely at page 3 of G2 tomorrow - with 10 minutes to go the production editor, Paul Howlett, instructed the chief sub, who had been manfully trying to stretch a piece by Kevin Bacon to fill the required space, to "squeeze the column width". A year and a half of obsessing over design and it comes to this - if the art director only knew.

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 September 2005 17:23 (twenty years ago)

oh dear, someone's just posted a comment about that :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 17:33 (twenty years ago)

which reminds me: the hyphenation on the front page of the preview edition yesterday was the worst i have ever seen. and, er, it was ragged-right too, so WHY WAS THERE ANY?

really, really shoddy: i think there was an "es-pecially" breaking over a line and maybe even ending a par, which sucked beyond compare.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 11 September 2005 17:35 (twenty years ago)

OK, I've finally seen the adverts now... they look like a Microsoft advert circa 1996.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Sunday, 11 September 2005 18:46 (twenty years ago)

I've just seen a PDF of today's first edition. It's not great. I'm still not sold on the flag, but at least it provides a bit of colour -- from there down the entire page is almost entirely grey. The picture choice is especially poor: it's a cricketer, wearing white, against a white-grey backdrop. There is no other colour in the editorial area apart from a splash of tint on the fifth column.

And the headlines! Jesus: they're very close to what's above them, and there is a lot of space below them. Combined with the very light font, it looks as if they're dangling from what's above. Eugh. And because the font's so light, from a distance - say from 6ft above the newsagent's floor - everything apart from the splash is very difficult to read.

I still like the idea of putting the lead stories on each section as an anchor and that the barcode hangs in the middle of the puffs. Also, they're apparently planning on doing the story of the day over pp3-5, which is rock.

Shame day one is so ho-hum.

― stet (stet), Sunday, 11 September 2005 23:16 (twenty years ago)

They've changed the picture. Thank fuck. Entire edition is online here

― stet (stet), Monday, 12 September 2005 02:14 (twenty years ago)

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/7995/theguardian12095rt.gif

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Monday, 12 September 2005 02:53 (twenty years ago)

My first thought: Alba is not really one to talk about looking weedy and mid-90's.

I agree that the hed spacing is very odd. Maybe that will be one of those initially shocking details that becomes classic over time. I can't say the same for the ed's comment about moving towards "the centre," politically. Is seems an inane thing to say.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 12 September 2005 03:57 (twenty years ago)

Breathlessly awaiting yr reports, of course

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 12 September 2005 03:57 (twenty years ago)

Good points:

The format, layout, The enormous centre page single photo spread (I hope that this is a fixture), really high quality newsprint, excellent photo printing

Bad points:

That wretched typeface that they use for the flag, and headlines

― Ed (dali), Monday, 12 September 2005 05:09 (twenty years ago)

My god, Amy Jenkins is as facile as ever.

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Monday, 12 September 2005 05:34 (twenty years ago)

Well, it would have been very easy to get her in the Guardian. You do realise who her stepmother is?

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 12 September 2005 06:15 (twenty years ago)

ok, initial thoughts, based on a cursory analysis on the bus:

- it's lovely. it feels perfect. it pulls off that neat design trick, in two and three dimensions, of appearing always to have been this way. i can barely remember the old guardian now :)

- no, i mean. it's fantastic, isn't it?

- there are fewer stories than i expected: there's less on each page. call me old-fashioned, but i like that broadsheet thing of being able to look at a page, see all the headlines, and take in the importance of things at a glance. i think some of today's stories are maybe a little over-sold. but fuck it, they should have some fun with it.

- i haven't read anything other than news, so i can't comment on this apparent shift right-wards. i shall give it a couple of weeks before i do.

- G2 is a gorgeous dinky size, and has the same approach to small-page design as the Guide, which is a Good Thing. i'm not sure about the columnist(s) being up the front, but i already want to go back and read the whole thing, which means it's a resounding success.

- the website doesn't work properly yet: i can't get the story text up for p3, for instance. this is a shame. however: as a model for how newspaper websites should be, it's perfect.

- i am enormously impressed so far.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 06:38 (twenty years ago)

PDFs of pages is exactly how newspaper sites should NOT be. I don't know why anyone would subscribe to the 'digital edition'.

Another thought on the paper edition; too many sections make juggling on the bus difficult. However it folds up nicely for my bike bag (Indie and Broadsheet guardian do not).

― Ed (dali), Monday, 12 September 2005 06:45 (twenty years ago)

it's not just PDFs of pages, though, is it? it's PDFs of pages where you click the story and the text appears in a window. that is fucking brilliant. only, er, it doesn't work properly right now :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 06:46 (twenty years ago)

I prefer reading online in an online format, the website is better than the digital edition by far.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 12 September 2005 06:49 (twenty years ago)

Porperly laid out radio listings and listing for th main digital TV channels are a big improvement.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 12 September 2005 07:04 (twenty years ago)

I don't buy the weekday ones so my rude awakening/shock will have to wait until next Saturday. However, I was nearly reduced to tears by various columnists saying goodbye in last Saturday's edition. Especially the big "THE END" on the last page. I sniffed a bit.

― Luminiferous Aether (kate), Monday, 12 September 2005 07:07 (twenty years ago)

god, i was almost in floods. it really got to me, that. (i'm such a tragic newspaper dweeb, i really am.)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 07:26 (twenty years ago)

So, has the 'Guide' supplement on Saturdays been killed off? There's no mention of any redesign for that anywhere and the website does mention an 'enhanced' 'Weekend' magazine.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Monday, 12 September 2005 07:49 (twenty years ago)

Well, it would have been very easy to get her in the Guardian. You do realise who her stepmother is?

I do now...

I don't much care for Polly Toynbee, but at least she has some content in her writing.

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Monday, 12 September 2005 07:50 (twenty years ago)

ver bad, new labour content.

― N_RQ, Monday, 12 September 2005 07:56 (twenty years ago)

I like the feel of it and the ease with which one can turn over the pages.

I've only read the Sports section so no view as yet on its political line if any.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:11 (twenty years ago)

i doubt they'd change their politics on a drop of a hat -- maybe they will hire a few centrist columnists (other than toynbee, garton ash, kettle, i mean).

― N_RQ, Monday, 12 September 2005 08:28 (twenty years ago)

The most notable thing for me seems to be the way they have brought G2 in hand. It was getting incredibly facile, almost like a student paper, over the last few years - now it seems to have a slightly more serious agenda. They also seem to have realised that the digested read is one of the best things in the paper.

I find the single font/multiple weights a little monotonous, but not terribly so.

Oddly, since it's been trumped as a triumph for photojournalism (and the centre spread is good), some of the pages (eg comment and op-ed) feel a little text-heavy to me.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:32 (twenty years ago)

it feels like reading online, somehow?

spent quite a while staring at richard williams' contorted neck in his byline pic

dinky g2 i found immediately v v annoying to the point of not wanting to read it at all, and what i did read was duuuull. as the erm personality of the paper (well, cert moreso than any other b-sheet) this seems a bit of a calamity

― hold tight the private caller (mwah), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:39 (twenty years ago)

i suppose it's not that long since i were a student : /

― hold tight the private caller (mwah), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:39 (twenty years ago)

I think it's lovely. I've only read the media section so far, so i'm not really in a position to judge, but, as Tom says, the ease of page turning is great. It also fits into my bag (funnily enough I've never cared for this in magazines.)

― Anna (Anna), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:46 (twenty years ago)

It's the folding.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:47 (twenty years ago)

(do I really look mid-90s?)

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:50 (twenty years ago)

Is it the same swish paper as the sample in the Saturday Guardian, or is it ordinary old newsprint? I would get it if it was the nice paper. (I am a sucker for such things - probably why I continue to buy Plan B.)

― Luminiferous Aether (kate), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:50 (twenty years ago)

The most notable thing for me seems to be the way they have brought G2 in hand. It was getting incredibly facile, almost like a student paper


hahaha, one of the g2 mainstays went straight there from... my student paper.

― N_RQ, Monday, 12 September 2005 08:51 (twenty years ago)

the paper is fairly nice, better than the old newsprint they used to use.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:51 (twenty years ago)

I haven't seen this yet, but which columnists did they drop?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:56 (twenty years ago)

> So, has the 'Guide' supplement on Saturdays been killed off?

i do hope not. saturday mornings, sat there with a cup of coffee and flicking through next week's tv in the guide is the highlight of my weekends (i don't get out much!). plus, the size it currently is, fits nicely on my coffee table. anything bigger would swamp it.

i also fear for the sciency bit on thursdays. we shall see.

― koogs (koogs), Monday, 12 September 2005 08:59 (twenty years ago)

SCIENCE EVERY DAY

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 09:03 (twenty years ago)

I really hate when they put TV listings in with weekend glossy magazines, as in The Observer.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 12 September 2005 09:09 (twenty years ago)

interesting read from an interaction/information designer, Dan Hill [cityofsound blog]

Assessing the new Guardian....
http://www.cityofsound.com/blog/2005/09/assessing_the_n.html

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Monday, 12 September 2005 09:39 (twenty years ago)

WHERE'S DOONESBURY?

― mike t-diva (mike t-diva), Monday, 12 September 2005 09:52 (twenty years ago)

Have we done newspaper columnists - search & destroy?

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Monday, 12 September 2005 10:21 (twenty years ago)

haha i just noticed steve bell's take on it

― hold tight the private caller (mwah), Monday, 12 September 2005 10:24 (twenty years ago)

It freaked me out a bit this morning. I knew it was going to change, but I felt a bit like I'd fallen into a parellel dimension.

Great Simon Schama article on Katrina.

― chap who would dare to thwart the revolution (chap), Monday, 12 September 2005 10:34 (twenty years ago)

I would get it if it was the nice paper. (I am a sucker for such things - probably why I continue to buy Plan B.)

Plan B is a fantastic, fantastic magazine, but do you really think that's nice paper? i mean, i'm horrifically spoiled, but... it doesn't smell of anything!!!

but buy Plan B because it rocks and the writing and photography and illustrations are ace. this is not remotely meant as a Plan B diss.

― foxy boxer (stevie), Monday, 12 September 2005 10:46 (twenty years ago)

plan b has a nicely produced cover. everyone should buy it, including time-warner.

― N_RQ, Monday, 12 September 2005 10:48 (twenty years ago)

the last couple of plan b covers have been stunning... especially the design of the afrirampo one.

― foxy boxer (stevie), Monday, 12 September 2005 10:53 (twenty years ago)

I like the Plan B paper. It doesn't leave ink and crap all over my fingers.

I mean, clearly I don't buy Plan B, I either get it mailed to me or else nick it from Frances' house.

But yeah, wow, the covers have been fabulous lately. Afrirampo was stupendous - as is the current Sonic Youth one. The funny thing being, that I got Country Life last week, and the colour scheme was almost exactly the same.

― Luminiferous Aether (kate), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:03 (twenty years ago)

i was once made to give my free copy back so a civilian could buy it.

― N_RQ, Monday, 12 September 2005 11:04 (twenty years ago)

The tiny G2 thing I'm not sure about at all. Something that size feels flimsy and tacky if it's printed on standard newsprint. Like a cheap mag.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:10 (twenty years ago)

It looks rubbish in our newspaper racks and the Media Guardian doesn't fit in it well, so we have had to rack it seperately.

Admittedly we should get rid of our broadsheet racks as we now DON'T SELL ANY BROADSHEETS (students not going a bomb for the Telegraph).

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:12 (twenty years ago)

The tiny G2 thing I'm not sure about at all

most people i've spoken to aren't. i think it rocks, but then i'm also very small.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:13 (twenty years ago)

I like the new G2 a lot. I love the columnists at the front, I love the size (is it in the golden ratio?), love the fat-ass column width, mmmm. GF is OTM upthread: It feels like it has always been this way.
(Still not liking masthead tho.)

― stet (stet), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:18 (twenty years ago)

I like the G2 TV listings in that it lists BBC3 and 4 and some other digital channels alongside the main five.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:22 (twenty years ago)

The tiny G2 thing feels...American somehow? This is nonsense since most American papers are quite chunky I think. Maybe it was just the rough-cut edges.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:25 (twenty years ago)

i've played with it and had a bit look through. i like it

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:31 (twenty years ago)

My god, Amy Jenkins is as facile as ever.

Well, it would have been very easy to get her in the Guardian. You do realise who her stepmother is?


You do realise who her agent is? ;)

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:43 (twenty years ago)

You realise who her dentist is?

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:45 (twenty years ago)

no, but i realise - as i predicted yesterday! - that there's a horrible turn fuck-up in the middle of her column. "squeeze the columns" ... aye, that'll work. well done, lads.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:53 (twenty years ago)

I, too, think the little G2 feels a bit cheap. That might be because my one is badly folded with a half-inch overbite. I'll put up with it, though. Why? EASY ACCESS TO CROSSWORD. Finally.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:55 (twenty years ago)

I loathe it. The redesign's OK aesthetically, but it justs shows the paper up to be the smug bourgeois rag it's always accused of being. I mean, what's actually in it today? So dull, so predictable.

It definitely has a more centrist feel. It reminds me of New Labour, to The Independent's Lib Dems - the Indie appears to have swung to the left, at least in terms of its splashes and campaigning. And ugh... those columnists. What an embarassment. And what's happened to he TV previews? And the depth? And the...

― Huey (Huey), Monday, 12 September 2005 11:55 (twenty years ago)

630,000 copies had been printed with every newsagent bar one in the country receiving copies

They don't tell us which newsagent, or why! Maybe every person bar one in the country doesn't give a toss :)

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

Haha Mark, I MIGHT HAVE GUESSED.

― suzy (suzy), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:02 (twenty years ago)

in theory the indie is the bias-less paper stevem wants upthread -- it has bruce anderson *and* robert fisk.

― N_RQ, Monday, 12 September 2005 12:06 (twenty years ago)

where is the promised "a daily Science page in its main news section"?

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:06 (twenty years ago)

god i hate the word smug

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:09 (twenty years ago)

the steve bell cartoon on the back is wonderful.

G2 gets better as you go on. the amy jenkins and tim dowling columns are shit, but the idea behind the page is good. the infographic on 4+5 looks ace until you start to try to read it. then it reveals itself as sadly lacking in either a) design nous or b) useful facts. too much information, not enough thought.

stuart jeffries's column is tedious. the simon schama piece isn't a patch on andrew thingy in the new statesman. but the geldof piece is interesting, the oona king thing looks interesting (i'm just going to read it now, before i get back to work), the architecture thing is top (even though i'm in glasgow) ...

germaine greer, wow, i didn't notice her there. that's a failing. on their part, not mine. that pissy washed-out cyan/purple/grey combination doesn't work without a big picture.

i like the idea of an ideas page, although the big cutout of - i assume! - john sutherland down the bottom of p28 is crap. the TV page rocks.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:10 (twenty years ago)

I love the word smug so much. It just sounds so lovely, like a great big hug. My granny and my mum used to call each other "smug and pious" while arguing and I was devastated to find out that smug meant something bad.

― Luminiferous Aether (kate), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:10 (twenty years ago)

You realise who her dentist is?

I'd like to know... I am a connoisseur of the sparkling teeth showing lots of healthy gum look.

The columnists look a bit exposed now in G2. If I were one of them, I'd prefer to be camouflaged as before.

― Bob Six (bobbysix), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:10 (twenty years ago)

if that ideas section is the science page the WORLD HAS GONE MAD. john sutherland lets Behe spout off. pah

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

ah now "pious" i like :-)

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:13 (twenty years ago)

I like them both so much I've changed my screen name.

Cheers, gran!

― Smug and Pious (kate), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:14 (twenty years ago)

i think jaunty is played out...

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:15 (twenty years ago)

My granny and my mum used to call each other "smug and pious" while arguing and I was devastated to find out that smug meant something bad.

having read the phrase 'sacred and profane' off the spine of a book on a shelf somewhere when i was like 7 or something, i decided they must be synonyms, and shocked my teacher by declaring so in a lesson.

― foxy boxer (stevie), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:15 (twenty years ago)

When I was smaller (around the time my gran and mum were having said arguments) the Guardian was smaller, too. I need to look at this new Guardian size to see how it compares with the international airmail edition I remember.

― Smug and Pious (kate), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:18 (twenty years ago)

seriously, SHOW ME THE SCIENCE

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:37 (twenty years ago)

best feature of all discovered: you can read it in bed without a)moving your head, b)the corners falling over inconvienently. [this is good] The stitching is terrible on G2, but Bell is not.

(Other people right about the content being a bit snooze snooze bore. I assume they were worrying so much about getting it done and getting the design right that the actual stories have been passed on the nod. And there are a fair few that were clearly held ready-to-run -- the passport smiles have been about for ages, as has Disney Hong Kong.)

― stet (stet), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:44 (twenty years ago)

also, the photo reproduction is stunning, as is the big hit on the centre pages. It is stronger than the same thing on a tabloid purely because it's larger, but it's no so overwhelming as the same thing on broadsheet would be. As (If?) the pre-press photo work improves, those pictures are going to look *dazzling*.

― stet (stet), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:46 (twenty years ago)

God, it looks like the NME of the mid-nineties. I might do the crossword.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:50 (twenty years ago)

the guardian is where the writers of letters to the NME graduate too. that or Metro.

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 12:53 (twenty years ago)

> EASY ACCESS TO CROSSWORD. Finally.

but the crossword has always been on the back... 8)

(sputum?)

― koogs (koogs), Monday, 12 September 2005 13:15 (twenty years ago)

Was it the NME or the MM that didn't have staples?

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 12 September 2005 13:31 (twenty years ago)

i think they both did.

― N_RQ, Monday, 12 September 2005 13:32 (twenty years ago)

Neither had staples in 'my day'. Then the MM got them and some time later the NME did. I hate staples.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 12 September 2005 13:37 (twenty years ago)

Only the MM had them 'in my day'. There were fites on the letters page.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 12 September 2005 13:39 (twenty years ago)

staples

― cozen (Cozen), Monday, 12 September 2005 13:48 (twenty years ago)

The NME occasionally features the Staples Sisters.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 12 September 2005 13:55 (twenty years ago)

Singers?

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 12 September 2005 14:11 (twenty years ago)

(nice agrafics)

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 12 September 2005 14:12 (twenty years ago)

ihttp://adimage.guardian.co.uk/top_run_of_sites/2005september/BerlinerBANNER120905orange.gif

― cozen (Cozen), Monday, 12 September 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

That's the same colour scheme the NUJ uses.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, 12 September 2005 14:35 (twenty years ago)

grimly, I'd like to know why you think the Andrew Stephen piece on Katrina is better than Schama's. I agree that it starts off promisingly, i.e. this goes beyond blame to a fundamental lie at the heart of the American Dream, something "no one ... has dared" to do before Mr. Stephen's column -- quite thrilling -- but he never quite gets around to spelling out what he means, beyond the indisputable leveraging of up-by-the-bootstraps mythology by politicians for their own nefarious ends. But we've done that before, haven't we? In fact, Katrina is an awful lot about blame, it's about identifying particular pivots in policy and management and particular scapegoats who ought to be held accountable. It's also about correctly identifying which massive group of refugees had been ignored by Michael Brown. (That would be the ones in the convention center, not in the Superdome.) And Stephen's familiar-sounding complaint, that in the Bush administration "the prevailing ethos, after all, is that government is unimportant and can be left to amateurs, just like Bush himself" is fantastically naive. If it weren't important to them, they wouldn't have been so eager to run it, surely?

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 12 September 2005 18:30 (twenty years ago)

Best thing about the new Graun = the little formation digrams on the football pages, with the player ratings inside them. I like.

I don't understand how anyone can claim its any more or less centrist than the old one - it seemed much the same, politically, to me. (Although ack Simon Bludy Jenkins!)

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 12 September 2005 19:28 (twenty years ago)

Best thing about the new Graun = the little formation digrams on the football pages, with the player ratings inside them. I like.

Aye, the way how there's little coloured symbols representing red and yellow cards alongside the team line-ups underneath the league tables is really good because they've actually made use of the 'full colour on every page' thing. Pretty obvious that every newspaper will be copying this sooner rather than later.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Monday, 12 September 2005 19:52 (twenty years ago)

i think jaunty is played out...

-- Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (AlanTrewarth...), September 12th, 2005.

But if jaunty is played out at which angle are we going to wear our hats?

The wee G2 looks a bit cheap and odd, but I enjoyed Germaine Greer's eulogy to steel and Steve Bell of course.
Media section works really well in the larger format. It was always so chunky before. I'll be intrigued to see how the Friday Review is done? It'll be the Berliner size too, won't it?

― Stew (stew s), Monday, 12 September 2005 19:54 (twenty years ago)

obtuse?

(thanks!)

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:01 (twenty years ago)

Best thing about the new Graun = the little formation digrams on the football pages, with the player ratings inside them. I like.

I think Matt hits the nail on the head here in spectacular fashion, I found myself poring overthe diagrams for ages, working out what they all meant, then seeing the little legend at the bottom.

this beat the arms industry diagram into a close second, I love diagrams. I'm looking forward to lots of Ashes based diagrams tomorrow. Also - minimum 12 pages of sport per day = a winner for me. I do after all read the paper backwards.

