Is the Guardian worse than it used to be?

1. The simplification of the accusation may just echo what it asserts about the target (just as 'Dumbing Down' is a dumb, dull phrase);

2. If I don't like Triviality, why don't I read nothing but 10-page reports from the former Yugoslavia? It would be hypocritical of me to say that I simply wanted them to be SERIOUS and SOLEMN and RESPONSIBLE all the time. No, that's not it.

What I mean, I suppose, is that too many features, esp. in G2, now look dashed-off - half-hearted, half-baked, unconvincing, just cliché pies really. Today's Lara Croft piece was just the latest of a million examples. It feels (the terms are problematic here, I know) JOURNALISTIC in a bad way - trite, unconsidered, full of crowd- pleasing Received Ideas - rather than JOURNALISTIC in a good way (that is: dogged, resourceful, brave, mentally agile, snappy and what have you).

It's the world of second-hand Lifestyle phrases that bugs me. The way that adults can still write a phrase like "*that* dress" and not hang their heads in shame.

A rider to all my bile, though, is that my previous, more impressed impressions of the Guardian may just reflect youthful impressionability. (Sentence!) Maybe the same kind of crap used to impress me that now feels rubbishy, faux-zeitgeisty and embarrassing? Maybe, but I suspect it's a bit of both.

I agree about Queenan too. But most of all, I agree about Thomson. There's almost no point having a thread about Thomson, because people who know what they think about him already know it all and would just send in superlatives.

What the paper still has going for it: George Monbiot's column, the Diary, Steve Bell, giving review space to Ians Sansom and Penman, and the tv columns of Nancy Banks-Smith. (When N B-S finally pops her clogs I will have to think very hard about buying the paper.)

What is leading the paper ever closer to the abyss: consistently terrible pop coverage (honorable exceptions: Maddy Costa, Betty Clarke); the fatuous new Saturday mag (Zoe Ball on dressing? match the celebrity with the pet? that awful woman talking about words that should be banned??); Charlotte bloody Raven.

I agree with you there. They sucker you in with the G2 front cover (and the masthead of the main paper), but when you get to read the cover story it often appears cobbled together and lightweight. I imagine it must be difficult to fill that space with high quality stories day in day out though.

I actually like Peter Preston's awkward, staccato opinion pieces, come to think of it. But not the pompous ones of Hugo Young. Freedland is sometimes good at summing political issues up, but usually he 'sums up' too much - there's too much glibness in the way he marshals it all. (I admit again, though, that it's easy - even glib - to call someone glib.)

Penman strikes me as a red herring. I can see that he doesn't do that to you, cos you have some kind of investment in his career. I agree about Sansom (great left-back, mean penalty, blah blah) - in fact I think that the whole Saturday book reviews section is quite possibly the best feature of the paper. EXCEPT of course the footy. Heroes? How could I forget David Lacey?

BUT I think that you are wrong about N B-S. It doesn't surprise me that older folk make that judgement about her; it does rather surprise me coming from you. She has skills, I guess, but she's terribly repetitive; uses the same lines on the same topics year in year out. It's all too - yes - glib and easy, while dressed up to look aged and thus wise.

I only read it for the Guide and the job listings. Not that either has been particularly helpful lately... ;-)

There's a lot of irritating stuff, yes. My favourite columnist is George Monbiot, by a mile. Something I like about the Independent when I do get it is that its liberalism is less metropolitan and more about the common good. Needless to say, though, the Guardian's series of articles on public service under that very title were awesome.

Today's G2 seems designed to add fuel to my (f)ire: one page of 'Style' after another, including a column on Why We're So Disappointed That Madonna Employs A Stylist.

Also good in Guardian: John Patterson re. cinema.

oh god, ask hadley today is just... tooth-grinding.

"today"

"At what age is a man too old to wear band T-shirts?"

Martin McCall, by email

"About 15 - that young enough for you, Martin? And to follow one rhetorical question with several more, what in God's name is the point of band T-shirts anyway? To show your allegiance to a band? Do you think anyone else cares? To impress onlookers with your esoteric musical knowledge? See previous reply. To make people stare at your bony chest? Again, I refer you to the first answer. To show that you once attended a live gig? Wow, like, a pair of golden headsets to the guy in the Nirvana '91 T-shirt. In case you happen to bump into the lead singer on the street, he sees that the two of you are kindred souls and therefore invites you to join his band and you then go on the road and have all the manly bonding sessions followed by groupies that your heart could desire? OK, I'll give you that one, although this does suggest that you still harbour the fantasy that you might bump into Joey Ramone in Waterstone's.