― Porkpie (porkpie), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:04 (twenty years ago)

the "footnote" in the CIA flights piece are ... hmm. they're shit, aren't they? i've tried to like them, but they suck dick.

grimly, I'd like to know why you think the Andrew Stephen piece on Katrina is better than Schama's

er. honest answer? it's a bit more bile-filled and sits better with my basic state of mind. schama's is more measured, and less immediate: also, while the NS piece actually taught me a little about aspects of US history/previous disasters, i don't think i read anything in schama's piece that i didn't read ... well, on ILX, for a start.

And Stephen's familiar-sounding complaint ... is fantastically naive

hmm ... oh, god, i really want to get into a big argument here but i'm not going to. after the fuel protest stuff, i just can't be arsed. sorry, this isn't a very in-depth answer. i read the schama piece over lunch and don't have it to hand; i've worked a 12-hour day and my brane is broke. like i say: the simple answer is probably that andrew stephen seems angrier, and that strikes a bigger chord with me :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:21 (twenty years ago)

My cameraphone spotted a huge stack of unsold copies in Victoria station at lunchtime

http://img379.imageshack.us/img379/1403/image0858rq.jpg

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:31 (twenty years ago)

they look like freebies.

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:33 (twenty years ago)

grimly, I hear you. But I think that playing loose with the facts and looser with motivations works in favor of the right-wing, not the left. The right thrives in a climate of irrationality and fear, so regardless of how good it makes us feel to read somebody really stickin it to em, if the arguments aren't sound, it's a loser, since it just adds to the vitriolic din rather than dismantle the illusions the right has erected in order to carry out its business. Bush, Grover Norquist etc. have gotten fat and rich off government largess for their entire lives. The "they don't think much of government" line eats their phony spin right. They very much believe in government, they just have a radically different vision of what government ought to do than most Democrats do (and frankly, most Republicans).

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:35 (twenty years ago)

"phony spin right up"

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:36 (twenty years ago)

yes. you're right. and you've made me think, because i've been through all this with british politics: i turned my back on my the radical left, with whom i was quite involved for a while, precisely because their tub-thumping and sloganeering worked so badly against them. (heh, i'm just remembering when the edinburgh socialist workers' student society tried to beat me up, but that's another story.) but i do fall into the classic UK lefty trap of just wanting to batter the american right, and spouting off with a complete lack of subtlety that i'd always sometimes occasionally keep in check on the domestic front.

it's been a long day.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:44 (twenty years ago)

Doonesbury will be back, according to Rich Johnson's Gutters column

― carson dial (carson dial), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:52 (twenty years ago)

One of my flatmates stood for a EUSA post once. He didn't get in, but he did at least beat the SWSS candidate.

(i think that was probably after you'd left the university - I think it was around '98)

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:55 (twenty years ago)

is that "beat" as in "with a big stick"?

:)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 12 September 2005 20:57 (twenty years ago)

thought the arms indutyr diagram was a bit shit. award winning design team? i dont really want to see that every day.

thing i do like about the new guardian is the "text heavy" nature of it. my dream is for papers to go back to being enourmous sheets of pure text in tiny size like in the 18th c or something.

i was really impressed by one of their reasons for not going tabloid was that the size of tabloid meant that front covers get turn into shouty signle issue magazines almost...which is what i hate hate hate about the independent. i wont buy it anymore becasue of the way for a while they consistently just had a massive pic and some stupid "provocative" headline shouting in yr face.

personally i dont think it makes any difference whether you ca read the headlines in the shop, if anything, if it stops headline writers from trying to produce something as inane as possible just to attract attention then im in favour of educing the headline size.

was a bit surprised about no doonesbury, thought it would have creatd outrage aongst the readers but obviously not

― ambrose (ambrose), Monday, 12 September 2005 21:00 (twenty years ago)

Thank God there's no Doonesbury.

The big graphic spread was OK but I don't think it works so near to the front.

― Alba (Alba), Monday, 12 September 2005 21:12 (twenty years ago)

Yes, keep Doonesbury out pls.

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 12 September 2005 21:16 (twenty years ago)

Seems like this would have been an obvious way to go:

http://www.rotovibe.com/images/guardianx.gif

― Spencer Chow (spencermfi), Monday, 12 September 2005 21:18 (twenty years ago)

read Carson's post!

― kit brash (kit brash), Monday, 12 September 2005 22:55 (twenty years ago)

I love that everyone's taking it upon themselves to change everything back to How It Was Before...who'd have imagined such (small c) conservatism among Grauniad stalwarts?

i was really impressed by one of their reasons for not going tabloid was that the size of tabloid meant that front covers get turn into shouty signle issue magazines almost...which is what i hate hate hate about the independent. i wont buy it anymore becasue of the way for a while they consistently just had a massive pic and some stupid "provocative" headline shouting in yr face.

Although interestingly, precisely these types of front pages have resulted in a significant sales spike every time they're used. Not that that's necessarily a good thing - perhaps it's the front page equiv of a free DVD - but still, people seem to like it, presumably because it leaves their lives less cluttered with, y'know, stuff.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 06:52 (twenty years ago)

...every time they're used by The Indie, that is.

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 06:53 (twenty years ago)

The only thing of note about yesterday's edition was the typically idiotic article by David Hepworth in Media Grauniad about "Where are the new Burchills and Bakers?" wherein he moans about why there are no more "star writers" on music papers (answer: you killed them off in favour of obedient 80-word capsule review demographic-pleasing drones). He mentions the word "blog" once, in a predictably dismissive manner. It's a bit like First Class putting out "Too Many Golden Oldies" as a single bang in the middle of '77 and wondering why it wasn't a hit. The article's online but you have to register to get into Media Grauniad and life's too short.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 07:06 (twenty years ago)

The new G2 is growing on me. Three spreads on the Uzbek massacre is very good, let down by the photo filler bumph article (OFM shopping basket redux thingy) that seems to be a feature of the page 4 and 5 spread.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 07:07 (twenty years ago)

yeah that uzbek article ws an eye opener

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 07:37 (twenty years ago)

I don't understand how anyone can claim its any more or less centrist than the old one - it seemed much the same, politically, to me. (Although ack Simon Bludy Jenkins!)

-- Matt DC (runmd...), September 12th, 2005.

yeah no, it hasn't changed yet, but rusbridger has said it will do.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 07:49 (twenty years ago)

I've bought The Guardian two days running for the first time since, oh I dunno, 1803. So they must be doing something right.

Schama good, Jenkins bad (made all my skin fall off). Sorry, Mark.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 07:59 (twenty years ago)

Amy, that is. Haven't read Simon.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:00 (twenty years ago)

Jenkins, that is. Not Schama.

― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:00 (twenty years ago)

Schama was great yesterday. G2 feels like a scaled down model though - too dinky.

― Crackity (Crackity Jones), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:36 (twenty years ago)

Get Littlejohn on the paper and I might start reading it again.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 08:39 (twenty years ago)

DOES TODAY'S HAVE SCIENCE? By science i don't mean an "interview" with a proponent of intelligent design?

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:36 (twenty years ago)

There's a picture of TV's Carol Vorderman being given a custard pie bath by the staff of Nuneaton Bio-Logistics, if that counts.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:37 (twenty years ago)

There's a thing about trying to smash into an asteroid, and an article about rescuing frogs.

But also: Colin Dexter on solving crosswords. will be the best bit of G2 I think.

― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:41 (twenty years ago)

yeah, fair enough, that'll do.


dear fascist bullly boy mr rusbridger...

― Britain's Jauntiest Shepherd (Alan), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:41 (twenty years ago)

Get Littlejohn on the paper and I might start reading it again.

Get Carlin on the paper and I might start reading it again.

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:42 (twenty years ago)

they don't pay enough and they keep the copyright. i'd write for the sun before i wrote for the grauniad. their friday album reviews section is much more entertaining than dull old p*tr*d*sh and his sallow cronies.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:49 (twenty years ago)

... I bet Littlejohn says exactly the same!

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:53 (twenty years ago)

i'd much rather read an honest commie-basher like littlejohn than david bloody aaronovitch and his "it's ok to bomb iraqi museums but not british museums where my kids sleep overnight" schtick.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:54 (twenty years ago)

Is Aaronovitch still at The guardian?

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:55 (twenty years ago)

i think he's on the observer, but no longer the graun.

― N_Rq, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:56 (twenty years ago)

he's at the times now but plenty of that clique still infest the pages...freedland, toynbee and all that lot.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:57 (twenty years ago)

Oh, Doonesbury is back next week. Lets not say the Guardian doesn't run scared when three people e-mail them.

So let's e-mail them about the science page.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:58 (twenty years ago)

i mean, how desperate for writers must the guardian be that they're reduced to giving stuart jeffries his own column?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 09:58 (twenty years ago)

So let's e-mail them about the science page.

And offer to run it for them? Please?

― Markelby (Mark C), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 10:03 (twenty years ago)

But also: Colin Dexter on solving crosswords. will be the best bit of G2 I think.

Yes! Also, I am loving grossing out the girls at work with the story about collagen from executed Chinese prisoners. There's a nervousness in the report though, a sensationalism while apologising (the PCC says we are actually allowed to do this, promise). And reporting rumours of hand transplants is a bit hmm.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:20 (twenty years ago)

I still keep meaning to write into the Guardian's Friday Review with the URLs of Alexis Petridis's more embarrassing Sinister posts. Somehow I doubt they'd get published, though.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:26 (twenty years ago)

"i mean, how desperate for writers must the guardian be that they're reduced to giving stuart jeffries his own column?"

When someone told me they were giving a column to the singer of Franz Ferdinand, I actually thought they were joking.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:46 (twenty years ago)

A column on food, too!

― Mädchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:48 (twenty years ago)

I will record here that I hate Stuart Jeffries. We'd booked him for the lit festival I used to help run and he never turned up. Couldn't get hold of him. Turned out later that he'd noticed not many tickets had been sold in advance, so he decided it wasn't worth his while. The event sold out on the door and we had to ply people with free wine and tickets to other shows all fucking night.

― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:58 (twenty years ago)

the colin dexter column was disappointing

as was "the rookie, nigel short on chess"

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 12:05 (twenty years ago)

Anyone worked out how to do Kakuro?

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

Haha kakuro. I took one look and dived back into the familiar embrace of Taupi.

I anticipate Dexter getting into his stride soon.

― Archel (Archel), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 12:09 (twenty years ago)

I'm not sure if I like the footnotes (p13 thing on fish today). It seems like a good idea but it interrupts the flow. It looks a bit like a MSWord document when it highlights urls and email addresses and since I find that annoying, I think in the paper it looks like an subbing cock up or something. OTOH it's a good way of pointing you to the footnote panel.

― beanz (beanz), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 12:24 (twenty years ago)

I'm strugglig with Kakuro - could get one bit definitely, but can't get much after that.

hmmmmm.


might be a grower.

― Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 13:41 (twenty years ago)

OTOH it's a good way of pointing you to the footnote panel

yes, but do you want your readers bouncing out of the copy all the time, heading for a box at the end of the page? i don't!

i've not had time to look at today's paper, but the actual content of yesterday's footnotes had the look of an afterthought. one of them simply repeated what was already in the copy.

an interesting idea, but one that should never have seen the light of day.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 14:16 (twenty years ago)

ftnts are an interesting idea. it might change the way things are written. i think all articles shd have ftnts.

― N_RQ, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 14:18 (twenty years ago)

an interesting idea, but one that should never have seen the light of day.

Not that interesting an idea then

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 14:19 (twenty years ago)

kakuro growing: official.

― Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 14:23 (twenty years ago)

please explain kakuro for those of use who don't buy the guardian apart from thursday and saturday. thankyou.

i am guessing it is like sudoku. bought the indie on saturday for the swedish dvd and did the (4x4)x(4x4) sudoku in that. took forever.

― koogs (koogs), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)

Not that interesting an idea then

:)

"an interesting idea if, like me, you're a tragic newspaper geek", i meant.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)

I don't usually read the guardian as I'm more a glasgow herald man

but can you tell me

does this represent a significant overhaul, in terms of new and displaced writers?

or is it merely an aesthetic redesign

I've bought the guardian both today and yesterday

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 16:35 (twenty years ago)

Kakuro is slightly like Sudoku, except the numbers are used in actual sums. You basically go twice as fast at it if you write down a cheat sheet with the three highest and three lowest combinations, thusly: for 4 numbers,

10 = 1+2+3+4
11 = 1+2+3+5
12 = 1+2+3+6 OR 1+2+4+5

28 = 4+7+8+9 OR 5+6+8+9
29 = 5+7+8+9
30 = 6+7+8+9

and then the same for 2,3,and 5 numbers. Then it's just finding a weakspot and away. I think the one I started with was the crossing of 23-in-3-numbers (6,8,9) and 16 in 5 (1,2,3,4,6). And the 16/29/12 in the top row.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 16:43 (twenty years ago)

who, roughly, is stuart jeffries?

― piscesboy, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 16:53 (twenty years ago)

I'm more a glasgow herald man

hurrah, you've just earned yourself a FREE PINT TOKEN.

hey, free beer with every herald ... now there's an idea.

to answer yr question: it's 95% aesthetic.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 16:54 (twenty years ago)

well, simon, I've essentially jumped shipped now though

: )

― cozen (Cozen), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 17:01 (twenty years ago)

xpost - It doesn't have to be like that, of course. I assume it's possible to have Kakuro where less than 3/4 of the clues only provide one or two answers, but I assume they're starting with a simple one. Or possibly, there's a reason the world hasn't been rocked by Kakuromania.

It's also like Sudoku in that answers beget other answers. Sudoku's interconnetednessness means that any time you get a chain of ten quick results building off each other, the game's probably over, whereas with Kakuro you may have just solved a corner, and still have to go and do sums to get a foothold in another one. So, more like a normal crossword then.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Tuesday, 13 September 2005 17:02 (twenty years ago)

Oh, I DON'T like the shrunken Notes and Queries.

― Robbie Lumsden (Wallace Stevens HQ), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 08:48 (twenty years ago)

they haven't changed much about the paper. the dreadful decca aitkenhead was there today, hope it's a one-off.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:07 (twenty years ago)

Oh God, was she? I think Decca Aitkenhead's dreadfulness is something on which we can all agree.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:10 (twenty years ago)

I was having a conversation on Monday night with a friend of mine, he's a journalist and he's in his 50s, and he said he hadn't bought the Guardian regulary since the last time they dumbed down and tried to appeal to a younger readership - about 20 years ago he says

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:11 (twenty years ago)

xpost: yes. she is dire. my mate rob the knob used to fancy her something rotten, mind you.

well, simon, I've essentially jumped shipped now though

in that case you owe me pints :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:12 (twenty years ago)

where in the paper is this decca aitkenhead?

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:15 (twenty years ago)

It's the part that has an easy-to-tear perforated edge and says "Wipe Here" at the top

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:17 (twenty years ago)

on the website it's on the front page

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:19 (twenty years ago)

G2, pollyfilla about cosmetic surgery.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:19 (twenty years ago)

got it

reading now

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:20 (twenty years ago)

I like jessica cartner-morley

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:24 (twenty years ago)

You fancy her you mean

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:26 (twenty years ago)

i must read fashion columns more often.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:29 (twenty years ago)

you fancy her you mean

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:31 (twenty years ago)

pix?

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:32 (twenty years ago)

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2004/12/16/jess_cartner_morley2.jpg

this does her no justice at all. her byline pic in the (old) saturday magazine was a thing of aesthetic perfection.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:35 (twenty years ago)

She's in the bit of the magazine that i never read, I never go beyond the middle pages

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:37 (twenty years ago)

i haven't bought a saturday or sunday paper for about three years, and it's totally improved my weekends.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:39 (twenty years ago)

She is spoken for, by one Mr. Groove Armada. Anyhoo I have never heard a bad word about her, apart from my former boss who was probably just jealous and/or professed to hate absolutely everyone.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:41 (twenty years ago)

Well if you're the daughter of Stella McCartney and Paul Morley doors open for you

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:41 (twenty years ago)

I like her

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:41 (twenty years ago)

what do you like about her?

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:45 (twenty years ago)

clean, tidy writing with a gentle womanliness

I'll read anything with her byline

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:53 (twenty years ago)

fair enough.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:55 (twenty years ago)

... he said, euphemistically

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 09:59 (twenty years ago)

if by "read" you mean ... and by "byline you mean ...

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:08 (twenty years ago)

speaking as one who spends more time than he'd like (ie five minutes a week) subbing fashion copy, i can honestly say i think JC-M's fashion and style writing is lovely. it's funny, witty and informative.

but, you know, i will admit i'm largely swayed by the byline pic.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 10:15 (twenty years ago)

i think they had a sample a month or so ago so i do remember what you're talking about.

i don't think it'll catch on because there is maths involved, whereas there isn't in sudoku. the other thing i noticed in the Indie last saturday was that >70% of the winners of the previous Monster 4x4 Sudoku were female.

― koogs (koogs), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:30 (twenty years ago)

(oh, that last post was re: Kakuro)

― koogs (koogs), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:31 (twenty years ago)

I like Lucy Mangan. She's in the Big Bit today! And these huge lovely photos in the centre are definitely growing on me.

― Archel (Archel), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 13:12 (twenty years ago)

I used to like her, but now I fear she is a one-note militant bore.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 13:24 (twenty years ago)

(I mean, she is militant about her boringness, which was funny and refreshing at first but not anymore)

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 13:25 (twenty years ago)

'Having divorced fame utterly from achievement, they are, in historian Daniel Boorstin's unimprovable phrase, "human pseudo-events".'

is Mangan on celebrities, thanks but no thanks.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 13:30 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, that's rubbish.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 16:58 (twenty years ago)

to state the obvious, the sentence would be OK without "unimprovable"

but yeah

― cozen (Cozen), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 17:12 (twenty years ago)

getting rid of "unimprovable" would be like getting rid of a bit of shit on a piece of shit.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 14 September 2005 18:43 (twenty years ago)

No Sci/Tech section at all today.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 15 September 2005 06:44 (twenty years ago)

uh I got one with my paper?

― cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 15 September 2005 06:53 (twenty years ago)

Are we talking about page 13 or a separate section?

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 15 September 2005 06:57 (twenty years ago)

Isn't JC-M about 12 years old? She certainly looks it.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:00 (twenty years ago)

She was about 22 or something v.young when she got appointed, I think. Late 20s now I guess.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:01 (twenty years ago)

There was a technology section in my copy, but it's pretty slim - 7 pages of articles, 5 pages jobs.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:05 (twenty years ago)

ditto. is full-berliner size and mine was tucked into middle of g2.

most interesting bit of information contaied therein: aleks krotoski now has orange hair. 8)

― koogs (koogs), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:18 (twenty years ago)

"boris johnson on the iPod nano". wow, haud me back :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:44 (twenty years ago)

could hiring bj be a sign of the rightward shift, perchance?

― N_RQ (Enrique), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:44 (twenty years ago)

Hiring the rights best poster boy seems like more of a 'haha, this is the best they can do move'

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:49 (twenty years ago)

hmmmmmmm. who is the best the left can do, i wonder? it would be nice if the graun would hire them, you know?

― N_RQ (Enrique), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:51 (twenty years ago)

her byline pic in the (old) saturday magazine was a thing of aesthetic perfection.

Expecting journalists look anything like their byline pics in real life, ha ha!

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:54 (twenty years ago)

Tony Benn and Roy Hattersley are still probably the best the (mainstream) left can do and that's a scary enough thought.

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 15 September 2005 07:56 (twenty years ago)

Expecting journalists look anything like their byline pics in real life, ha ha!

Except... she did look like that photo. Or does, I dunno – I left in 2002.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:02 (twenty years ago)

That makes it sound like I am joining in this JCM fawning. I'm not. It's to stop.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:03 (twenty years ago)

you used to work for the graun!? that explains markleby's first post i guess.

― N_RQ (Enrique), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:03 (twenty years ago)

I don't think it really does. I've no idea what he meant.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:06 (twenty years ago)

I wasn't fawning, thankyouverymuch

I was expressing appreciation of her work

I expect you don't believe me

but

― cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:12 (twenty years ago)

We do, we're only pullin' yer plonker

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:14 (twenty years ago)

no, cozen, we're dead serious, your integrity is on the line here.

― N_RQ (Enrique), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:17 (twenty years ago)

oh I know

I was just playing the fanny

― cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:20 (twenty years ago)

like the zither, but louder

― cozen (Cozen), Thursday, 15 September 2005 08:20 (twenty years ago)

The first post was because I started this thread the day ILE was in the Guardian, or something.

Though if ever there's an opportunity to tease N. that I missed, do let me know.

― Markelby (Mark C), Thursday, 15 September 2005 09:35 (twenty years ago)

i've only skimmed that tech section online, but it doesn't look like much of a substitute for 'life' to me.

― toby (tsg20), Thursday, 15 September 2005 10:19 (twenty years ago)

Oh the irony.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 10:21 (twenty years ago)

She was about 22 or something v.young when she got appointed,

See, I don't need to hear this kind of thing.

― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:06 (twenty years ago)

It was highly irregular!

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

That isn't the point. People could be highly irregular or just regular and employ me, but no, I get jobs and then the magazine goes tits up.

― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:13 (twenty years ago)

you work for zoo weekly?

― N_RQ, Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:15 (twenty years ago)

i get jobs and then the music editor changes and suddenly i don't get jobs any more.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:19 (twenty years ago)

That isn't the point. People could be highly irregular or just regular and employ me, but no, I get jobs and then the magazine goes tits up.

your life=my life, honeybunch. great isn't it!

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:20 (twenty years ago)

alternatively, i get jobs and then the magazine's freelance budget goes tits up.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:22 (twenty years ago)

Anna, it's time you had a sugar daddy.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:23 (twenty years ago)

Right now I wouldn't mind a sugar mummy...

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:24 (twenty years ago)

I was going to say the same.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:27 (twenty years ago)

I imagine my sugar mummy being the 40-something publisher of a successful New York style mag. I wouldn't like the parties she took me to much, but I'd put up with them for her.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:29 (twenty years ago)

Actually, maybe it would be more of a celebrity mag.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:29 (twenty years ago)

I imagine my sugar mummy as Helen Mirren on the cover of last week's Time Out, which being in Glasgow you probably won't have seen, but apparently it's TO's biggest selling issue this year...

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:32 (twenty years ago)

I can't remember who's on the front of the List this week but I fear it's not Helen Mirren.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:34 (twenty years ago)

Probably Elaine C Smith.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

Oh, it's Alison Goldfrapp. She'd be good, actually, if a little unreliable.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:36 (twenty years ago)

She's a mentalist though! That could be a real problem.

― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:51 (twenty years ago)

I expect there would be a lot of plates flying at Goldfrapp Towers, and not necessarily paper ones...

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:55 (twenty years ago)

Alba and Alison in a tree K*I*S*S*I*N*G.

Are you in Utopia? Did you get all Oh La La. Have you seen her Felt Mountain? DID YOU POP HER BLACK CHERRY?

― Anna (Anna), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:00 (twenty years ago)

Teatime at Goldfrapp Towers:

MC: "Evening, darling! LOVELY 2 C U!!"

AG: "DON'T FUCKIN TRY IT"

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:02 (twenty years ago)

We would also have accepted Hairy Trees and Oompah Radar.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:03 (twenty years ago)

It's good, but it's not right.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:04 (twenty years ago)

If it's up there I'll give you the money myself.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:08 (twenty years ago)

Wait, back right up there:

"boris johnson on the iPod nano". wow, haud me back :)
-- grimly fiendish (simonmai...), September 15th, 2005 8:44 AM. (grimlord) (later)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

could hiring bj be a sign of the rightward shift, perchance?
-- N_RQ (miltonpinsk...), September 15th, 2005 8:44 AM. (Enrique) (later)

What, what? Where? I must run out and get a copy, clearly.

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:16 (twenty years ago)

It's actually Bobbie Johnson. I'm not sure if Simon was joking or not.

― Alba (Alba), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:18 (twenty years ago)

I thought you lot made it up. I searched on the website and he was not there. Phew!

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Thursday, 15 September 2005 13:19 (twenty years ago)

I'm not sure if Simon was joking or not

no, i genuinely read it as "boris". in fairness, it was 8.30am and i don't really wake up till 4.30pm. bugger, i was looking forward to that an' all.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 15 September 2005 15:34 (twenty years ago)

Boris Johnson SHOULD be talking about the iPod Nano.

― Sociah T Azzahole (blueski), Thursday, 15 September 2005 15:41 (twenty years ago)

We're jammin'!!!

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 16 September 2005 13:02 (twenty years ago)

Boris Johnson, what's on your iPod?

(And can you hit me with your rhtyhm stick? Please?)

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 16 September 2005 13:03 (twenty years ago)

Boris Johnson, Amanda Platell, David Blunkett... why are all the sexpots on the Right these days?

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 16 September 2005 13:07 (twenty years ago)

I need to swing further to the Right, clearly. (Though I took the political test on OKCupid and it said I was a Socialist. I nearly fell off my chair laughing.)

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 16 September 2005 13:11 (twenty years ago)

Oh dear lord, I just found his website:

http://www.boris-johnson.com/index.html

I'll be back with you in a few hours...

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Friday, 16 September 2005 13:14 (twenty years ago)

I have been reading the new Guardian too! And like Steady Mike, I find it oddly appealing!

― the bellefox, Friday, 16 September 2005 14:23 (twenty years ago)

do you think the content is changed by the design, pinefox?

― N_RQ, Friday, 16 September 2005 14:24 (twenty years ago)

I don't like the new title bit

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 16 September 2005 14:25 (twenty years ago)

NRQ, that is a good question, that I ponder. Do you have a view? Probably I have not read this thread closely enough to tell whether you have already expressed it: apologies.

― the bellefox, Friday, 16 September 2005 14:44 (twenty years ago)

i think things like font, paper quality, etc, must give an 'overtone' to the words on the page, but i'm still reading it online, haven't actually held a copy of the berliner in my hands. it might be an interesting experiment to try it.

― N_RQ, Friday, 16 September 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)

I can't believe no one's mentioned "Jones's Eye" (sic)
from yesterday's G2, possibly the most pointless, laughable and offensive feature I've ever seen in the Guardian. I can only imagine it's a complete pisstake - surely this is straight out of Brass Eye?

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/9008/fortheloveofgoditsjonesseye6rd.th.jpg

Does anyone have an explanation for this? Heads should really roll for this one!

― Huey (Huey), Friday, 16 September 2005 14:54 (twenty years ago)

"A blue jumper brings life, and a reminder of history"

"When a wall is simply more than a wall"

"The blue boy is a gulp of aquamarine life..."

I mean, for fuck's sake!

― Huey (Huey), Friday, 16 September 2005 14:56 (twenty years ago)

why's it called 'jones's eye'?

― N_RQ, Friday, 16 September 2005 14:57 (twenty years ago)

"Jones's Eye" (sic)

that sic doesn't refer to the apostrophe, does it? if it does, you're about to enter a world of pain :)

but yes, i looked at that and thought: it's a bit offensive, isn't it?

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 16 September 2005 14:59 (twenty years ago)

Here, unbelievably, is the answer:

http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/7180/jonesseyeexplained5fr.jpg

― Huey (Huey), Friday, 16 September 2005 15:00 (twenty years ago)

No, the (sic) refers to my nausea at the piece.

― Huey (Huey), Friday, 16 September 2005 15:00 (twenty years ago)

xpost

I thought it was offensive.

'..he finds the art and meaning in this picture.."

Which is obviously more important than the STORY behind it, right? Yep, you go and um and ah about someone's clothes and how pretty they look near some pale stones from your cosy sofa, feel good about yourself. "The blue on the jumper means this". Nope, it means very little Mr Jones's Eye. Go and find that little boy and ask him what his jumper means to him today, go on. You ridiculous ponce.

― Zoe Espera (Espera), Friday, 16 September 2005 15:02 (twenty years ago)

More from Jones's Eye:

"The colossal, gnarled mouth that looms over the rubble makes you wonder what this building looked like before it was destroyed."

"Running through the lunar landscape of a freshly bombed building in the city of Tal Afar in north-west Iraq, this child seems oblivious to the camera."

"The boy does not appear to spare a thought for the New York dead. Why would he?"

Jesus wept. Let us pray this is not a regular feature.

― Huey (Huey), Friday, 16 September 2005 15:05 (twenty years ago)

sadly, it's weekly. perhaps we should - seriously - be complaining to mr mayes?

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 16 September 2005 15:30 (twenty years ago)

'..he finds the art and meaning in this picture.."

Which is obviously more important than the STORY behind it, right?

I don't think this is an argument I can actually support. A news photo can be art like anything else, and they have a main newspaper for the story.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 16 September 2005 15:41 (twenty years ago)

It was more the nature of the analysis than the fact it was there at all. It seemed trivial and whimsical. Although the context made me very uncomfortable too.

Of course a news photo can be art, but unless there was some mind-blowing coverage of the story elsewhere (I didn't see) I thought the comments were far too tra-la-la to justify it. It's EASY to sit and say nice things about a picture. It's not as easy to go to the place and take the picture. It's even less easy to be the boy in the picture. Discussing his jumper seemed crass to me. But maybe I'm an oversensitive freak.

― Zoe Espera (Espera), Friday, 16 September 2005 16:50 (twenty years ago)

I heard a 'how to get the look' fashion box that Jess C-M did on the jumper got spiked.

― Alba (Alba), Friday, 16 September 2005 16:59 (twenty years ago)

you are oversensitive, ab zoe, but i agree that there's something distasteful about analysing a news photograph as art over a two-page spread in a newspaper. i mean, the photographer sure as fuck didn't take it as a piece of art: he took it as a piece of reportage. and while this doesn't mean it can't be analysed as art, the question is: should it be?

and if it should, is the guardian really the place for it?

i dunno. there's something monumentally smug about it all. and the one thing the new guardian can't really afford to be - at least, not if it wants new readers - is smug.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 16 September 2005 17:43 (twenty years ago)

Well, the guardian might like to think it is precisely the place for it, which is exactly what stops it from being great sometimes.

― Zoe Espera (Espera), Friday, 16 September 2005 18:01 (twenty years ago)

saturday edition now in 9 (nine) pieces.

at least the two bits i actually read are the same as ever. magazine even has an expanded Space section. (space, i believe in space...)

― koogs (koogs), Saturday, 17 September 2005 11:36 (twenty years ago)

that jones's eye thing is a laughable crock. the should make him analyse photos sent in my guadrian readers ilx posters. Analyse this bukkake photo, jones.

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 17 September 2005 11:42 (twenty years ago)

...find the art in this photo ("hello.jpg")

"The colossal, gnarled arch of runny feces that looms over the woman in the bathtub makes you wonder what she'd actually been eating 3hrs previous to the photo being taken"

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Saturday, 17 September 2005 11:46 (twenty years ago)

That Jones's Eye is a horrible imitation of Bag news notes which does proper analysis of news photographs without beng smug or up itself.

That saturday paper was bloody huge. I personally thought it was a bad thing, but everyone else seemed to like the value of it. Hmm. Which is best then? More smallish sections or one or two big blockbusters?

― stet (stet), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:21 (twenty years ago)

Yes! I have finally seen the new improved (?) itty bitty Guardian.

The size for the main section was OK, it was more easily handleable, i.e. I could read it lying back in bed, instead of sitting leaning forward with it spread out in front of me like I used to.

But why did they have to make all the other sections the same size? Too big for the magazine like format. And why separate them out into 50 million billion little bits? I found that confusing. The Review is now too big to keep on the back of my toilet which is what I thought it was made for.

I don't like the new serify font for the cover of the Guide. Not at all. And the headings of the magazine look silly.

However... NAKED DAMIEN HIRST ... I will forgive them anything.

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:30 (twenty years ago)

I really, really hate what they have done with the Saturday Review. The cover was abysmal, and all those italics everywhere look horrendous.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:32 (twenty years ago)

the eds decided to drop doonesbury and it only took 1000 people complaining to get it back. surely we can raise 1500 to get it dropped again?

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:34 (twenty years ago)

I am glad I am not alone in my dislike for the new Review.

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:35 (twenty years ago)

too many sections - family? money? - but i suppose it makes it easier to throw away the ones you don't like.

The magazine had a strange 70's look to it (like the original colour supplements) and uses a similar paper stock to the olde ones. i was dissappointed that the fashion supplement was only FASHION FOR WOMEN as the guardian usually does the most even male to female fashion coverage of all the papers and usually devotes at least a third of its supplement to us gents.

biggest disappointment: that the review (the books section, they should just call it "books" in fact since there are other review sections) has gone full size. it was a nice little package before and the only thing i used to keep round the house for the rest of the week.

lots of xposts!

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:37 (twenty years ago)

The magazine looks JUST LIKE the Observer Magazine (eg self-satisfied, smug)(ahem) did in the early eighties.

― RickyT (RickyT), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:44 (twenty years ago)

Yes, but on the other hand, Damien Hirst naked!

(Sorry, I will stop that now.)

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:45 (twenty years ago)

I didn't like those naked people.

― Cathy (Cathy), Monday, 19 September 2005 11:47 (twenty years ago)

I wonder why Damien Hirst couldn't just let it hang.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 19 September 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

the review (the books section, they should just call it "books" in fact since there are other review sections)

I've always thought that there's a subliminal LITERATURE IS THE ONLY ART WORTH PAYING ATTENTION TO tone to the Review section.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 19 September 2005 12:16 (twenty years ago)

The Shepherd's remark is funny, though I like Doonesbury.

It's quite reasonable for a books section to focus on books. The odd thing is, it also does talk about lots of other things.

I believe what JtN says about Design because he is a Designer, like. But I imagine that, like me, he was tickled for a moment by the sight of Morley dusting Parsons off his cuffs.

― the pinefox, Monday, 19 September 2005 13:18 (twenty years ago)

It's quite reasonable for a books section to focus on books.

But it claims it isn't a books section! It's a general arts review section that just happens to be 90% literature-based.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 19 September 2005 14:01 (twenty years ago)

I don't think that's true. It's a books section that happens to be called, perhaps a bit misleadingly, 'Review'.

― the bellefox, Monday, 19 September 2005 14:14 (twenty years ago)

Whichever it is, it's certainly the worst part of the Guardian in that it seems to be written solely for a certain type of literary snob.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Monday, 19 September 2005 14:18 (twenty years ago)

The bit about how to do cryptic crosswords focused on the only clues I already know how to solve today! Anagrams! They are feeding me too slowly.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 19 September 2005 14:19 (twenty years ago)

Which type? How many are there?

[x-post / or is it?]

― the bellefox, Monday, 19 September 2005 14:25 (twenty years ago)

i don't like the review, not 100% sure why. bit reverent and 1983 granta listy.

― N_RQ, Monday, 19 September 2005 14:26 (twenty years ago)

if i ever get to the end of an article in the review, especially one of the double-page profiles, i feel very worthy and reward myself by throwing the review into the recycling can.

― barbarian cities (jaybob3005), Monday, 19 September 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)

I used to like the Review although I skipped everything that wasn't a traditional book review, usually. It felt the right size at least and I liked the fonts and the cover drawings. Now it is all wrong. And they have moved the crossword to the main section.

The Colin Dexter column is obviously going to move very slowly. And I'd be interested to know if someone who didn't do crosswords before, now understands anagram clues on the strength of that column.

― Archel (Archel), Monday, 19 September 2005 14:36 (twenty years ago)

Does anyone still keep the "collector's edition" last-ever old-format Guardian? If so, could you mebbe scan the picture of the funny looking squid from the magazine and post it here, cos I want to show it to someone but I threw it out.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Monday, 19 September 2005 15:15 (twenty years ago)

That squid was terrifying. And also a bit 'Futurama'.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Monday, 19 September 2005 15:16 (twenty years ago)

I still have it (not that I'm collecting it but that I'm too lazy to take my recycles downstairs) but I don't have a scanner, unfortunately. (Or indeed a computer right now.)

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Monday, 19 September 2005 15:17 (twenty years ago)

I can find pictures of similar beasts but none are as charming as that one.

― Eyeball Kicks (Eyeball Kicks), Monday, 19 September 2005 15:25 (twenty years ago)

I imagine that more people will understand "this may be an anagram clue", but maybe not all of them will now be able to solve it.

Is next week Roman Numeral? How many tricks are there?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 19 September 2005 15:35 (twenty years ago)

I bought it because it was a COLLECTOR'S EDITION, then threw it out.

I agree, the REVIEW seems less special now. But to repeat, it did have MORLEY in it.

― the bellefox, Monday, 19 September 2005 15:53 (twenty years ago)

not sure about the italic headlines, but i like the review's content.

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Monday, 19 September 2005 16:00 (twenty years ago)

Dear editor of the Kakuro page: you are an idiot, and if you were working on the sudoku, crows would be feasting at your gibbet by now.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 19 September 2005 18:13 (twenty years ago)

How many tricks are there?

i was told there were seven rules; indeed, i'm sure that, during my short-lived crossword phase three years ago, i found an interesting crossword primer on the grauniad website. p'raps they're just reprinting that :)

crosswords, however, are going to have to wait till i retire. i just do not have the time. at least, not when the playstation or BEER exist ;)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Monday, 19 September 2005 21:01 (twenty years ago)

I wanted to go back and re-read the Review but the housemate's wife had recycled it. Grrrr. So I fished it out of the recycle bin and read it, bakedbean tin stains and all. It does not say anywhere on it that it purports to be about books and nothing else. In fact, it seems to be not about all arts - but about books about all arts. Books about dancing, books about Einstein, books about punk music, rather than about dance or science or music or anything else except books.

But it is a very awkward size to try and read at the breakfast table. I left it neatly folded at the table again in the hopes that HMW would not recycle it again. The one in the loo has been allowed to live there for several weeks. Perhaps the one in the dining room might as well.

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 06:45 (twenty years ago)

bought it because it was a COLLECTOR'S EDITION, then threw it out.
I agree, the REVIEW seems less special now. But to repeat, it did have MORLEY in it.

-- the bellefox (pinefo...), September 19th, 2005.

Big deal. Shetlander Fishwives is probably the only periodical that doesn't have MORLEY in it at the moment.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 07:00 (twenty years ago)

I find it ironic that the much heralded size decrease for the Guardian is actually a size increase for most of its supplements, and therefore most of its content. Bring back the tabloid Guardian!

― Huey (Huey), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 08:42 (twenty years ago)

I mean, honestly, the big bit was the part I usually read last!

― The Brocade Fire (kate), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 08:47 (twenty years ago)

After my three-day dalliance with the "new" Grauniad I have now returned to the Times. Not that that's much better, but at least it looks more like a newspaper.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 08:51 (twenty years ago)

that squid was brilliant!! and only a third of the mooted full size, too

― hold tight the private caller (mwah), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 09:12 (twenty years ago)

also the lizard wot fires rancid blood out of its eyeballs

― hold tight the private caller (mwah), Tuesday, 20 September 2005 09:14 (twenty years ago)

which issue was the squid in? in theory it's still in the recycle pile but i'd like to narrow it down rather than dig through 3 weeks worth. date? section?

at least Jones's Eye is funnier than the David Rees cartoon. "We might think of Melozzo de Forli's fresco of the court of Pope Sixtus IV"... yes, mr jones, we might.

http://mv.vatican.va/3_EN/pages/x-Schede/PINs/PINs_Sala04_01_020.html

― koogs (koogs), Thursday, 22 September 2005 11:38 (twenty years ago)

another heartwarming thread about a british newspaper. i love you all

― lolol, Thursday, 22 September 2005 14:22 (twenty years ago)

that's nice, thank you.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Thursday, 22 September 2005 14:36 (twenty years ago)

i'm a bit behind with this, as i was away last week, but i've seen it a couple of times now.

i) this new technology section is pathetic! 4 pages?

ii) has there been any science coverage, except for one page on saturday?

― toby (tsg20), Thursday, 22 September 2005 15:43 (twenty years ago)

All concerns about removing Doonesbury have been completely washed away by the fact that it now has the Perry! Bible! Fellowship!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 23 September 2005 10:35 (twenty years ago)

wow!

― RJG (RJG), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:04 (twenty years ago)

is this a daily thing, or once a week? either way: coo ur.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:12 (twenty years ago)

Erk. I hope not - I can't look at PBF strips without wanting to kill myself.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:12 (twenty years ago)

ii) has there been any science coverage, except for one page on saturday?

There is an article today on why asparagus makes your piss smell funny.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:14 (twenty years ago)

It's once a week. There's a thread around with a link to all of them ever, if you want to spoil yourself. It is the best cartoon in existence. Though I totally understand what Forest Pines means.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:15 (twenty years ago)

Meanwhile, in today's edition, my ex-boss continues to get the wrong end of the stick.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:17 (twenty years ago)

Oh dear!

― Raymond Douglas Dadaismus (Dada), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:21 (twenty years ago)

oooh, i want that box-set

― foxy boxer (stevie), Friday, 23 September 2005 11:27 (twenty years ago)

I *knew* I'd seen that lovely cartoon somewhere before. Thank you ilx! Maureen Lipman's column is mish, isn't it?

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 23 September 2005 12:11 (twenty years ago)

We were misinformed by the publishers of the book from which the image was taken, and have since learned that the squid was in fact a model, built to the dimensions of a submature female species. Apologies to all our correspondents

Letters, September 24 2005

― Mädchen (Madchen), Saturday, 24 September 2005 16:46 (twenty years ago)

Hah, I was going to post that too.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Saturday, 24 September 2005 16:57 (twenty years ago)

god, i thought it looked a bit plasticky.

― jed_ (jed), Saturday, 24 September 2005 20:26 (twenty years ago)

The stapled G2 seems to have fallen by the wayside - first two, then one, and now today it's not stapled at all.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:01 (twenty years ago)

Mine is.

― robster (robster), Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:07 (twenty years ago)

I had no staples either.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:12 (twenty years ago)

Aah - it must be the Manchester stapler that is broken then.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:14 (twenty years ago)

How typische

― Zora (Zora), Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:24 (twenty years ago)

i have staples. looks like the person in charge of the guilotine has been drinking though.

IT section cartoon, i'm beginning to think it's one of those AI experiments like the computer written poetry.