"As for ladies in band T-shirts, give me a fricking break. First, gals, a badly cut, poorly made, oversized T-shirt is good for nothing other than wearing to bed and the gym. Second, too often women who wear band T-shirts appear to be going for what we shall call Groupie Chic. It is a style amply modelled by Kate Moss in recent years, and can pretty much be summed up as skinny faded black jeans, ankle boots, a ripped band T-shirt and a cropped fur jacket. In other words, a girlified version of Marc Bolan's or Keith Richards' wardrobe, as though the woman has been so busy, um, sleeping on the band bus she hasn't had time to clean her clothes, so she's now wearing ones belonging to her musical companion. This column has no time for such nonsense."

Yeah, because women have *no* interest in music whatsoever except for sleeping with musicians. What CENTURY is this cretin from?

I think I stopped wearing band T-shirts by the time I was 23. It wasn't necessarily a conscious move tho. I doubt I will ever wear one again tho - I guess it seems lame unless it's an old obscure or overlooked thus hip act (even this I dunno about). I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them. Does Matt DC still have that Save Ferris T?

I only want to sleep with musicians if they are hot as they are (their musical ability is pretty irrelevant in fact).

dear teh grauniad - a long time ago/we used to be friends...

It went downhill after I left.

or were you PUSHED?

http://homepage.mac.com/alexinnyc/.Pictures/Photo%20Album%20Pictures/2007-09-02%2015.37.57%20-0700/Image-D15E03FF59A011DC.jpg

heh. (sorry alex, no harm intended)

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/thesportsdesk/images/200607/20060707henrydive_derblog.jpg

xp

i was being harsh really. i don't care what's on other people's t-shirts that much. just trying to work out why i stopped wearing/wouldn't wear band t-shirts myself.

Any t-shirt which isn't plain white clearly sucks that's why.

i couldn't agree less

I still wear band t-shirts if I like the band. Why not? I don't *define* myself or my personality by my music tastes any more, I haven't done that since I was about 18. But that's not the same thing as wearing a band t-shirt.

I suppose the fashion journalist in discussion cannot fathom the idea that clothes are just something you put on, rather than a definition of or statement about your personality.

This is definitely something that happens as you age - or rather, has happened to me as I aged. There's a subtle difference between Statement Clothes and just things you put on.

Guardian editorial worldview circa 2007:

http://www.astucia.co.uk/images/sce/galibier%20tunnel%20_three.jpg

why else would you buy a band t-shirt if not as a statement or definition of personality?

I didn't know it was a band t-shirt okay?

because you're cold xp

In the past I've usually just bought them as a keepsake of a gig I've enjoyed. The piece tracer quotes is idiotic fluff, obv. I'd be embarrased to admit I'd written that.

Because you like the design? Because you like the music? Because it was given to you (this is where most of mine come from)? Because it was a souvenier?

x-post

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

given to you = not you buying

you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

No, plus I've only ever bought them @ gigs.

because you like the music = statement/definition of you/your taste

Probably yeah, but w/smaller bands there's also the knowledge that in buying it, yr helping to supposrt the tour.

i actually bought a comets on fire t-shirt solely because the design was so awesome. (it was at a gig, but they hadn't come on stage yet.) then i heard the music and i liked that too. i suppose if i hadn't liked their music, or thought it was boring, it would have posed a problem.

a friend of mine, who shall remain nameless so that alex in nyc doesn't stalk and kill him, bought a huge iron maiden patch when he was 14 and sewed it across the shoulders of his denim jacket. he had never heard a note of iron maiden, but he wound up becoming the biggest iron maiden fan i know, and even sung in a band later, where his vocal style was almost inseparable from bruce dickinson's.

my take on this: do not read hadley freeman.

this resolution made some time ago, stands as strong today as it ever did.

it's a crass and deliberately invidious piece of writing. such an attitude, if sincerely held, could be turned around on pretty much ANY choice of clothing. so forgeddaboudit

the last band t-shirt i bought - robyn!

alan i can't help myself, i know i'm sick and need help.

is there a thread for best band t-shirts? must see

Taste is something that I have. It does not define me. Clothes are something I wear. The statement I am making is "I don't really care about clothes any more."

If I'm going to make a statement about clothes, I'll wear a bright green paisley jacket to a dronerock festival where everyone else is in leather.