― koogs (koogs), Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:26 (twenty years ago)

This morning I *read* it for the first time since it changed. It is good to read, I think, but I got ink on my fingers. I thopught that kind of thing had been eradicated. I have not got to the stapled bit yet.

Ha ha! It now transpires I have ONE staple. You couldn't make something like that up, could you?

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:38 (twenty years ago)

I found out the other day that the annoying overbite thing has to be there because of the machine it is made on. That is crap. It looks rub.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 29 September 2005 12:50 (twenty years ago)

squid with giant eyeball: http://www.mindhacks.com/blog/2005/09/giant_squid_woah.html

turns out it was a really a plastic model in the photo, although the creature does exist

― michael2 (michael2), Thursday, 29 September 2005 13:06 (twenty years ago)

Really?!

― Mädchen (Madchen), Thursday, 29 September 2005 13:19 (twenty years ago)

thefranzferdian

― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 2 October 2005 00:18 (twenty years ago)

The Jon Stewart profile in the magazine today was a good read.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Sunday, 2 October 2005 02:23 (twenty years ago)

What is Perry Bible Fellowship?

I wonder whether perhaps I actually agree with Peschek about the Band. I would like to like them a lot more than I do.

― the pinefox, Sunday, 2 October 2005 07:32 (twenty years ago)

I was struck by the piece about theatre in Belarus in the Review. And I have to say that (like most Europeans) I would not be able to place Belarus on a map of Europe. But now I want to visit, perhaps to recapture my memories of the USSR.

― Zora (Zora), Sunday, 2 October 2005 09:51 (twenty years ago)

Richard Ingram's tribute to Paul Foot was lovely, but I'm having serious problems with some of the new columnists. Why the fuck are they letting Alisdair Campbell spout his Tony-is-Lord-and-master-you-shall-bow-before -him shite? To think that scumfuck got a tiny percentage of my 60p!
And that "Free Radical" guy is such a cunt. He's like the New Labour Littlejohn - an arrogant neo-Thatcherite asshole who "tells it like it is". There he was patronising "Wolfie" for heckling his horribly precocious 11 year old daughter for making a nonsensical pro-Blairite speech about Tamagochi and then bemoaning the fact that one of the "heavies" got a rather nasty scratch removing Walter Wolfgang from from the main arena. Diddums. The whole tone was one of it's alright to manhandle an old bloke cos he's just a loony-leftie Saddam apologist.
Then in the most gag inducing moment he mentions "old buddy and fellow Bobcat" John Birt coming round to chat about Dylan and nuclear energy.
Almost made me want to burn my Dylan records. What a CUNT!!!
Is this a piss take? It sounds like something Craig Brown would write.

― Stew (stew s), Sunday, 2 October 2005 11:04 (twenty years ago)

The 'Free Radical' column is a parody, Stew.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Sunday, 2 October 2005 11:13 (twenty years ago)

D'oh!
And there's me getting angry for no reason. I had suspected as much with the Tamogochi and John Birt stuff. Who's behind it then? Is he the new Bel Littlejohn?
Still, Alisdair Campbell - what a cunt eh?

― Stew (stew s), Sunday, 2 October 2005 11:24 (twenty years ago)

The 'Alisdair Campbell' column is a parody, Stew.

― RJG (RJG), Sunday, 2 October 2005 11:26 (twenty years ago)

two months pass...
you fucking motherfuckers.

leo from 'the west wing' died, and the grauniad fucking gave away the ending of the current UK series. ok, i knew what would happen but for fuck's sake.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 19:56 (twenty years ago)

I read the obit but obviously didn't pick up on whatever the spoiler was.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:03 (twenty years ago)

John Spencer died? BOO

― stet (stet), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:05 (twenty years ago)

Every on-line obit gave it away though - I knew because someone else posted a "surprising storylines" list and it was in that too.

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

it is v sad, i model my office MO on his.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:06 (twenty years ago)

R.I.P. John Spencer

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:07 (twenty years ago)

Also, didn't he have his (fictional) heart attack in the current series as well, as not shown on Channel 4 yet? Not like the new-look grauniad to be getting things wrong...

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:12 (twenty years ago)

he had the heart attack in ep 1 of the more4 series currently airing, and is now recuperating. let's put it this way: the dems haven't nominated a presidential candidtae yet.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:13 (twenty years ago)

I'm up to seanson 7 ep 7 and could spoil this all for you but I won't because later series 6 and series seven the WW gets it's groove back.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:15 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, I know, I'm watching it on More4, but I'm just pointing out that Guardian's fact-checking leaves rather a lot to be desired sometimes...

(xpost - aw, Ed, please don't)

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:15 (twenty years ago)

Ed, they're filming season 7 right now, so do you mean six? Which definitely gets much better halfway through, thank god.

― stet (stet), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:19 (twenty years ago)

i think that the last few eps on more4 have seen 'tww' get awesome. tbh i always heart the shit out of it, but from the china ep on, i'm feeling this one.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:20 (twenty years ago)

evidently man like ed has torrents.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:20 (twenty years ago)

Should we have a West Wing thread, do you think? (and not let Ed on it)

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:21 (twenty years ago)

I'm almost up to day with what has been txed in the states. Season seven is being shot quite close to air date it seems (no idea if the others were).

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:21 (twenty years ago)

I have obsessive WW fans for upstairs neighbors so they torrent it and burn it to a cd for me.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:22 (twenty years ago)

The ep I realised it was back was just after the china one, where they had a shot in CJ's office that started at a coffee cup and worked up. It sounds trivial, but it brought back all that swagger the show used to have.

― stet (stet), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:26 (twenty years ago)

I didn't realise they were also txing series 7 as it was made. Coo. I need to get me these torrential things.

― stet (stet), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:30 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, there was one massive long tracking shot a couple of weeks ago, can't remember what started it, but I thought YES! this is what used to be good about this, people walking through corridors all jumping in and out of conversations and it just *looks* so good as well as *sounding* so good.

I'm not liking the polarisation of the staff to the various candidates so much, but it's gotta happen, I guess.

x-post yes, me too, or maybe even someone local who can copy them for me once they are done with them, ahem, hello stet :)

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:31 (twenty years ago)

Oh, I thought we were on the West Wing thread. Sorry, Guardian-debating folks...

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 20:32 (twenty years ago)

I was getting annoyed with the quick crossword's themed anagrams. Thank goodness this nonsense has stopped.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 22:43 (twenty years ago)

Stuart Jeffries has now overtaken that weirdly bland fashion writer as my least favourite Guardian scribe now.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 22:44 (twenty years ago)

I read "The Guardian Weekly". It's for expats.

― [jailhouse tattoo] (nordicskilla), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 22:59 (twenty years ago)

Dom, surely you're not talking about the lovely JCM?

― Mädchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 23:30 (twenty years ago)

no-one is worse than toynbee.

oh maybe garton-ash.

or simon hoggart

or george nonbiot

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 23:33 (twenty years ago)

Dom, surely you're not talking about the lovely JCM?

Nah, Hadley Freeman I thinbk she's called?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 23:40 (twenty years ago)

That's OK, I agree with you in that case. I totally heart JCM and Miss Kwateng at the moment.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 23:55 (twenty years ago)

that is her name. i used to know her.

― Theorry Henry (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 December 2005 23:56 (twenty years ago)

the worst one is that sam who does the tv reviews.

― ambrose (ambrose), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 10:15 (twenty years ago)

Wollaston?

The main problem that most of the Guardian's TV reviewers have is: not being Nancy Banks-Smith.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 12:08 (twenty years ago)

OTM.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 12:14 (twenty years ago)

Nancy Banks-Smith makes my stomach hurt from laughing.

― The Wanderers' Wandering Daughter (noodle vague), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 12:16 (twenty years ago)

What the hell is wrong with George Monbiot? And frankly Toynbee is a nu-labour apologist but still seems to trying to nudge them left rather than the other way.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 13:16 (twenty years ago)

Actually, yeah, Sam Woolaston is horrendous.

Why do the Guardian's TV critics, instead of, you know, critiqueing TV, instead just read out a list of things that happened on TV last night?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 21 December 2005 13:19 (twenty years ago)

[big spam]

― Ginger, Wednesday, 28 December 2005 08:50 (twenty years ago)

http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/3982/theobserver9nj.gif

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Observer/documents/2005/12/30/obspullout_hgh_locked.pdf or http://observer.guardian.co.uk/theobserver

I'd continue to buy this if my name was Theo B Server.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Sunday, 1 January 2006 19:44 (twenty years ago)

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/observer/archives/obsberlinerfront.jpg

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Sunday, 8 January 2006 02:02 (twenty years ago)

since the Observer is at least £1.60 i really wonder how they can continue to call their monthlies "free".

― jed_ (jed), Sunday, 8 January 2006 05:26 (twenty years ago)

The Guardian's going up to 70p a day from Monday.

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Sunday, 8 January 2006 05:36 (twenty years ago)

since the Observer is at least £1.60 i really wonder how they can continue to call their monthlies "free".

yeah, that's always rankled with me - as if all other newspapers charge extra for their mags! very bizarre concept.

so what's different about nu-Observer apart from the Berliner sizing?

― CharlieNo4 (Charlie), Sunday, 8 January 2006 08:34 (twenty years ago)

ich bin ein berliner sizing

― ken c (ken c), Sunday, 8 January 2006 10:22 (twenty years ago)

that - the new observer - is the worst thing i have seen in years. it looks like it was designed by a party of drunk compositors who fell through a freak wormhole in time from the mid-1970s. i had to double-check to make sure the vertical rules under the pullquotes were meant to be there, and weren't rogue printers' marks.

even the fucking news of the world has better stories today. the piece on p26 by my friend's ex about why she's going into therapy is possibly the final straw.

i cannot believe that is a sister paper to the guardian. it wouldn't even pass muster as a sister paper to the blackpool evening gazette. what an appalling heap of shit.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 8 January 2006 17:06 (twenty years ago)

looks okay to me but I haven't seen it yet

― RJG (RJG), Sunday, 8 January 2006 17:16 (twenty years ago)

wait till you see it up close, RJG. the standfirst font alone will offend your aesthetic sensibilities.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Sunday, 8 January 2006 17:18 (twenty years ago)

ich bin ein berliner sizing

You are the size of a doughnut?

― Chewshabadoo (Chewshabadoo), Sunday, 8 January 2006 17:23 (twenty years ago)

Yes, he is surprisingly small in person. The photos are misleading.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Sunday, 8 January 2006 18:08 (twenty years ago)

I wasn't impressed by the design, but the content didn't seem noticeably worse than previously. And content-wise it's nowhere near as bad as the Sunday Times, which is the other Sunday paper we get here.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Sunday, 8 January 2006 19:21 (twenty years ago)

Design wise I much prefer The Independent on Sunday, much easier to read.

However as I bought The Observer today, I decided NOT to buy the IOS today as that bland AOR pop rock Texas lead singer chick, Sharleen Spiteri was on the front cover of one of the sections.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Sunday, 8 January 2006 19:51 (twenty years ago)

The content's pretty thin all over, almost shockingly so for a first issue, but it'll doubtless get better, and it's not nearly as much of a shambles as the T'graph and Indy sunday revamps. I prefer the smaller news section, as I'm used to reduced Canadian broadsheets, but the two smaller magazines are very underwhelming. That new blokey column at the back of OM is awful. And does Andrew Rawnsley's byline pic really need to be that big?

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Sunday, 8 January 2006 20:01 (twenty years ago)

Andrew Rawnsley has terrified me ever since he tried to be a daytime TV game show host.

I was a bit confused by the way the world news pages were shifted to after the comment and editorial pages.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Sunday, 8 January 2006 20:09 (twenty years ago)

He hosted a daytime quiz how? Like Wipeout or something?

I think they were also lucky to catch a good bit of news (Kennedy) this weekend, there's nothing else in there that's really exclusive.

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Sunday, 8 January 2006 21:17 (twenty years ago)

Something like that. I can't remember what the game actually was; all I can recall was that he wasn't very good at hosting it. A quick google suggests that it was the first series of Today's The Day.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Sunday, 8 January 2006 21:38 (twenty years ago)

two weeks pass...
A 10p price increase all of a sudden makes the Berliner format less attractive. I am outraged-ish.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 23 January 2006 09:53 (twenty years ago)

Can Tim Dowling please stop? Thanks.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Monday, 23 January 2006 10:28 (twenty years ago)

Hey, yeah, I just handed over my quid this morning and didn't think about how much change I (wasn't) getting. Tsch.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 23 January 2006 10:48 (twenty years ago)

I've now given up on the Observer after yesterday's Escape section contained nothing but breaks for the super-rich and super snobbish. They clearly don't want the likes of me reading it any more. Plus Roger Alton has a boner for Cameron.

I can see theguardian going much the same way, but as I can't stand the Indy I suppose I'm stuck with it if I want to buy a national.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Monday, 23 January 2006 12:51 (twenty years ago)

one month passes...
has the guardian actually turned into a blog or what?

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 10:54 (twenty years ago)

When is the website going to match the Berliner-style Guardian?

― James Mitchell (James Mitchell), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:09 (twenty years ago)

it will occupy just half the screen.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:11 (twenty years ago)

"the Beano-style Guardian" would be an apter description. I switched to the Times ages ago.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:16 (twenty years ago)

As for Marina Hyde; don't fancy hers much.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:17 (twenty years ago)

the times!!!!!!!!!!!

fucking hell man.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:18 (twenty years ago)

started in journalism as the secretary on the Sun's showbiz desk

So who exactly is she related/ married to then?

― Dadaismus the Blind (of Alexandria) (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:20 (twenty years ago)

i dunno but i would hit it.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:20 (twenty years ago)

But your surname isn't Coren or Toynbee or Lawson etc etc etc is it?

― Dadaismus the Blind (of Alexandria) (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:22 (twenty years ago)

:0(

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:24 (twenty years ago)

started in journalism as the secretary on the Sun's showbiz desk

Come on, starting out in admin and moving into writing is totallly normal.

― Anna (Anna), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:30 (twenty years ago)

I suppose it is if you went to Oxford and your name is Marina

― Dadaismus the Blind (of Alexandria) (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:32 (twenty years ago)

haha

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:32 (twenty years ago)

The Times is far from ideal, but at least it's a newspaper.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:38 (twenty years ago)

that's why i read the telegraph, son.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:39 (twenty years ago)

i'm kidding, but not really.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:39 (twenty years ago)

But they're both rubbish too

― Dadaismus the Blind (of Alexandria) (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:42 (twenty years ago)

I read the Guardian solely to marvel at the size of Gary Younge's head. His byline picture takes up two thirds of the page.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:43 (twenty years ago)

Starting in admin and moving to writing is normal...for WOMEN. But the sexism of the practice was surely not what was being seized upon by the male poster.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:44 (twenty years ago)

Once again, I am a victim of my overbearing class consciousness :(

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:47 (twenty years ago)

Or you know, if you went to Liverpool and your name is Reena, or you went to Reading and your name is Louise, or you have no degree and your name is Tracey. Just a few examples of many ...

x-post: Names above prove Suzy's point too.

x-post to Dada too. Fair enough. :(

― Anna (Anna), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:49 (twenty years ago)

i do not like it very much.

― jeffreyzor, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:50 (twenty years ago)

I am sorry to hear this

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:51 (twenty years ago)

I went to Oxford. Why can't I get a job with the Guardian, despite never having applied for one, and my ceaseless adverse comments on them expressed here and elsewhere?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:54 (twenty years ago)

too nice

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:56 (twenty years ago)

Advise change name to Marcello Coren asap

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:58 (twenty years ago)

I thought as much.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 11:59 (twenty years ago)

Doesn't Marina Hyde go out with Piers whatsisname who used to edit The Mirror. I think her column is crap. Tabloidism of the Guardian etc etc. I read the International Herald Tribune.

― queen biatch (queen biatch), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:11 (twenty years ago)

Has anyone noticed how much John Harris looks like a Moomin these days?

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:15 (twenty years ago)

Ha ha, right yes, she does go out with Piers Morgan! Say no more!

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:19 (twenty years ago)

John Harris On Music:

http://cherryfairy.com/Images/worzel.jpg

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:20 (twenty years ago)

Marina is also related to Posho McPosh who wrote the screenplay of 'Gosford Park', I think.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:26 (twenty years ago)

I hate that guy

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:28 (twenty years ago)

his wife's a lady-in-waiting or something

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:28 (twenty years ago)

he is the pits. but i still like her writing.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:46 (twenty years ago)

she's a lady in waiting to someone really lame, according to the torygraph.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:47 (twenty years ago)

y

― RJG (RJG), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:48 (twenty years ago)

You mean she writes about Sienna Miller and Jude Law better than anyone else writes about Sienna Miller and Jude Law? (xxpost)

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:48 (twenty years ago)

i don't think MH is v. gd on late review (haha is anyone?)

anyone who writes a bk called snobs deserves to be...married to a lady in waiting

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:52 (twenty years ago)

She currently writes three columns a week for the paper: one general comment, one on sport and one on celebrity.

Sport? God 'elp us.

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:53 (twenty years ago)

You mean she writes about Sienna Miller and Jude Law better than anyone else writes about Sienna Miller and Jude Law? (xxpost)
-- Dadaismus, the Male Poster (dadaismu...), March 21st, 2006.

well, yeah. god forbid that people should write about famous actors. they'll be reviewing 'pop' records next!

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:56 (twenty years ago)

OK then, you've twisited my arm, I accept that writing about who an actress is sleeping with might require some skill

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:58 (twenty years ago)

as henry james would probably have said, it's all about the treatment.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:59 (twenty years ago)

Yes but I think he was a slightly better writer than Marina Hyde

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:01 (twenty years ago)

dunno, never read him.

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:03 (twenty years ago)

It would be nice if they could get someone to review 'pop' records.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:04 (twenty years ago)

Maybe this Henry James chap is available - what school did he got to?

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:06 (twenty years ago)

the school of hard cocks

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:09 (twenty years ago)

Can he do 150 words on the Spinto Band by Thursday?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:10 (twenty years ago)

150 words = a shortish sentence for HJ

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:11 (twenty years ago)

Ach, well forget it, he sounds useless

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:13 (twenty years ago)

Can he write two eulogistic reviews of the stunning return to form that is the new album by Prince?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:15 (twenty years ago)

JUDE AND SADIE IN BITTER CUSTODY TUG-OF-LOVE!
A HEAT EXCLUSIVE!
by Henry James

The litigation seemed interminable and had in fact been complicated; but by the decision on the appeal the judgement of the divorce-court was confirmed as to the assignment of the child. Jude, though bespattered from head to foot, had made good his case, was, in pursuance of this triumph, appointed to keep her: it was not so much that Sadie's character had been more absolutely damaged as that the brilliancy of a lady's complexion (and this lady's, in court, was immensely remarked) might be more regarded as showing the spots.

― Jerry the Nipper (Jerrynipper), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:15 (twenty years ago)

"Sorry, Henry, but it's still a bit long for a photo caption"

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:21 (twenty years ago)

CHANTELLE AND PRESTON IN TIN OPENER DOMESTIC CATASTROPHE!
SAMUEL BECKETT REPORTS EXCLUSIVELY FOR OK! MAGAZINE

so if the ongoing light that is the bleed those braids bear and if the mud holy the mud for life far toward ordinates and if suffices the badminton and cheeses opiate then the crawl and the click in the mud therein the love foursquare not attendant to the marbles the marked bicycle but pain oh Hemonswale said comfort in collapse and the extremities oublier but not for squash and the squash of the case to go on i eat my melon

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:26 (twenty years ago)

Right, now do "How It Is" is the style of OK

― Dadaismus, the Male Poster (Dada), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:31 (twenty years ago)

Quipped disgraced TV star Barrymore to a waiting crowd of reporters: "My mistakes are my life."

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 13:39 (twenty years ago)

Time Out seeks music ed, MC. Submit that.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:04 (twenty years ago)

Er, seriously?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:10 (twenty years ago)

Apply. The worst that can happen is that you'll get a letter telling you 100 people applied.

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 21 March 2006 15:18 (twenty years ago)

One of them being Henry James.

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 10:04 (twenty years ago)

http://members.cruzio.com/~varese/dickens/gallery/images/james.jpg

hold my drink bitch!

― Real Goths Don't Wear Black (Enrique), Wednesday, 22 March 2006 10:09 (twenty years ago)

two weeks pass...
Today's G2 has a triple bill of direness on its opening pages: a column each by Zoe Williams, Lucy Mangan & Laura Barton.
The names are interchangeable. The content is familiar (media non-stories, celebrity trivia, personal opinions held as indicators of popular trends). The tone is the same (jokey-sarcastic without ever being funny, the occasional bit of hey-I'm-young sweary slang). Typical student newspaper journalism that is the Guardian voice these days.

― bham (bham), Thursday, 6 April 2006 08:11 (nineteen years ago)

Did anyone else spot someone who looked suspiciously like Matt Coastaltown in Notes and Queries yesterday?

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Thursday, 6 April 2006 08:14 (nineteen years ago)

two months pass...
what was yesterday's poster thing? seashells today but i forgot to look yesterday.

― koogy wonderland (koogs), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 09:02 (nineteen years ago)

Poorly illustrated whales and dolphins

― beanz (beanz), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 09:24 (nineteen years ago)

whales and dolphins, yeah.

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 09:27 (nineteen years ago)

crabs and lobsters tomorrow

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 09:27 (nineteen years ago)

When's the one about birds (only rly care about the OWLS).

― Bhumibol Adulyadej (Lucretia My Reflection), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 09:29 (nineteen years ago)

haha steve

― Roughage Crew (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 09:35 (nineteen years ago)

(ha, the raptors was the one i was after as well. pissed that i missed the garden birds but did get the fungi and coastal birds. all very handy here in W12...)

― koogy wonderland (koogs), Tuesday, 27 June 2006 09:52 (nineteen years ago)

two months pass...
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1871355,00.html

Name may look familiar to some.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 15 September 2006 12:21 (nineteen years ago)

Who is this Charles Arnold?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Friday, 15 September 2006 12:25 (nineteen years ago)

http://factcheckingpollyanna.blogspot.com/

― Sadly, he will be the next Alexis Petridish. (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 11:46 (nineteen years ago)

This despite many of Persson's ministers visiting Britain to examine the New Deal, with its successful carrot-and-stick format of intensive personal help for claimants combined with a firm obligation to seek work, train or learn.

Successful?!??!??! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

― Oh No It's Dadaismus! (Dada), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:05 (nineteen years ago)

toynbee is beneath contempt.

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:12 (nineteen years ago)

i really like marina hyde.

― The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:14 (nineteen years ago)

slightly weird thing for late t. s. eliot but yeah.

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:15 (nineteen years ago)

my flatmate and i were discussing just last night how, if we were into women, we would totally crush on marina. she surely can't be as gorgeous as her byline photo would indicate!

(i used to crush on andrew rawnsley but he has got paunchy and his columns are far less interesting than they were in his prime)

― The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:21 (nineteen years ago)

[iirc alba says MH is *even hotter* IRL]

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:23 (nineteen years ago)

Hadley Freeman: C/D?

― Hello Sunshine (Hello Sunshine), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:23 (nineteen years ago)

[Controversial Moderator Edit]

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:24 (nineteen years ago)

Marina Hyde, the bint with the bent hooter? Not even remotely hott!

― Oh No It's Dadaismus! (Dada), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:26 (nineteen years ago)

the REAL question is when dommy 'nu-petridis' p gets his scarfy byline pic.

xpost

dada. posh birds. think about it.

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:26 (nineteen years ago)

Mmmmmm, posh birds. Also, her face is delightfully pointy. I like that in a face.

― No Suntan, No Credibility (noodle vague), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:27 (nineteen years ago)

I like posh birds. And I like funny noses. But I just don't like her.

― Oh No It's Dadaismus! (Dada), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:29 (nineteen years ago)

She does resemble something from a pop-up book, yeah. Maybe that's what PIERS MORGAN sees in her.

― Sadly, he will be the next Alexis Petridish. (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:31 (nineteen years ago)

[iirc alba says MH is *even hotter* IRL]

!!!

hadley freeman's ok.

― The Lex (The Lex), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:32 (nineteen years ago)

nude spock to thread

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2006/010406charliesheen.htm (scroll down a bit)

― The Real DG (D to thee G), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:33 (nineteen years ago)

Ah Piers Morgan!!!!!! I was trying to think who it was. At first I thought it might be Boris Johnson but Piers Morgan is a millions times worse

― Oh No It's Dadaismus! (Dada), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:34 (nineteen years ago)

i used to crush on andrew rawnsley but he has got paunchy and his columns are far less interesting than they were in his prime

You mean when he was a daytime tv game show presenter?

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 12:56 (nineteen years ago)

?????????????

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:26 (nineteen years ago)

i've begun to feel sorry for guardian journos since they started that comment is free thing, i mean one of them has to be first with the whisky and valium

― The Real DG (D to thee G), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 13:53 (nineteen years ago)

Feeling sorry for journalists? Sorry, does not compute.

― Oh No It's Dadaismus! (Dada), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

that's how bad it is

― The Real DG (D to thee G), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:15 (nineteen years ago)

Do you not remember Andrew Rawnsley's daytime telly game-show presenting days, Marcello?

He was, to be fair, bloody awful at it - completely wooden - and didn't last very long.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:17 (nineteen years ago)

how on earth did he end up doing that?

i feel a bit sorry for rawnsley and jackie ashley.

when the labour succession battle is done, what can they possibly writr about?

― EARLY-90S MAN (Enrique), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:18 (nineteen years ago)

Rawnsley has an incredibly punchable mugshot in the paper. In real life he seems as smug and self-satisfied as he comes across.

― Dave B (daveb), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:20 (nineteen years ago)

when IS the Graun website going to change their graphics to match the redesigned paper?

― Konal Doddz (blueski), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:46 (nineteen years ago)

You sure you're not mixing up Rawnsley with another game-show Andrew, FP?

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:52 (nineteen years ago)

Nope. First series of Today's The Day, in about 1995 or so.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Wednesday, 20 September 2006 14:53 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...
oh what the fuck.

plank guardian becoming lame video blog.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

As if we didn't already know...

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 31 October 2006 14:34 (nineteen years ago)

is it me or did the guardian make up half of those dinosaurs?

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Monday, 6 November 2006 10:39 (nineteen years ago)

I bet you stuck them all over your kagoule.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 6 November 2006 10:56 (nineteen years ago)

I'm taking mine to the charity shop along with a big pile of world cup swopsies.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Monday, 6 November 2006 19:21 (nineteen years ago)

They definately made up most of the cheeses on the cheese wallchart.

― chap who would dare to welcome our new stingray masters (chap), Monday, 6 November 2006 19:25 (nineteen years ago)

what's the tenniel illustration that steve bell quotes from today?

oh, here: http://www.historytoday.com/digimaker/pictures/CC-Tenniel-Pilot_vLhSIWot.jpg

and more stickers for my kagoule this weekend too.

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:09 (nineteen years ago)

i don't understan the new semi-blog format. where is the old 'friday review'?

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:11 (nineteen years ago)

so i can check up on dubstep warrior man like alex macpherson.

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:12 (nineteen years ago)

NME Exodus 2006:

First, Malik Meer is the new editor of The Guardian Guide

now, Alex Needham joins Guardian Unlimited's new Arts And Entertainment website as deputy editor
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/article/091106/needham_joins_guardian_website

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:14 (nineteen years ago)

Friday review:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/filmandmusic/

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:15 (nineteen years ago)

it's a bit like an exodus, only with people applying for new jobs within the media and not staying for their working lives in one place. other than that, just like an exodus.

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

There is also a new Guardian music portal
http://music.guardian.co.uk/

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:16 (nineteen years ago)

When will Conor McNicholas leave? it must be rather strange for a 30something bloke to format rubbish aimed at 17 year olds

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:19 (nineteen years ago)

wasn't logan older than that when he was running things?

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:21 (nineteen years ago)

i just received this in my email box:

is this the lex the guest editor?

Observer Music Monthly - The Gay Issue, free with The Observer this Sunday

http://f.chtah.com/i/43/393014865/omm_nov06_head.jpg

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:24 (nineteen years ago)

lex is gay, i think, so yeah, he probably guest edited. i mean how many gays can there be?

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:25 (nineteen years ago)

(omm is always hella gay anyway wtf)

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:26 (nineteen years ago)

isn't that well known gay elton john, on a well known gay background, pink.

― Ronan (Ronan), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:27 (nineteen years ago)

in 4 weeks time it will be the december issue, therefore we can expect the top 100 albums of 2006

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:28 (nineteen years ago)

i should coco.

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:29 (nineteen years ago)

unless they do a gay-themed top 100, of course. can you imagine?

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:30 (nineteen years ago)

I'm hoping for Corinne Bailey Rae interviewing The Game for their upcoming "negro" issue.

― dommy p is alright WHICH IS A LOT MORE THAN I CAN SAY ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE (Dom, Friday, 10 November 2006 10:37 (nineteen years ago)

i saw the ad for the gay issue yesterday and was slightly taken aback! i think the only way it can redeem itself is if there are naked pictures of justin t and usher gaying up inside

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:41 (nineteen years ago)

you don't have to be a chap to be gay.

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:43 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, because lesbians are known for making great music.

― dommy p is alright WHICH IS A LOT MORE THAN I CAN SAY ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE (Dom, Friday, 10 November 2006 10:45 (nineteen years ago)

compared to the scissor sisters and elton john?!

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:47 (nineteen years ago)

ani difranco, kd lang, meshell ndegéocello and missy elliott are all great!

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:48 (nineteen years ago)

amusing not actually lesbian but y know could be, female singer songwriter dot jpeg

x post

― pscott (elwisty), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:48 (nineteen years ago)

elton john is not great

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:48 (nineteen years ago)

The Lex is gay?

― Dadaismus (Takin' Funk to Heaven in '77) (Dada), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:49 (nineteen years ago)

the lex is great

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:49 (nineteen years ago)

leave it to Rufus:

RUFUS WAINWRIGHT'S ULTIMATE GAY ICONS
Flamboyant crooner Rufus Wainwright tells us about his ten greatest musical gay icons: from Judy Garland ('a gay saint') to Kylie ('the anti-Madonna') and Barbra Streisand ('Ugh, Barbra!').

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:50 (nineteen years ago)

amusing not actually lesbian but y know could be, female singer songwriter dot jpeg
x post

-- pscott (kowalski9...), November 10th, 2006.

otm

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:50 (nineteen years ago)

Rubbish Wainwright morelike, amirite?

― dommy p is alright WHICH IS A LOT MORE THAN I CAN SAY ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE (Dom, Friday, 10 November 2006 10:52 (nineteen years ago)

Who is this Dot Jpeg?

― NickB (NickB), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:52 (nineteen years ago)

Dorothy J. Pegg to you

― Dadaismus (Takin' Funk to Heaven in '77) (Dada), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:53 (nineteen years ago)

laptop idm

xpost

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:54 (nineteen years ago)

rufus wainwright is great! how can anyone not think this. especially if they like will young.

― The Lex (The Lex), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:54 (nineteen years ago)

Did this thread actually make any sense at some point?

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 10 November 2006 10:59 (nineteen years ago)

i don't know but here's a quality photoshop job on star writer lucy mangan:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2006/11/10/lucy_mangan_wide.jpg

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 10 November 2006 11:00 (nineteen years ago)

Roffles

― Dadaismus (Takin' Funk to Heaven in '77) (Dada), Friday, 10 November 2006 11:01 (nineteen years ago)

Martha > Rufus, tho that may not be saying much

Missy is gay?

― 2 american 4 u (blueski), Friday, 10 November 2006 11:10 (nineteen years ago)

Loudon III >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Rufus+Martha

― Dadaismus (Takin' Funk to Heaven in '77) (Dada), Friday, 10 November 2006 11:25 (nineteen years ago)

Missy is gay?

Damned if I know but her wikipedia entry is deeply weird:

"After leaving Swing Mob, Elliott and mr meaty made a top song called suck it. later on missy elliot found out she was a guy and became manly. She finally got plastic sugery and became a woman"

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 10 November 2006 11:32 (nineteen years ago)

"She had a long lost brother named Chico heliey Elliot. They met at a mcdonalds in indianapolis. They found out they were bro + sis when they began talking about relitives and what happened to Chico as a young child."

"All 100-plus members of the Swing Mob, among them future stars such as Ginuwine, Playa, and Tweet, lived in a single two-story house in New York"

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 10 November 2006 11:32 (nineteen years ago)

My friend calls me Rufus after Rufus W. I don't know why.

― Raw Patrick (Raw Patrick), Friday, 10 November 2006 11:35 (nineteen years ago)

They definately made up most of the cheeses on the cheese wallchart.

And I missed this? How?

― Anna (Anna), Friday, 10 November 2006 12:03 (nineteen years ago)

Mangan is so abysmal. It's written all over her face.

Ditto the even worse Wollaston, to type whose mere name is torture.

Barton has delusions of worth and wisdom also.

― the pinefox (the pinefox), Friday, 10 November 2006 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

"Mangan is so abysmal" careful of the wrath of N.

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Friday, 10 November 2006 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

PF will we be seeing you at Poptimism tonight. There will be proper tunes and all.

― Tom (Groke), Friday, 10 November 2006 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

No - I would like to attend, but cannot. I am sorry about this, for it is not often that anyone expresses keenness (if that was keenness) for me to be somewhere.

― the pinefox (the pinefox), Friday, 10 November 2006 19:20 (nineteen years ago)

wildlife stickers today

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Saturday, 11 November 2006 15:14 (nineteen years ago)

I got the sodding Times magazine "bag" tucked inside my Guardian, so no stickers :-( and no groovy young person´s Guide.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Saturday, 11 November 2006 18:14 (nineteen years ago)

yr guardian guide summary for you:

lost: there are some kerazy theories on the internet, here are some
film stars: some are shit. (thanks queenan, hadn't noticed)
film listings: here are some error strewn times for films on near you
another long blondes puff piece! (see many other newspapers/mags)
brooker covers the bbc4 sci fi series to no effect other than to recommend it

oh and peter robinson makes the valid point that "best of"s are better than studio albums BY DEFINITION. but he gets paid for it, so good for him

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Saturday, 11 November 2006 23:26 (nineteen years ago)

Thanks, that makes me feel better.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 13 November 2006 08:24 (nineteen years ago)

My copy of the sat. guardian came without the Books section :-0 I wasn't so bothered about not getting the Family section AKA 'one for the ladies that isn't the magazine', although C usually reads it.

― alext (alext), Monday, 13 November 2006 09:45 (nineteen years ago)

What does C stand for?

― Gatinha (rwillmsen), Monday, 13 November 2006 09:46 (nineteen years ago)

Guardian obviously trying to tap in to the lucrative sheep-fancying market with today's wallchart.

― NickB (NickB), Monday, 13 November 2006 09:46 (nineteen years ago)

My copy of the special gay issue of the Observer Music Monthly was missing fully 2/3 of its gayness :(:(:(

― Tom (Groke), Monday, 13 November 2006 09:48 (nineteen years ago)

wave after wave of awful jokes about putting newspaper in closet, tormenting me...

― Ronan (Ronan), Monday, 13 November 2006 12:03 (nineteen years ago)

"Mangan is so abysmal" careful of the wrath of N.

Am I supposed to stand up for her? She is kind of ridiculous. I liked the first column I ever read by her, because it seemed refreshingly frumpy at the time, but the schtick wore thin pretty quickly. Never knock Laura Barton though. Just never. I liked her thing about dancing, last Friday.

It seems a little weird and desperate that Charlie Brooker has had tvgohome revived to fill out his page.

The Guardian today had a bar chart boasting about how many 15-34 year olds read it in its print or online guise, compared with its rivals. But I think it backfired a bit, because I imagined that, when online was taken into account, it was much further ahead of them than it actually was. Young people are reading The Times! Anyway, it was nice that I slipped into the prized "young reader" age bracket. Thank you, market research person.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 01:05 (nineteen years ago)

The Guardian is just as bad as the Daily Mail for political bias. i.e the opposite but still reactionary.

― Darramouss (Denton Price), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 01:09 (nineteen years ago)

INSIGHT~!

― dommy p is alright WHICH IS A LOT MORE THAN I CAN SAY ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE (Dom, Tuesday, 14 November 2006 07:19 (nineteen years ago)

My colleague Big Dave wants to stick the Sheep wallchart up on the wall of our office.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 08:09 (nineteen years ago)

Never knock Laura Barton though. Just never.

WAHT?

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 09:34 (nineteen years ago)

The Guardian is just as bad as the Daily Mail for political bias. i.e the opposite

opposite? er

― -- (688), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 09:35 (nineteen years ago)

I did allow myself a little chuckle at the two mistakes in the 'In Praise Of Sub-Editors' article in yesterday's MediaGuardian.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 09:58 (nineteen years ago)

I don't know that I find Mangan's schtick wearing thin, I find her rather endearing. Laura Barton's thing about dancing was indeed good.

― Matt (Matt), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:36 (nineteen years ago)

g2 is so much like a student paper it's untrue, only the writers don't move on after a couple of terms.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:38 (nineteen years ago)

Actually I'm not sure that schtick is even the right word, it presumes she's putting it on. That thing about kids books may have been too twee for words, but it was heartfelt.

x-post

― Matt (Matt), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:39 (nineteen years ago)

in other words i don't entirely blame them for being shit -- anyone would have trouble filling that much space.

xpost

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 10:41 (nineteen years ago)

oops. i recalled you crushing on her at some point, N. maybe it was Barton.

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 11:46 (nineteen years ago)

I did allow myself a little chuckle at the two mistakes in the 'In Praise Of Sub-Editors' article in yesterday's MediaGuardian.

o, i missed this. can you post a link to save me searching? :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 12:27 (nineteen years ago)

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1946086,00.html

You'll probably need to log in to read it.

― ailsa (ailsa), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 12:32 (nineteen years ago)

http://media.guardian.co.uk/mediaguardian/story/0,,1946086,00.html

what did yr last slave die of?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 12:33 (nineteen years ago)

I think the big, funny mistake I spotted has been fixed for the online version.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 12:50 (nineteen years ago)

what did yr last slave die of?

a savage beating after they didn't send me a link :) :)

thank you both.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 13:58 (nineteen years ago)

that's a good piece. i like it.

doesn't make me feel any brighter about my journalistic future, or the future of newspapers in general. but, to be honest, i don't give a fuck any more, and i'm happy that way :)

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 14:02 (nineteen years ago)

Oddly I read that piece also. I never imagined it would be discussed the next day.

So, N. and I can agree that Mangan is appalling. That's a start. And Benrique agrees also. OK.

Now, Barton. An odd thing is that for years, when I saw that quiz that she had set at the back of G2, I imagined N. having a crush on her, because he worked at the Guardian or something. And now, that she has moved on to write her own columns etc, it emerges that he does.

I am largely in sympathy with Benrique about Barton, and N's 'Never'ism seems bonkers. Here are two things I don't like about Barton. No, THREE things.

1. She has captured a schtick, a post, that was apparently vacant: Guardian-writer-chick-that-likes-rock-and-gets to show-off-about-it. Her new column of course demonstrates this. But so did her long self-indulgent article about going to rock school, a few months (?) ago. Now that she has captured this post, she needn't, won't, let it go, despite not being very good at it.

2. Her article about dancing was not good - it was mediocre filler; like a kind of ... secondary school Freaky Trigger, maybe, but not as good as that sounds. Basically she is very naive as a writer, she hasn't read enough to realize that she is not the first person to try to do this.

3. Her first column, though - oh, dear, the opening. It started with this woeful intro: 'When the time comes, I like to think I'll be ready'. Now, the reader may assume she means: 'when I die'. But Barton didn't specify this, because she was writing lazily, didn't quite know what she meant. For one thing she didn't register the fact that as she is young, her time to die (unless it comes suddenly, and can't be prepared for) is a long way off - so the details from now are not very relevant. Worse, she said that she would leave things to her mother. Her mother! Laura Barton thinks that when she dies a natural death, in about 60 years' time, her mother will still be around to bequeath things to! Then she said 'the one thing I haven't decided on is the song that articulates my perspective on life'. But why decide? It won't matter when you're dead. It's not as though she was specifying that it was to be played at the funeral. The general point is, SHE WASN'T THINKING.

Here is the paragraph, if you want to check:

When the time comes, I like to think I will be ready. My affairs have been set in order: papers shuffled, numbered and filed away in plain manila folders, will and testament signed and dated, desert island discs selected. My neckerchief collection I bequeath to my beloved cat, my rollerskates to my mother, my luxury item - should the occasion have arisen - would have been an avocado. But there is still one thought that wriggles and jiggles and tiggles inside me like a recently swallowed fly: I must choose a song that encapsulates my perspective on life.

(http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/comment/story/0,,1932202,00.html)

Golly, it makes me so ANGRY, the vapidity and lazy thoughtlessness of it.

― the pinefox (the pinefox), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 15:19 (nineteen years ago)

Well, that's really depressed me, PF.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

"desert island discs selected"

i think she misunderstands the premiss of this programme, on a quite fundamental level.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 15:23 (nineteen years ago)

All these writers specialise in the "journalist as star" style, in which the journo goes out & does something purely in order to have something to write about. This is beloved of student newspaper types, who usually do something terribly edgy like spend all night in a 24 hour supermarket.

It's also relied on heavily by the London Evening Standard ('This season's hottest item on the catwalk is the white linen suit, but how practical are they in a busy day in London? Our correspondent Nick Twatt finds out')

There seem to be 2 or 3 articles of this type in G2 each week these days.

― bham (bham), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 17:04 (nineteen years ago)

I don't understand the above. I was always taught (as old as this may make me sound) that you remove the "I" from writing as much as possible.

Now that's not to say some pieces can't be personal, but it takes a special kind of writer.

There's a horrible centrism about the "I'm trying this out!" piece.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 17:22 (nineteen years ago)

i hate it when stuff is dismissed as lazy. (please don't take this as specifically having a go at you PF, this is something that's been bugging me for ages.) it's a clear winner, ahead of even "smug" in 2nd place, for annoying crit. i think it's the implicit "end of/need i say more" ness of it, which is in itself lazy, so how is that a criticism, bounce back.

i'd say it's about 60% irrational though on my part.

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

the worst is stuff dismissed as "boring", IMO. "boring"=boring criticism.

― Ronan (Ronan), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 17:39 (nineteen years ago)

I think the laziness is setting the piece up both as a "the song they will play at my funeral" story, the decision behind which was "a complex process of distillation," and then forgetting, or not being arsed, to mention either of these things ever again.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 17:45 (nineteen years ago)

I expect the sub mucked it up.

― Alba (Alba), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 17:59 (nineteen years ago)

I think Barton is lazy, and Hand aptly points to one example of it; so I think it's OK to say that she's lazy. If you prefer: she's slapdash, she doesn't think, she doesn't treat her words as precious things to be considered and arranged - she doesn't think it's a privilege to be writing at such length in the Guardian; she acts like it's something you knock off at the start of the tea-break; she doesn't seem to be trying to improve... these are all examples, I think, of what I mean in saying that she is lazy.

― the pinefox (the pinefox), Tuesday, 14 November 2006 21:22 (nineteen years ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1947977,00.html

i found this very enjoyable. no idea what they're on about, but great fun.

― benrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 10:09 (nineteen years ago)

Monckton's a dipshizzle. The Medieval Warm Period was a regional phenomenon related to changes in the Gulf Stream and chuff all to do w/global warming or CO2 levels. Moonbat's right, newspapers shouldn't be giving vast amounts of space to pseudoscientific nonsense like that. Besides, don't they know they could be printing wallcharts of farm animals instead?

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 11:21 (nineteen years ago)

he can write funnier than that awful monbiot, though he may well be talking complete moonshine. i am unlettered in sciences.

― benrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 11:25 (nineteen years ago)

The paper, they make clear, is theirs, with reporters there merely to provide the raw material from which they fashion, each night, journalistic magic.

O. T. F. M.

― stet (stet), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 12:01 (nineteen years ago)

Monckton is the toff tory journo who invented some 'fiendish' puzzle and offered a million quid to any genius who cld crack it. Abt a week later two Cambridge scientists did just that and Monckton had to sell his house to pay up.

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 14:10 (nineteen years ago)

What a good egg. I would have made up some excuse. Actually, I wouldn't have offered anyone a million quid in the first place.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 14:12 (nineteen years ago)

hahaha brilliant.

(monbiot is a tory toff too though remember.)

― benrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

wiki wiki wiki:
"In 1999, he created the eternity puzzle, a large dodecagon-shaped boardgame with 209 smaller irregularly shaped polygons. Offering a £1m prize and expecting the puzzle to be solved a few years later (when, hopefully, enough revenue from sales would have been raised), it was solved within 18 months by mathematicians Alex Selby and Oliver Riordan. Although pleased the puzzle had been solved, Monckton was said to have been compelled to sell his £1.5m home, Crimonmogate, in Aberdeenshire, in June 2001, to cover the payout. However, the prize was in fact met by a combination of royalties and prize-indemnity insurance. The 36 room mansion was in the end sold and Monckton and his wife moved to a small estate on the banks of Loch Rannoch which they have painstakingly restored. A second puzzle, ETERNITY II, will be launched in 2007 with a $2 million prize for the first solver."

the insurance thing is pretty standard for this kind of stuff. crisp packet promos etc.

first java applet i wrote solved the smallest of those puzzles. solved it in about a dozen different ways as it happens. the big one reminds me of penrose's non-repeating plane-filling tiles...

http://www.mathpuzzle.com/eternity.html
http://www.uwgb.edu/DutchS/symmetry/penrose.htm

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 14:25 (nineteen years ago)

calls to mind the "wang's carpets" section of Diaspora by greg egan

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 14:35 (nineteen years ago)

Eternity II? Now even more infinite I suppose.

― NickB (NickB), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 14:54 (nineteen years ago)

How is Monbiot a Tory? (... Apart from the fact that he appeared at their conference - a defensible move, I think.)

― the pinefox (the pinefox), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 14:56 (nineteen years ago)

because he appeared at their conference - an indefensible move, i think.

― benrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 14:59 (nineteen years ago)

TS: preaching to the converted v. being challenged by a newish audience - at least the ones without WIND FARMS.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 15:22 (nineteen years ago)

I find it a dodgy thing for anyone to do, goodness knows - but surely the point of Monbiot's action was to try to broaden the field of people for whom environmentalism was normal / normative - to try to create a consensus around these ideas - and also by extension to put pressure on other parties, esp. Labour, to be at least as progressive as the Tories. I think Monbiot thinks that env. issues are more important than any other, and I agree with him.

― the pinefox (the pinefox), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 17:15 (nineteen years ago)

(x-post)

That's Koogywang!

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 17:18 (nineteen years ago)

oh i'm sorry my story abt monckton's puzzle wasn't strictly 'accurate'. I think i got it from private eye

― Ward Fowler (Ward Fowler), Wednesday, 15 November 2006 17:35 (nineteen years ago)

"she acts like it's something you knock off at the start of the tea-break"

like Zoe Williams, whose pieces read like she was woken a 3am by a frantic editor & ordered to compose a column off the top of her head, NOW!

― bham (bham), Thursday, 16 November 2006 09:03 (nineteen years ago)

Monckton's wikipedia page also mentions him being a policy advisor to The Thatch and also him saying that all hiv people should be quarantined. nice bloke, obv.

i remember the monckton puzzle thing being on The Big Breakfast at the time both him and, later, the solvers. i kinda miss the BB.

penrose famously sued Kleenex for using his tile designs on their toilet rolls.

(sorry ward, that was meant as more detail rather than a correction)

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Thursday, 16 November 2006 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

i like the pinefox's point.

i kinda miss the BB

Evans/Roslin phase or Vaughan/Van Outen phase? Or indeed, Little/Ball phase??

― 2 american 4 u (blueski), Thursday, 16 November 2006 11:20 (nineteen years ago)

probably the first two. i remember carlos esquerra being on to promote the dredd movie. oh, Vaughan / Tarbuck phase, def. ben the boffin phase (j/k). zig and zag phase.

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Thursday, 16 November 2006 11:53 (nineteen years ago)

"whose pieces read like she was woken a 3am by a frantic editor & ordered to compose a column off the top of her head, NOW!"

this is how i always assume such columns are actually written

― Britain's Obtusest Shepherd (Alan), Thursday, 16 November 2006 12:04 (nineteen years ago)

I blame ILX.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 16 November 2006 12:14 (nineteen years ago)

Surely the tea break thing is the desired effect.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Thursday, 16 November 2006 13:18 (nineteen years ago)

Chickens!

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Thursday, 16 November 2006 13:42 (nineteen years ago)

what's ben the boffin up to these days?

― 2 american 4 u (blueski), Thursday, 16 November 2006 13:45 (nineteen years ago)

The following correction was made to the article below on Friday November 17 2006

Barbara Cartland was mistakenly included in our catalogue of inspiring women for having fought for decent pensions. We meant Barbara Castle, the former Labour cabinet minister and MP for Blackburn who later became Baroness Castle, and who campaigned on pensions and equal pay until her death at the age of 91 in 2002, as a subsequent contribution pointed out. Barbara Cartland was famous for her romantic novels, which she wrote until her 90s, and her signature pink outfits.

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 17 November 2006 11:18 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, laugh it off. fucking hell.

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 17 November 2006 11:18 (nineteen years ago)

GRIMLY FIENDISH IN NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT JOURNALISM BUT PRAISING IT SHOCKAH:

jon savage's joe meek/homosexuality in the sixties piece in the OMM gay issue last sunday was brilliant. that said, it was an edited version something he wrote for "black clock" (which, wonderfully, i originally misread as "black cock".)

here is a link.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Friday, 17 November 2006 14:16 (nineteen years ago)

I was thinking about Mangan and how I avoid her column purely because of her lumpy portrait, and then I realised I don't read any article accompanied by a photo (or yellow cartoon image) of the writer.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Friday, 17 November 2006 14:29 (nineteen years ago)

big picture of amazon warehouse in the guardian on saturday (middle pages of main section). look closely and one of the employees appears to be dressed as a pirate.

plus what was that car sticker all about? wasn't even recyclable.

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Monday, 20 November 2006 15:08 (nineteen years ago)

I realised I don't read any article accompanied by a photo (or yellow cartoon image) of the writer.
I had a huge fight with a former editor about this. I hate seeing those pictures, just like I hate accidentally seeing the author portrait at the back of a book.

― stet (stet), Monday, 20 November 2006 15:12 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, I liked that Amazon picture, but I didn't spot the pirate.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Monday, 20 November 2006 15:25 (nineteen years ago)

oops i always got castle and cartland mixed up. castle kinda gave me a job, in a way.

but i guess im not a national newspaper tho

― ambrose (ambrose), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 00:25 (nineteen years ago)

Am I wrong to be sometimes amused by Tim Dowling, despite his insistence of having a picture of his weird fishface printed somewhere near every article he writes?

― chap who would dare to welcome our new stingray masters (chap), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 00:36 (nineteen years ago)

what struck me about the amazon warehouse picture is how much space they weren't using - like the top 80% of the building. but i guess you pay for square footage not cubic feet (don't you?) so unless you've got a, i dunno, airship or something, that space is always going to be wasted.

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 09:33 (nineteen years ago)

might be health and safety issues?

is it in an ex-airship hangar?

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 09:57 (nineteen years ago)

i guess you pay for square footage not cubic feet (don't you?)

Normally, yes.

― Forest Pines (ForestPines), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:03 (nineteen years ago)

um, marston gate, milton keynes:
http://stroke.blog.co.uk/2006/11/19/amazon_warehouse_in_milton_keynes~1343002
which looks like the photo, taken from the other end.

architects:
http://www.burksgreen.com/default.asp?mainSectionID=3&nodeID=131&parentID=121

appears to be a new build rather than an old hanger.

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=marston+bedfordshire&ie=UTF8&z=15&ll=52.029446,-0.592446&spn=0.014918,0.054245&t=h&om=1

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:36 (nineteen years ago)

it does indeed. my dad always points out airship hangars when we drive through that area, or such is my recollection.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:39 (nineteen years ago)

tHE PILES MAY GET BIGGER AS THE FESTIVE SEASON APPROACHES.

whoops caps lock

Nearly all the columns have little pictures now (excpet Roy Hattersley). I read a learned column about economics yesterday, took me back to O level days, it did, and that came with a little picture too. I don't mind the little pictures. I suppose they make people feel more "on board" or something.

I like the little picture of the Blue Meanie lookalike who does the pop music bits in The Independent best. If it wasn't for the picture, i wouldn't know it was him.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 10:43 (nineteen years ago)

(the piles are always gonna be limited by how far a forklift can reach.)

― Koogy Yonderboy (koogs), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 11:31 (nineteen years ago)

Ew.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 11:33 (nineteen years ago)

Haven't they heard of a mezzanine, but?

― Mädchen (Madchen), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 11:35 (nineteen years ago)

You've got an answer for everything, Koogy-Woogy Bugle Boy.

― PJ Miller (PJ Miller 68), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 11:38 (nineteen years ago)

i'm sure there are other depots w. higher stacks. they cd use cranes.

― benrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 11:44 (nineteen years ago)

PJM, I am going to read that economic article also!

Don't mention HEALTH & SAFETY with Simon Jenkins in the vicinity!

Yesterday's letter column featured a whole load of indignant people showing why he was wrong to criticize H&S policy.

Hey, Madchen: you are so correct about that lumpy portrait. Mangan took her career further downhill yesterday with a stupid response to C4's HOW MUSIC WORKS. But get this: I think I saw Mangan, on Saturday! At a book sale. The lumpy misshapen face could be no-one else, I felt. She was wearing big glasses and, let's say, an oatmeal cardigan, and was very small. She seemed to notice me recognizing her. She bought a VAST BOX WORTH of books, including guides to travel in Norfolk, etc.

Then I went up London, and, walking past Hamley's, I went past ... HOWARD JACOBSON, talking loudly to his partner.

How about Zoe Williams' guide to vegetables?

― the pinefox (the pinefox), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 12:44 (nineteen years ago)

That mangled Mangan piece is a disgrace. Still, well done Lucy for perpetuating the myth of women as scatterbrained fluffy idiots whose candyfloss minds can't absorb anything beyond Bridget Jones' Diary!

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 13:39 (nineteen years ago)

Agreed.

― the pinefox (the pinefox), Tuesday, 21 November 2006 16:36 (nineteen years ago)

Toynbee haters must feel vindicated today.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 22 November 2006 12:42 (nineteen years ago)

utterly baffling, though. where are all these "churchillians"? is it just code for "thatcherite"? (or course at one stage in his career el church was advocating a statist model even poll's beloved swedes would consider a bit much.)

― benrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 22 November 2006 12:46 (nineteen years ago)

Still, well done Lucy for perpetuating the myth of women as scatterbrained fluffy idiots whose candyfloss minds can't absorb anything beyond Bridget Jones' Diary!

A few days later she had a small column criticising Sex And the City for perpetuating the same myth (which I would agree with, but OH THE IRONY).

― chap who would dare to welcome our new stingray masters (chap), Wednesday, 22 November 2006 12:47 (nineteen years ago)

It's interesting to find out that she's a bit short, PF. I think her lumpy portrait is shot from too high a point. If the camera was looking up at her it'd be more flattering, I think.

― Mädchen (Madchen), Wednesday, 22 November 2006 13:40 (nineteen years ago)

Myspace angles will save the Guradian.

― dommy p is alright WHICH IS A LOT MORE THAN I CAN SAY ABOUT A LOT OF PEOPLE (Dom, Wednesday, 22 November 2006 13:43 (nineteen years ago)

myspace angles, or endless gps stories...

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1954143,00.html

― Ronan (Ronan), Thursday, 23 November 2006 09:29 (nineteen years ago)

Nice article, Ronan. I noticed it this morning on the tube. It was one of those "wha-HUH?!" moments. The art dept. came up with a really nice big illustration for it!

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 23 November 2006 10:18 (nineteen years ago)

There's a genius question in the technology bit today:

"What is a megapixel?"

― My Koogy Weighs A Ton (koogs), Thursday, 23 November 2006 11:21 (nineteen years ago)

Nice one Ronan.

― Kv_nol (Kv_nol), Thursday, 23 November 2006 13:41 (nineteen years ago)

Do those free podcast thingies work? I tried to listen to Ricky Gervais Thanksgiving one like five times today in order to take my mind off impending dinner doom, but it kept copping out.

― Mary (Mary), Thursday, 23 November 2006 20:34 (nineteen years ago)

Haven't they heard of a mezzanine, but?

Ending a sentence with a random "but" = Madchen has officially ARRIVED in Glasgow now. Nearly five years and you have actually turned into one of them (I was going to say us, but, no, it's definitely them).

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 23 November 2006 20:39 (nineteen years ago)

next thing you know she'll be having her tea on the bench

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 23 November 2006 21:06 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...
Wtf? http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1992062,00.html

― leigh (leigh), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:15 (nineteen years ago)

Hitler > Zoe Williams

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:25 (nineteen years ago)

note that zoe williams is thin!

i also have no idea why otherwise intelligent women fixate on their weight but to be honest i think it is women's magazines who fixate on weight more than actual women, certainly none of the women i know have ever said "does my bum look big in this?"

― lex pretend (lex pretend), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:26 (nineteen years ago)

But as the comments to that piece work out, if Zoe Williams bothered to read India Night's book before Clive James told her that she was two weeks overdue on her rent and she better buck her ideas up she wrote this piece, she'd understand it's not a silly little "how to squeeze into a size 0 to please your man" book, it's about how to go from being morbidly, I-am-about-to-drop-dead-next-week obese to a manageable size.

― Dom Passantino (Dom Passantino), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:28 (nineteen years ago)

That esteemed highbrow commentator Zoe Williams.

There was a great condensed one-minute-read version/pisstake of the Knight book which I think was in the Grauniad over Xmas but I can't find it online.

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:29 (nineteen years ago)

I read the Williams article today on the tube. (They actually printed it!) What self-parody. "To pre-empt the charge that I'm always embracing/banging on about low culture, some of it is worth interrogating! Well, let's leave that for another day." Whoa, easy, now, cowgirl. I think you just head-faked yourself off a cliff.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:32 (nineteen years ago)

Zoe Williams in general: "They actually printed it!"

― Marcello Carlin (nostudium), Wednesday, 17 January 2007 11:35 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...
it's been a long time, i shouldn'ta left you without a link to a terrible article i haven't even read all of from the guardian to step to

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/music/2007/03/is_it_a_mans_mans_mans_world_1.html

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:39 (nineteen years ago)

Lex is ghostwriting at the Graun as well now?

― Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:44 (nineteen years ago)

boom!

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:44 (nineteen years ago)

where else he ghostwriting (with tha whip)?

― That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

I've decided they publish these people just to make Polly Toynbee look like Foucault.

― Noodle Vague, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:45 (nineteen years ago)

Horse and Hound, Rock Sound, Fighting Spirit, one of those tattoo magazines that always seem to be in demand for some reason, Games TM.

― Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:46 (nineteen years ago)

fergie doesn't sing the (brilliant) milky milky cocoa puff line!!! that's will.i.am

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:54 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...
Roffle at final para

― braveclub, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:35 (eighteen years ago)

Tim Worstall you pendant, what on earth is your life and view of the world?

ha ha 'pendant' - deliberate?

i agree with much of what she says oh noes

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:38 (eighteen years ago)

that's from a year ago btw

― Alan, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:41 (eighteen years ago)

i agree with a lot of what she sez there too. the commenting on FT, especially on I Hate Music, seems miserably misogynist.

― Alan, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:42 (eighteen years ago)

but often oh so rofflesome

comment is and should be free, but perhaps it shouldn't be so easy to do. more effort required in commenting should force people to think about what they're saying more. how to do establish that i'm not sure as it seems retro-active but filtering is the most urgent and key issue in web2world imo. comment can still be free but also moderated too i guess. at the least i think they need a comment 'recommendations/helpfulness' rating system for users. but then i'd probably advocate that for ILX too so...

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:45 (eighteen years ago)

FACIST

― CharlieNo4, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:49 (eighteen years ago)

i don't agree with her because she is polly toynbee and an apologist for somewhat worse things than internets incivility. didn't read it.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:50 (eighteen years ago)

i don't agree with her
didn't read it.

uh huh

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:53 (eighteen years ago)

i haven't read MEIN KAMPF either

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:54 (eighteen years ago)

a Godwinner is u

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 14:54 (eighteen years ago)

She's OTM about the misogyny. It's like it adds this little extra kick of viciousness, not just that they disagree with the columnist but that the columnist is female.

In my limited experience (well, from hearing recent reactions to female journos I know) the extra kick of viciousness seems to transcend gender lines in the attacker. Women can be just as bad to other women as men can be.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:05 (eighteen years ago)

It's Polly Toynbee tho. Civility is all very nice but why is it so often people who want all sorts of uncivil stuff done to their opponents who whine about "good manners"?

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:12 (eighteen years ago)

Can you not weigh a statement based on the validity of the statement, rather than who is saying it?

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:14 (eighteen years ago)

it makes a difference who's saying it.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:17 (eighteen years ago)

xpost

Because the speaker might have a hidden agenda, or be disingenuous, or plain old hypocritical?

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:18 (eighteen years ago)

even then what can you say? "people should be nicer to each other"? it's not like i don't 8080 that as a general proposition. but i'm not going to be nice to people like polly toynbee.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:18 (eighteen years ago)

Myra Hindley said people should be kinder to animals.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:19 (eighteen years ago)

the hidden agenda here is probably something like: ppl should be deferential to the likes of me and my good friends in the government.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:19 (eighteen years ago)

The Times runs articles about how terrible the TV licence fee is.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:19 (eighteen years ago)

On what do you make these judgements about the character of the person saying it?

And can a person not be wrong about one thing, and right about something else?

(Yes, I have a hidden agenda in asking this question - because so much discourse on ILX is stilted or sabotagued by these kinds of assumptions.)

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:20 (eighteen years ago)

x-post surely there's a difference between "being deferential" and "not wishing cancer on strangers you've never met?"

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

People who have done bad things have made good points about stuff now and then. AMAZING.

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:21 (eighteen years ago)

Mussolini made the trains run on time.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:22 (eighteen years ago)

Kublai Khan once climbed up a tree to retrieve his neighbour's cat.

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:24 (eighteen years ago)

OK, that's just blown my argument out of the water. I've never seen a sensible or considerate thing come out of that particular poster's keyboard, so I don't belive there could ever be one. I guess I could see the same thing applied to a journo.

I would still never wish death on anyone, though, no matter how much I disagreed with what they said.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:27 (eighteen years ago)

As the vaguest of generalisations and dreading the ensuing shitstorm: maybe manners mean more to those in positions of power, who have no fear of being actually thwarted but don't want to be made to feel bad about themselves. Whereas rudeness is often one of the only weapons of the poor saps who feel powerless all the time.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

Why the Polly hate? Only time I've met her she was very nice.

― Ned Trifle II, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:29 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that - why is there so much random misogyny against women with almost no power, then? From saps who feel powerless against women? Well, that might explain the Dom Passantinos of the world, but are there that many of them out there?

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:30 (eighteen years ago)

OK, that's just blown my argument out of the water. I've never seen a sensible or considerate thing come out of that particular poster's keyboard, so I don't belive there could ever be one. I guess I could see the same thing applied to a journo.

I would still never wish death on anyone, though, no matter how much I disagreed with what they said.

-- Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:27 (56 seconds ago)

ARGH ARGH ARGH, CNUT CNUT, ARGH ARGH, I HATE HIM, WHAT A FUCKING EVIL HORRIBLE ARSEHOLE OF A CNUT, WHY DON'T YOU JUST FUCKING DIE ALREADY, JUST FUCKING KILL YOURSELF AND PUT ALL OF US OUT OF YOUR MISERY, EVEN WHEN YOU'RE "HAPPY" YOU'RE A SNARLING VICIOUS MYSOGYNIST HYPOCRITE OF A TROGLODYTE, JUST FUCKING DIE DIE DIE.
Sorry, not directed to anyone in here, I'm just blowing off some steam. Never mind me.

-- Going Through The Motions (kate), Friday, 27 October 2006 13:53 (6 months ago)

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:32 (eighteen years ago)

I'm not going to deny there is a lot of casual misogyny in the world (wide web). Every time somebody hates a particular, individual woman isn't necessarily misogynist tho.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:33 (eighteen years ago)

If you two don't shut the fuck up with this I'm locking this thread for the weekend and then going to the pub.

― Matt DC, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:34 (eighteen years ago)

That wasn't aimed at NV - it should be pretty obvious who I mean.

― Matt DC, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:35 (eighteen years ago)

Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:35 (eighteen years ago)

OK, name me some male Guardian columnists who attract the same kind of vicious ILX criticism as Toynbee, Zoe Williams, Lucy Mangan, etc.?

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:36 (eighteen years ago)

Alexis Petridis.

― Matt DC, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:36 (eighteen years ago)

Toynbee should be glad she doesn't know CIF regulars THIS well.

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:36 (eighteen years ago)

OK, that's one. Mainly because so many ILM regulars covet his job. Name another. I've just rattled off three. You've got two to go.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:37 (eighteen years ago)

Alexander Chancellor.

Seriously, might this not be also because of

a) Political slant of the writers
b) Writers invoking gender politics in their articles?

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:37 (eighteen years ago)

x-post get a life

― Ronan, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:37 (eighteen years ago)

Worzel, Lynskey.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:38 (eighteen years ago)

Alexis Petridis

it's all just cos he's got a girly first name tho

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:38 (eighteen years ago)

Also, Aaronovitch when he was on the paper.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:38 (eighteen years ago)

I've seen more sniping at Monbiot than at Williams and Mangan.

More at Charlie Brooker for that matter.

Toynbee is kind of in a class of her own as she's become a stand-in for 'all that is bad about Blairite commentators and the Guardian'

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:39 (eighteen years ago)

Chancellor gets criticised on ILX? Because I just quickly searched this thread and it's the first time he's even been mentioned.

Is Brooker criticised for his Guardian stuff or his comedy stuff?

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:40 (eighteen years ago)

All the various Johns and Johnnys who "write" music "reviews" for the Guide.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:40 (eighteen years ago)

Imran Ahmed.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:41 (eighteen years ago)

Has anybody here ever claimed that any of the writers you mention are awful because they're women, Kate?

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:42 (eighteen years ago)

Lex.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:44 (eighteen years ago)

No, I'm not claiming anything about the quality of their writing. I'm claiming that they get more, more public, and more *vicious* and personal criticism because they are women.

I'm just going by the bitchfest that is this thread, but none of the other male writers even get mentioned in the melee.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:44 (eighteen years ago)

It's Polly Toynbee tho. Civility is all very nice but why is it so often people who want all sorts of uncivil stuff done to their opponents who whine about "good manners"?

?????????

What on earth does PT want done to her opponents?

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:44 (eighteen years ago)

Toynbee is kind of in a class of her own as she's become a stand-in for 'all that is bad about Blairite commentators and the Guardian'

wtf? PT is a blairite now? I'm confused!

You're wrong!

Kate is right!

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:45 (eighteen years ago)

It's absolutely obvious that dislike for writers is far more based on class/politics than anything else. Not that I'm going to get into that argument now.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:46 (eighteen years ago)

Has anyone yet asked Polly Toynbee to remind them why she hasn't drowned in a pool of her own vomit?

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:46 (eighteen years ago)

who from the guardian should be calling out the uncivil nature of commenting on comment is free.

obv it can't be PT as she is a KITTEN DROWNING PRETEND LEFTIE

― Alan, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:48 (eighteen years ago)

So, writing lots of articles about how Sure Start is a good thing (which it is) makes you a Blairite apologist now?

I know the hypocrisy allegation came out of that Hard Work book, but for fuck's sake, at least she was doing her research.

(Sorry if this is covered above, but I can't be arsed to read the whole thread).

Anyway, Comment is Free is shit, and it's nice to see them recognising that.

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:49 (eighteen years ago)

Kate I think with some female Guardian writers there's potentially a double sexism at work.

1. Female columnists encouraged to write in slightly glib, fluffy ways (or female columnists who write like that hired over female columnists who don't)
2. Readers who dislike that style get cross at it. They may well also be misogynists or at least express that dislike in misogynist ways.

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:51 (eighteen years ago)

wtf? P[olly] T[oynbee] is a blairite now? I'm confused!

uh okay.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:51 (eighteen years ago)

Or perhaps they just despair at the good female writers who are out there but don't get a chance to go anywhere near the Guardian or similar because they went to the wrong school or had the wrong parents.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:53 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, I do see your point, Tom.

But what happens to females who are not glib and fluffy? They get the old "iron lady" stereotypes hauled out for them. You can't win.

Anyway, my downloads are done.

― Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:53 (eighteen years ago)

"KITTEN DROWNING PRETEND LEFTIE"

what?

she's no kitten. but if hating blair and apologists for him (and she the worst of these) makes you a pretend leftie, i guess i am one.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:54 (eighteen years ago)

x-post to Tom, surely that applies just the same to men, eg petridis, whom I'm ambivalent about really as I never read him.

But music writers encouraged to write in certain ways/a status quo which favours a certain type of writer, that goes across the board in papers. it's purely stylistic. Generally on ILX people don't like a writer who appear to tow the line, male or female.

― Ronan, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:54 (eighteen years ago)

she's no kitten.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40233000/jpg/_40233367_kitten_pa_story203.jpg

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

(and why should a female writer be choosing between "iron lady" and "fluffy/glib" instead of just doing something undefined by gender?

― Ronan, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

If hating Kitten makes me a misogynist, I might have to plead guilty.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

They don't choose; their editors present them with the "choice."

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:56 (eighteen years ago)

Jamie you're reading a lot into my comment - it seems to me, looking at this thread and others, that she's perceived as a Blairite, and is a name people reach for in that context.

I don't actually have any views on PT because I haven't read the Guardian comments page in ages and tend not to remember who's written what.

A lot of comments box and messageboard trolls will use misogynist (and homophobic) slurs very readily, in my experience - she's right about that.

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:57 (eighteen years ago)

Monster xpostfest.

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:57 (eighteen years ago)

it's just a shame the thread has to turn into Toynbee C/D as opposed to Comments Anonymity C/D - but i suppose the latter is a separate topic anyway.

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:57 (eighteen years ago)

She is ALLEGEDLY a salaried employee of the Labour Party who writes propagandist pieces disguised as opinion columns.

― Marcello Carlin, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:58 (eighteen years ago)

A lot of comments box and messageboard trolls will use misogynist (and homophobic) slurs very readily, in my experience - she's right about that.

Also racist, at least on non-news/political domains like YouTube.

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:59 (eighteen years ago)

Oh I've just worked it out this is all about ID Cards isn't it.

BRB there's a solemn knock at the door...

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:00 (eighteen years ago)

Many xposts. Yes, Tom, but they are clearly barking-mad or haven't read a word of it wrong. And sorry Steve, I will shut up now.

How on earth is Polly Toynbee an apologist for Blair?

I suspect people will throw quotes back at me, but I think this is completely crazy. Most of her columns point out that the government is doing some old labour-type things but not shouting about them ie that spending lots more money on the NHS has been a good thing and has improved the service, but PFI and constant reorganisation have been bad - to badly paraphrase a recent column. I.E. specific anti-Blairite criticism, but recognising that you can still do things through collective action and that, not just saying "the NHS is shit, so the money has been wasted, so we should spend less money on it".

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:00 (eighteen years ago)

People should be forced to use their "real" names when commenting, as soon as we have a society where nobody will use their lack of anonymity to punish them.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:01 (eighteen years ago)

I never ever look at YouTube comments probably with good reason. xp

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:02 (eighteen years ago)

YT comments is the biggest thing recently to make me think:

a) Internet needs more facist moderationz
b) our planet is doomed

ILX with everyone's real name would be funner.

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:04 (eighteen years ago)

...says ILX's own "blueski".

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:05 (eighteen years ago)

"ie that spending lots more money on the NHS has been a good thing and has improved the service, but PFI and constant reorganisation have been bad"

this doesn't even make sense, and i say this as someone employed to gather stats for the nhs at one point. there are so many ways they have fucked the nhs, from overpaying gps to the massive it balls-up, to hospital closures, to the recent mtas thing (which again i experienced very much from the inside), to mrsa (though i realize people think this is a right-wing myth: it isn't) that the stats she no doubt offered up can no way make up for it.

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:06 (eighteen years ago)

...says ILX's own "blueski".

MR blueski to you

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:09 (eighteen years ago)

i love youtube comments! i only ever watch pop videos and tennis clips on it though, but if you don't find the following comments hugely satisfying you have a harder heart than i -

"OMG she dun did it again! This gon be my anthem watch imma bitch slap my man singin "wish we could switch up da roles" an he bet not say shit lol! Im foreal this video hot!"

"THIS IS THE SHYT I LOV EBEYONCE BUT DAMN CIARA DID THE DAMN THING!! This is the best video to date from her!!"

"Ciara is killin em'. Doing the damn thang harder than any dude out here!! And Reggie Bush aint got shyt on LBW! he "Cant handle that"!"

"GOOOOOOO CIARA!!!! This song is sooooo real!!! I know a lot of females can relate to this because we've all been there and if not, its gonna happen! Men are sooo damn triflin!!! GO CIARA!!!!"

"woooooooaaaaaaaaaa!!!!
go cici!!!
i luv the video!!!
she's the best hella-fyre!!!!"

SO CUTE and SO RIGHT

― lex pretend, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:10 (eighteen years ago)

"Paris is right!!!"

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:11 (eighteen years ago)

stupid people are cute

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:11 (eighteen years ago)

I always use my real name on anything I post on (including CiF), but as there are a lot of J Smith's out there, I don't have the fear of future employers dredging through my internet past.

Messageboards seem most functional and civil when they represent a community of like-minded people, or at least people bound together by a common interest, which I guess the Guardian thought would happen with CiF - this idea of a "Guardian-reader" as a distinct type of person, - and it would all be very smug and consensual and interesting little quibbles, like notes and queries, but at least functional.

Instead it is some sort of collective scream. It's horrible.

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:12 (eighteen years ago)

AND THEY KEEP MAKING YOU READ IT

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:13 (eighteen years ago)

They're most civil when they represent a like-minded community sure, but "functional"? Depends what you think the function is. xp

― Groke, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:14 (eighteen years ago)

this doesn't even make sense, and i say this as someone employed to gather stats for the nhs at one point. there are so many ways they have fucked the nhs, from overpaying gps to the massive it balls-up, to hospital closures, to the recent mtas thing (which again i experienced very much from the inside), to mrsa (though i realize people think this is a right-wing myth: it isn't) that the stats she no doubt offered up can no way make up for it.

Yes, whatever, I'm sure you're more up on it than me. However, an article that was MOSTLY critical of the government's NHS policies, but still defended the concept and achievements of a universal service paid for out of general taxation free of marketisation IS NOT, in any conventional sense, Blairite. Is it?

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:15 (eighteen years ago)

but if you don't find the following comments hugely satisfying you have a harder heart than i

i think that shit is retarded, but otoh you do notlike seal with/without bucket Hardy Heartington.

― blueski, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

AND THEY KEEP MAKING YOU READ IT

I actually like some of the articles, and then my eye is drawn down the page, against my will.

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:16 (eighteen years ago)

And there's the new ILX strapline.

― Noodle Vague, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:18 (eighteen years ago)

CiF is indeed awful. a lot of the posters probably aren't graun readers anyway -- see any thread about israel/palestine. and obviously the biggest voices are extremists who spend all their time on it and bring iraq into everything. but it's not like ilx because its users think of it as a kind of public discussion forum that "really matters".

xpost

jamie the test there is that she is still always finally behind whatever new labour has done to the health service. she doesn't write for pravda, but her support is all the more solid for containing the tiniest elements of critique. what's happened in the nhs is a lot bigger than a few mishaps on the royal road to universal free-at-the-point blah-de-blah: we've moved away from that model under labour!

― That one guy that quit, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:18 (eighteen years ago)

I have to go to the pub. Start a Polly Toynbee thread and I'll settle this later.

Ta ra.

― Jamie T Smith, Friday, 4 May 2007 16:22 (eighteen years ago)

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that - why is there so much random misogyny against women with almost no power, then? From saps who feel powerless against women? Well, that might explain the Dom Passantinos of the world, but are there that many of them out there?

-- Masonic Boom, Friday, 4 May 2007 15:30 (2 days ago)

http://blogs.sohh.com/nyc/archives/mobbdeepshook.jpg

― Dom Passantino, Sunday, 6 May 2007 17:50 (eighteen years ago)

you forgot to say 'qft'

― That one guy that quit, Sunday, 6 May 2007 17:53 (eighteen years ago)

lol repetition of previous statement in different context thus causing humour

― Dom Passantino, Sunday, 6 May 2007 17:57 (eighteen years ago)

Anyway, Comment is Free is shit, and it's nice to see them recognising that.

How are they recognising it?

― stet, Sunday, 6 May 2007 22:22 (eighteen years ago)

They've rebranded it Comment Is Pish.

― Alba, Monday, 7 May 2007 11:35 (eighteen years ago)

Soon to be changed to "Comment Is Pish (I Think I'll Leave)"

― Forest Pines, Monday, 7 May 2007 17:02 (eighteen years ago)

one month passes...

"Goldsmith is ravishing. He has a golden quality that makes me think of Evelyn Waugh of the 1930s."

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2109773,00.html

now i like waugh but he didn't have a golden quality as a guy, and the thirties were a bit of a bad time for him. he was, really, a fascist sympathizer. but more generally what the fuck is this doing in the observer?

― That one guy that quit, Monday, 25 June 2007 10:53 (eighteen years ago)

R Cooke being a bit durrrrrr?

― suzy, Monday, 25 June 2007 10:55 (eighteen years ago)

'No one owns the Conservative party,' he says

― Ned Trifle II, Monday, 25 June 2007 11:01 (eighteen years ago)

He loathes the supermarkets. 'They are screwing farmers every day.' What if a supermarket makes a donation to the Conservatives? Will he say 'knickers' to the party or will he button his lip? He smiles and tells me that the government - this one or any other - could radically improve the lot of farmers overnight if it would only procure good local produce for our schools and hospitals.

http://www.johndclare.net/images/collectivisation.jpg

― Ned Trifle II, Monday, 25 June 2007 11:07 (eighteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/leaders/story/0,,2126642,00.html

okay, the observer actually is a paper of the right now.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 15 July 2007 17:42 (eighteen years ago)

"Besides, on the most sensitive issue - the war in Iraq - policy is scarcely even controlled by the White House. It is being set by congressmen with an eye on their domestic electorate."

This is laughably false. How could anyone take the rest of it, even if it were impeccably put - which it's not - seriously?

"There are signs of significant improvement in the security situation [outside of Baghdad] as a result of changes in US military strategy. In that context, staying on is the more honourable course of action with regard to the people of Iraq. For that reason, Mr Brown's position should if anything be closer to that of Mr Bush than the senators who are playing politics with the withdrawal timetable."

???

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:41 (eighteen years ago)

I was told something about British leader columns a couple of years ago - OK, three. It was from a veteran political correspondent. He said that newspaper editors know that NO ONE reads the leader columns (well, except for NRQ) - that's not what they're for. They're really intended to be read by the journalists who work at that paper, in order to know what line the editors have taken on the top stories of the day, so that those journalists can then put the right angle on their own stories - or know which pitches will get heard and which not.

― Tracer Hand, Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:46 (eighteen years ago)

i don't think that's entirely true.

― grimly fiendish, Sunday, 15 July 2007 21:56 (eighteen years ago)

That's an enduring myth but the logistics of actually putting together a newspaper suggest otherwise. In the days of integrated 24-hour online and print news, do you think journalists have time to wait for someone to write a leader column to tell them what to think before filing something?

Yes, they are mostly written with journalists and media commentators in mind, but not for that reason.

― Matt DC, Sunday, 15 July 2007 22:00 (eighteen years ago)

I regularly read leader columns but then I am slightly abnormal in that I'm interested in the 'official' line newspapers take on events and those rare occasions when a newspaper surprises me.

― Matt DC, Sunday, 15 July 2007 22:02 (eighteen years ago)

if you look at henry porter and nick cohen's stuff week in, week out, the observer does seem to be taking a hawkish 'line', and this being a leader reinforces that impression. i don't know who reads what -- with the sundays especially! but as matt says it's interesting to note this stuff, if only, in this case, because the obs was so much identified with the new labour project in the mid-nineties by dint of being edited by will 'the state we're in' hutton. and its shift to where it is now feels almost natural; i don't think it's aiming for a different audience.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Sunday, 15 July 2007 22:27 (eighteen years ago)

I love reading leaders, even the Torygraph's if that's what's to hand. And the letters page. They're the first bit I turn to.

― aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, Monday, 16 July 2007 06:37 (eighteen years ago)

I think the most important line in the leader in question is "the special relationship is about more than Blair and Bush". Basically there's no point shunning the US forever just to cheer up George Galloway.

And, like Grimly, I think the "leaders are only written so the hacks know what to write" theory is wobbly at best.

― Hello Sunshine, Monday, 16 July 2007 08:59 (eighteen years ago)

it's not just george galloway who thinks that just maybe this 'special relationship' has fucked us up royally. it's not just about ridiculous wars, blowback, and complicity in torture; there's also the siting of US cruise missiles, back in the day, and various early warning systems that tend to make us a big bullseye for russian nukes. in the czech republic and poland locals pols seem to want to get something in return for that kind of thing.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 16 July 2007 09:16 (eighteen years ago)

I think I'm going to stop reading the Guardian after a columnist dismissed unmarried women as "non-persons". I mean, that's sub Nirpal Dhaliwal territory. :-(

I know this is not a massive political issue or anything, but it's just pushed me over the edge. What else can I read on Saturday mornings?

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 09:45 (eighteen years ago)

nirpal dhaliwal actually had a column in the observer yesterday. god he is the worst person ever, truly

― lex pretend, Monday, 16 July 2007 09:47 (eighteen years ago)

"Since there is no possibility of British troops staying on without their US allies, the same deadline applies in London."

britain, world power

― Filey Camp, Monday, 16 July 2007 09:52 (eighteen years ago)

nirpal dhaliwal's success is a total mystery to me.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 16 July 2007 09:55 (eighteen years ago)

"What else can I read on Saturday mornings?"

Teletext?

― Hello Sunshine, Monday, 16 July 2007 10:12 (eighteen years ago)

Don't own a television.

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 10:18 (eighteen years ago)

Peer out of your window and read Teletext on your neighbour's telly?

― Hello Sunshine, Monday, 16 July 2007 10:21 (eighteen years ago)

Maybe I'll give up and just start reading the Times or the Torygraph.

Or maybe I should learn to just tear certain pages out of the Weekend Magazine before I read it.

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 10:22 (eighteen years ago)

Where is this "non-persons" thing? Last Saturday?

― Alba, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:03 (eighteen years ago)

The one two days gone. In that awful "What women don't know about men" column. What, that (some) men are shallow, sexist arses with a total double standard? Sorry, we knew that already.

But calling unmarried women "slightly embarrassing non-persons" is really a step too far.

Yes, we're non-persons like, you know, Elizabeth I and all.

How are they allowed to get away with that kind of language?

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:06 (eighteen years ago)

i read it -- i'm not defending it because it was utter, utter dreck, but it was aiming for some kind of post-vice pseudo-ironic thing, i think, maybe?

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:10 (eighteen years ago)

Ah

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,,2124528,00.html

I think the writer would say that the "non-person" thing is supposed to be a sardonic characterisation of the way society treats spinsters. But you're right - they don't make any effort to question that outlook, and it just comes across as casually nasty.

― Alba, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:14 (eighteen years ago)

He hasn't once questioned any of these outlooks in the months that the column has been running.

He just parrots out these sexist double standards, and acts like he's imparting some amazing words of wisdom because he comes up with some cod-psychological pseudo-explanations. It's infuriating.

The irony being, the longer I read his column, the happier I am to be single. Not because of the poor sods that his "friend" Lisa has trouble with, but because, lord help me, a much worse fate, I could end up with someone like *him*.

And in the same issue, in the front section, is an article by Decca Aitkenhead, talking about marriage and how statistics and experiences prove again and again, that although everyone from Gordon Brown to the Tories are parrotting on about how marriage is the panacea for all evils, that marriage makes things better for men and worse for women.

So I suppose it's good that they show both sides, but still.

NON-PERSON. That's SUCH an offensive phrase. A deliberately offensive phrase.

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:25 (eighteen years ago)

I believe this actually is how Nazi Germany started.

― Alba, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:28 (eighteen years ago)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonperson

― Alba, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:30 (eighteen years ago)

I find it hard that, even if the columnist were not aware, that some subeditor at the Guardian would not be aware of the semantics of the phrase.

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:33 (eighteen years ago)

It's edgy!

― Alba, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:34 (eighteen years ago)

ok i can't actually get to the end of the decca aitkenhead piece because it is the worst decca aitkenhead piece i've ever read. and that's some achievement.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:35 (eighteen years ago)

xposts

i fear they'd probably just be glad that people are talking about such an otherwise pointless column, for whatever reason :)

it's absolute drivel, kate: why bother to be offended by it? it's really not worth it at all.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:36 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, why be offended by a totally loaded political phrase? I mean, let's just toss offensive epithets around at random. Everything's edgey, innit? I mean, there was a shitstorm around here when the Guardian used the phrase "chav".

Why look at language and political or semantic meaning at all?

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 11:41 (eighteen years ago)

because it's in a pointless, drivelly little column written by an obvious idiot? i expect idiots to come out with idiotic things. if i got offended every time they did, i'd have exploded by the time i'd got to work in the morning.

sure, if a leading article or news story or ... i dunno, something that mattered was slinging around phrases like that, it would matter. but this is just an example of abject stupidity in action. you should probably write them a quick letter and call them on it -- it'd make a change from people moaning about bloody "stick" -- but ultimately ... shit column in shit and offensive shockah. well i never.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 16 July 2007 12:17 (eighteen years ago)

I now no longer so much as glance at ANY of the columns in the Guardian magazine: they are all toe-curlingly, arse-clenchingly awful. Jon Ronson, Lucy Whatsername, How Much We Love Each Other, How Much Our House is Worth, How Smug We Are, all of it.

That usually leaves 2 articles & the cookery, but it's worth it.

― bham, Monday, 16 July 2007 12:34 (eighteen years ago)

yep: that's what i do, too. i mean, i can't believe they still run that fucking guy browning "how to ..." nonsense, for instance.

i probably spend more time reading the guide or the work section than i do the magazine.

― grimly fiendish, Monday, 16 July 2007 12:44 (eighteen years ago)

who is it that does the "ask [person's name]..." column in G2? i don't think there's anything in the guardian that's worse than that.

i'll still buy the guardian for larry elliott alone. also, peter wilby and simon jenkins.

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 16 July 2007 12:47 (eighteen years ago)

h4dley freeman

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 16 July 2007 12:51 (eighteen years ago)

ARGHH YES

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 16 July 2007 12:53 (eighteen years ago)

Dear Mrs Freeman,

(insert made up letter pretending to be from fusty middle aged white guy, you know, the kind of person who wouldn't actually be reading the fucking fashion page in The Guardian anyway, throwing up some half-assed "critique" of a fashion trend that Mrs Freeman herself follows)

Dear Made-Up Letter Writer,

(insert shitty "seering" response where Hadley explains that wearing cardigans is actually cool, and not square like you thought)

― 597, Monday, 16 July 2007 12:55 (eighteen years ago)

After 21 years spent happily wafting into Topshop whenever I want, I shall be moving to New York. What will clothe me, Hadley? What? Sweet buttered toast with marmite, I envisage being drowned in a sea of chinos.
Joanna Wiggins, by email

Joanna, becalm yourself. Yes, there will be certain outfits of yours that get slightly lost in translation across t'water but don't, in heaven's name, try to change yourself to fit in. You just gotta work it, girlfriend!

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 16 July 2007 12:59 (eighteen years ago)

I've got a surprisingly high tolerance for Guardian columns. I like Jon Ronson and I just think Lucy Mangan is funny. This column will change your life is fantastic! I actually miss the "we love each other" feature, it was kind of warm and fuzzy in a way this male agony aunt type (was it someone's idea of a joke?) is just relentlessly grim.

Oh, I don't read the "let's take the piss out of Americans" column because it's just... well, it's stupid and inaccurate. You could take the piss out of Americans much more effectively than that if it was written by someone who had actually lived there. (However, the main reason it winds me up is, if it's acceptible to mock Americans, is it acceptible to mock other countries or cultures? Why just America? Yes, obviously because it's the super-power du jour.)

I'm a bland leftish middle aged lady who likes gardening, so I suppose that lots of that stuff you lot find useless is aimed at me.

Oh, but this is just going to turn into a shower of abuse against Guardian columnists so I'll stop here. While we're abusing, I just particularly want to heap hate on that column. I might write a letter. It's just such a... well, I read the thing every week, I actually enjoy the long-running letter feuds and things.

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 13:00 (eighteen years ago)

I've been rather taken with the idea of buying a certain designer iPod-holder. Is this too shameful for words?
Marcus Corbett, London

You'd better believe it, pal. Please - a designer iPod holder? Um, who are you, P Diddy? Give me a break.

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 16 July 2007 13:01 (eighteen years ago)

this cd be my suzy moment right here

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Monday, 16 July 2007 13:01 (eighteen years ago)

My new charm bracelet bangs against my keyboard very irritatingly. Is there a solution?
Mary Long, London

Um, not wearing it to work? I'm sorry Ms Long, but, really, what answer were you expecting? A phone number for a company specialising in mini-slings that hold in all the dangling superfluities of one's charm bracelet, thus preventing them for brushing against one's work station? My dear, I am a mere fashion columnist, not a miracle worker, though granted the two are easily confused.

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 16 July 2007 13:01 (eighteen years ago)

And, of course, there was the influence of Pete Doherty, that elusive Thomas Pynchon of the musical world.

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 16 July 2007 13:03 (eighteen years ago)

The truth is, what men want from their wardrobe isn't so different from what women want: clothes that are wearably normal but better than normal.

― Tracer Hand, Monday, 16 July 2007 13:04 (eighteen years ago)

Evrybody otm re dhaliwal, that column was....ugh....

the Guardian is seriously testing my patience at the mo, mostly for reasons more eloquently outlined above

(I still have a crush on Ms Freeman, though, sorry)

― Matt, Monday, 16 July 2007 15:28 (eighteen years ago)

I like her! She wrote a thing a while ago about what it meant for something to be "in" or "out" that was both funny and cut to the heart of the matter!

To whit:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2057901,00.html

Which is the "let's take the piss out of Americans" column?

― Alba, Monday, 16 July 2007 17:03 (eighteen years ago)

It's called erm, "American Psyche" or something. By George somebody or other. It's really unfunny. And incomprehensible. Not in a slightly warped Shrigley sort of way, but in a "did this bloke forget his medication again? I mean, does he even speak English?" sort of way.

― Masonic Boom, Monday, 16 July 2007 17:09 (eighteen years ago)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2128686,00.html

poor people are all criminals, says zoe williams.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:05 (eighteen years ago)

Clive James better _really_ enjoy the blowjobs Zoe Williams gives him to explain her continued existence in media.

― 597, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:07 (eighteen years ago)

I like the idea that ... Clive James is some kind of puppet master behind the scenes at Farringdon Road.

― Alba, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:16 (eighteen years ago)

Alba, Hadley Freeman could write a column that unites the theories of gravitation and quantum mechanics but I'd still use it for bacon drippings rather than read it because of that tone of voice she uses, don't you know. I mean puh-leeze.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:19 (eighteen years ago)

h freeman's tone of voice is v v similar to a particular ilxor's...

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:27 (eighteen years ago)

Is it DJ Martian?

― Alba, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:30 (eighteen years ago)

That insinuation has already been made and it betrays a tin ear. The difference may be slight but it's the difference between staying on the balance beam and falling off it.

xpost hehe

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:30 (eighteen years ago)

Actually, "DJ Martian solves your fashion dilemmas" is a column I think we could all get behind.

― Alba, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:31 (eighteen years ago)

I mean, come on, it's 2007 grandad and you're not listening to darkwave! Puh-leeze, as Smash Hits (I read up on classic English journalism before I came over here) used to say.

― 597, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:32 (eighteen years ago)

That insinuation has already been made and it betrays a tin ear. The difference may be slight but it's the difference between staying on the balance beam and falling off it.

haha i dunno who you think i'm insinuating this about! i will tell you in the pub sometime. remind me.

― lex pretend, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:34 (eighteen years ago)

i dunno who tracer is talking about. i thought i knew who lex was talking about tho.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:42 (eighteen years ago)

I think I know who you think the lex was talking about

― onimo, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:44 (eighteen years ago)

i think i know who you think you know i think the lex was talking about.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:45 (eighteen years ago)

I HAS A BUKKIT

― kv_nol, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:47 (eighteen years ago)

Dear DJ Martian,
I am opening a new music magazine and have NO IDEA what to wear on my first day in the office. I would love you to advise me on this subject, and possibly tell me what music I should be covering too!

― Anna, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:55 (eighteen years ago)

oh god make it happen!

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 12:02 (eighteen years ago)

OK sorry I guess I overreacted lex

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 12:04 (eighteen years ago)

To her credit, Hadley did stick up for trainers for commuting ladies at the weekend. She said it was all about the pain, though, and failed to mention that hiking to work in heels can result in enormous cobbler bills and one does worry about a city boy clumping on your toes and ruining the leather as well.

― Madchen, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 12:26 (eighteen years ago)

There is simply no need for Hadley's kind of mid-90's "you go girl" klatschiness which was grating the first time around anyway.

Madchen I would read your fashion column in a HEARTBEAT.

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 12:29 (eighteen years ago)

and DJ Martian's of course

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 12:29 (eighteen years ago)

holistic wardrobe

― blueski, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 12:34 (eighteen years ago)

"if you are interested in trainers, the following stores sell them:

[list of thousands of shops]"

― Tracer Hand, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 12:35 (eighteen years ago)

Haha both George Saunders (novelist! d'oh people don't read) and HF are American.

It is generally a matter of course that Guardian writers believe that 20/30-something message board types who whinge about the columnists are some combo of jealous and delusional. No, you couldn't do their jobs and you'll never be asked. Well, Lex might in a year or two.

― suzy, Thursday, 19 July 2007 06:51 (eighteen years ago)

I wouldn't want to do their job. I'm perfectly happy with mine (and I'm confident your average guardian columnist would struggle cooking 180 covers on a saturday night for that matter, not that I imagine they would want to). Does this preclude me from commenting on writing I consider to be shit (though I have been largely positive on this thread, I think)?

― Matt, Thursday, 19 July 2007 09:24 (eighteen years ago)

No, you couldn't do their jobs and you'll never be asked. Well, Lex might in a year or two.

L0u1s J@gger as well.

― 597, Thursday, 19 July 2007 09:25 (eighteen years ago)

and Ned Raggett? or suzy?

― RJG, Thursday, 19 July 2007 09:26 (eighteen years ago)

"hadley" is actually the assumed identity of a bay-area former junkie/vagrant/hustler -- better luck next time suzy.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 19 July 2007 09:32 (eighteen years ago)

See, I was going to be too polite to mention that.

― Matt, Thursday, 19 July 2007 09:35 (eighteen years ago)

Miaow! The bitches are BACK IN TOWN!

― 597, Thursday, 19 July 2007 09:37 (eighteen years ago)

Always Blame Hadley

― 597, Thursday, 19 July 2007 09:43 (eighteen years ago)

Haha, Tracer, my fashion column would be dull as ditchwater (speaking of which, I'm dressed from head to toe in brown today, including accessories).

HF's name always reminds me of 80s cheapo shoe shop Freeman Hardy & Willis.

― Madchen, Thursday, 19 July 2007 12:32 (eighteen years ago)

I always thought they'd be expensive because they sounded like a law firm.

― onimo, Thursday, 19 July 2007 12:34 (eighteen years ago)

Nah, it was all very Primark/New Look. Little leather and plenty 'other materials'.

― Madchen, Thursday, 19 July 2007 12:49 (eighteen years ago)

I was always more of a Curtess man.

― Alba, Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:00 (eighteen years ago)

(NB. I wasn't really.)

For some reason, in the 80s, every other business in Peckham's Rye Lane was a shoe shop. Not interesting ones - just all the chain store tat. There seemed to be far more shoe chains in the 80s. FHW, Curtess, Dolcis ... we had them all.

Last time I visited, they all seemed to have turned into manicurists.

― Alba, Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:02 (eighteen years ago)

HF's name always reminds me of 80s cheapo shoe shop Freeman Hardy & Willis.

-- Madchen, Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:32 PM (35 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

I always thought they'd be expensive because they sounded like a law firm.

-- onimo, Thursday, July 19, 2007 1:34 PM (33 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

haha, me too but... conversely. my godmother worked for some tony outfit (finance? PR? headhunting? something like that) called freemans, but i grew up thinking she worked in a shop.

― That one guy that hit it and quit it, Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:11 (eighteen years ago)

The Narrow Way in Hackney is approx. 50% shoe shops, but I think they're independent.

― Tracer Hand, Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:19 (eighteen years ago)

Yeah, that's like a proper old "shoe quarter".

― Alba, Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:22 (eighteen years ago)

... whereas the shoe shops in 80s Peckam seemed like a bloom of commercial algae, like the manicurists and international telephone bureaux of more recent years. Maybe there was a shoe craze in the early 80s.

― Alba, Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:24 (eighteen years ago)

they were crazy times

― blueski, Thursday, 19 July 2007 13:29 (eighteen years ago)

"hadley" is actually the assumed identity of a bay-area former junkie/vagrant/hustler

You never know who's in on a joke (well *you* don't, anyway) but I'll happily admit to liking the book and not doubting its veracity when it came out. There was no reason to. I got BORED when Courtney Love and Asia Argento became interested - as any sensible woman should - and even more bored when my editor at ESM made JT a contributor, which presumably involved faked conversations. Nobody liked this editor by the time she left and the JT fakeage contributed to her leaving. I feel sorry for the female hoaxer, because publishers do find it 'sexier' to be a cross-dressing rent boy than some Bay Area fringe scenester or a Cantab underachiever, and allocate deals accordingly.

Matt, I didn't mean you when I was talking about messageboard aspirants to Grub Street with vinegar on their shoulder-chips; this one was specifically about the grumbling Grubs. Howevs I could do 180 covers of American diner food on any given night, EASY, so NER. ;-)

― suzy, Thursday, 19 July 2007 14:12 (eighteen years ago)

I don't doubt it for a moment ;-)

― Matt, Thursday, 19 July 2007 15:16 (eighteen years ago)

wait - the author of civilwarland in bad decline is a guardian contributor? where?

― Alan, Thursday, 19 July 2007 15:41 (eighteen years ago)

since a search for freeman hardy willis reveals nowt, i'm offloading this nugget here:

when i was little, my mum and i used to call it "free hard willy".

i know, i know.

― CharlieNo4, Thursday, 19 July 2007 15:52 (eighteen years ago)

hardly free willy

― blueski, Thursday, 19 July 2007 15:55 (eighteen years ago)

comment is free willy

― Matt, Thursday, 19 July 2007 16:32 (eighteen years ago)

This makes me want to cry

(also, SAXONE!)

― Madchen, Thursday, 19 July 2007 16:59 (eighteen years ago)

Haha both George Saunders (novelist! d'oh people don't read)

Not everyone can work their way through Saunders' many novels.

― C0L1N B..., Thursday, 19 July 2007 20:16 (eighteen years ago)

It is generally a matter of course that Guardian writers believe that 20/30-something message board types who whinge about the columnists are some combo of jealous and delusional. No, you couldn't do their jobs and you'll never be asked.

i've never for one second regretted my decision not to take a job at the guardian (ts: moving to london or staying in glasgow proved easier than i ever expected). UNTIL NOW. just think of the power i would have had over some of these people. ah well :)

― grimly fiendish, Thursday, 19 July 2007 22:36 (eighteen years ago)

Not everyone can work their way through Saunders' many novels.
hahahhahahaaha

and to the person who asked where you can read his stuff in the guardian - if you like george saunders, dont read his guardian stuff.

― t_g, Friday, 20 July 2007 08:46 (eighteen years ago)

i'd echo that. i don't know who the hell would call saunders a "novelist". most likely someone who hadn't read his books, wouldn't he have to have written a novel to be called that? he's written a couple of things you could, at a push, call a novella. fwiw, i love his books but his column was embarrassing the first few times i looked at it and i haven't had the heart to look at it since.

― jed_, Friday, 20 July 2007 09:21 (eighteen years ago)

actually his longer story "... world of phil" kind of displayed all the faults that his column does and was pretty bad also.

― jed_, Friday, 20 July 2007 09:26 (eighteen years ago)

> Maybe there was a shoe craze in the early 80s.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoe_Event_Horizon

― koogs, Friday, 20 July 2007 11:30 (eighteen years ago)

Whither the British Shoe Corporation?

― Alba, Friday, 20 July 2007 19:45 (eighteen years ago)

two months pass...

classic: http://arts.guardian.co.uk/greatbuildings

― koogs, Thursday, 18 October 2007 17:00 (eighteen years ago)

wish I'd got the pompidou one are they any good?

― RJG, Thursday, 18 October 2007 17:27 (eighteen years ago)

I have the Guggenheim one if you want it, RJG. I enjoyed folding it out and reading it in the doctor's waiting room. Bring back the broadsheet Guardian.

― Alba, Thursday, 18 October 2007 18:04 (eighteen years ago)

two sheets, decent quality (if thin), roughly A1 in size, one with big picture of building on it, the other with blueprints on it, back of both covered in history / biography (think all the text is on the web, but not the huge pictures)

fallingwater tomorrow.

better than wallcharts of cheeses.

― koogs, Thursday, 18 October 2007 18:07 (eighteen years ago)

three months pass...

http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/3839/picture1om6.png

― caek, Wednesday, 13 February 2008 19:16 (eighteen years ago)

one month passes...

http://music.guardian.co.uk/rock/comment/story/0,,2272378,00.html

― the pinefox, Friday, 11 April 2008 09:26 (seventeen years ago)

one year passes...

gonna plug my coursemate's CIF debut 'coz she's well nice: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/02/love-sex-zoom-lens

and now i'm about to read it!

― kell surprise (country matters), Friday, 2 October 2009 16:59 (sixteen years ago)

That imogenblack sure likes to comment.

― Ned Trifle II, Friday, 2 October 2009 17:13 (sixteen years ago)

It's a pretty good article! She's a really sweet lass, always smiling, always busy, and I'm delighted for her. Would comment. Actually, just did.

― kell surprise (country matters), Friday, 2 October 2009 18:34 (sixteen years ago)

tl;dr

― amarillo fat (jim), Friday, 2 October 2009 18:36 (sixteen years ago)

three weeks pass...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/25/police-domestic-extremists-database

AAAAAAAGH.

― Yo! GOP Raps (suzy), Monday, 26 October 2009 10:13 (sixteen years ago)

My children now expect me to buy loads of masks and outfits for Halloween and traipse around the neighbourhood with them. Their schools also seem to encourage it. And I've got to stock up on "trick or treat" sweets. I regard the whole thing as a ghastly tradition imported from America. Do I just say no? Or am I being a killjoy?
lol Guardian readers

― James Mitchell, Saturday, 31 October 2009 08:33 (sixteen years ago)

I'd call the social services on them but, y'know,

― Geir Hypothesis (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 31 October 2009 08:58 (sixteen years ago)

Think about trick or treat - would you let your children eat things given by strangers that you don't know what is or could be in them?

Thought not if you are sane.

― do you want to be happier? (whatever), Saturday, 31 October 2009 09:47 (sixteen years ago)

two weeks pass...

http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/1396/44028446.jpg

― James Mitchell, Friday, 20 November 2009 10:24 (sixteen years ago)

Awesome.

― exploding angel vagina (Scik Mouthy), Friday, 20 November 2009 10:26 (sixteen years ago)

that is awesome.

― Bill A, Friday, 20 November 2009 10:31 (sixteen years ago)

as, in fact, Mr Mouthy just said. note to self: improve vocabulary.

― Bill A, Friday, 20 November 2009 10:31 (sixteen years ago)

awesome

― jabba hands, Friday, 20 November 2009 10:32 (sixteen years ago)

Haha, that's awesome. The Henry headline is terrible, though.

― Ismael Klata, Friday, 20 November 2009 10:33 (sixteen years ago)

At least the first pars are very different.

― ithappens, Friday, 20 November 2009 12:27 (sixteen years ago)

Prob both agree on the "at least it's not Blair".

― George Mucus (ledge), Friday, 20 November 2009 12:31 (sixteen years ago)

five months pass...

marina hyde has been on fire this election campaign. almost don't want it to end, am getting too used to a daily dose of her :/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/marinahyde - just...all of them, really.

― لوووووووووووووووووووول (lex pretend), Saturday, 24 April 2010 11:45 (fifteen years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.
Site New Answers Search Boards ILM ILE Answers New Question New Questions New Poll Blog View Register Login