I suppose my Hawkwind t-shirt is a statement, it says "ha ha, I'm wearing a Hawkwind t-shirt, I care nothing for fashion, I am wearing the shirt of a band so deeply uncool you can suck my left one because I love them!" But it's certainly not a statement saying that I want to f*ck any of Hawkwind or that I have a musician boyfriend whose Hawkwind t-shirt I'm borrowing, which is the assumption of that article.

> I don't notice many people over 20 wearing them.

*SOBS*

> you wouldn't actually buy a band t-shirt because you liked the design but not necessarily the band tho...would you?

EAR t-shirt with the putney on the front = great. EAR live = terrible. (EAR on CD = ok, plus pram and stereolab were supporting)

"Do you think anyone else cares?"

the core MOTOR of fashion is YES OF COURSE I THINK OTHER PEOPLE CARE THAT I AM WEARING... WHAT'S "IN". no less dumb than wearing something else that forms part of your identity. so it's just a puerile throw away bit of nonsense. heh. fashion in 'being puerile' shocker.

I gave up caring whether I was too old to wear band t-shirts or whatever a long time ago. Really, if you're getting that worked up about what other people are wearing, the joke's on you, I think. To paraphrase - "Do you think anyone else cares?"

Yesterday I wore an X-Ray Spex t-shirt. I am 31. Oh noes.

If a FAC 51 Hacienda T-shirt counts as a band t-shirt, I am wearing one NOW. I am more than 31.

Unless you buy shirts at arena shows or whatever they cost a tenner or less which is cheaper than t-shirts tend to be (aside from plain ones from Primark or something). I guess it bugs fashiony people cos it's fashion for people who don't give a shit about fashion

most dogs are absolutely fine, it is wankers with dogs that is the problem

I take my dog for walks in wanker-free zones (so not parks!)

I know the demographics of this place means London's inclusion is going to raise the most anger but the other choices are pretty wild too imo!

Barcelona's population has been in uproar about how unlivable it has become since the tourism takeover for years! Might as well include Venice.

And this might be partially due to knowing a lot of German and French people but I have never, ever heard anyone say "what I'd really like to do is move to Vienna".

Lol the other day I saw a sign that said something like “Take a risk. Visit Linz”

and I was like… I should do that

I stayed in Poblenou in Barcelona a few days in May and for a big hotel area it seemed fine, in some respects ideal even. There's seemingly a lot of older people in that area still and sitting out in those squares and small streets all the way down to the seafront. I saw anti-tourist graffiti but the vibe on those streets with a good mix of locals and visitors just seemed right to me.

It's pretty hard to gauge a city's livability as a tourist though, no? If you live there what feels just right to a visitor may seem crap compared to what the place was like five years ago.

Yes of course, no doubt it's more and more expensive and a victim of success more than most large cities due to its location and climate too. I'm part of that problem altho I never use Air BnB.

The large parks near her home are “extremely dangerous” to access, with a lack of pedestrian crossings and vehicles that speed through without looking.

tbf this could be true if her local large ‘park’ is Clapham Common - where this has been an local issue for years…It sounds ridiculous however for the large parks that most people will access.

Is there any city in Europe that could appear in an article like the above one without people who live there being enraged?

Barcelona or other places seem nice when I visit but that's probably also partly cos if you live in London you're paid a little more according to property prices, idk.

Finding a specific "best city" would be hard even if you didn't exclude as many things as that weird Guardian article, but isolating one city from another seems sort of impossible, especially if we're comparing places we visit to ones we live in, as Daniel says.

All of that said I'm sure there would be an interesting way of comparing cities but it would need numbers in it not just vibes/loose sentences.

Is there any city in Europe that could appear in an article like the above one without people who live there being enraged?

I think circa 2008 if Porto came up in a list like this there'd be celebration, but in 2025 absolutely not. So hypothetically there might be cities that haven't been hit by mass tourism/cost of living crisis that would enjoy the title, but by definition they also wouldn't be plaves Guardian writers write about.

So yeah basically you're OTM I think.

It's a list of "capital cities" but they're bending the rules a bit to get Barcelona in there.

Oh I thought that meant capital as in "capital idea, old bean!".

I feel there's maybe been some confusion about amount of green in Edinburgh vs amount of greens
https://www.google.com/maps/search/golf+course/@55.9399474,-3.2225537,10102m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoKLDEwMDc5MjA2OUgBUAM%3D

tbf this could be true if her local large ‘park’ is Clapham Common - where this has been an local issue for years…It sounds ridiculous however for the large parks that most people will access.

― Bob Six, Thursday, 25 December 2025 bookmarkflaglink

I live nearby and while its busy its just not true?!

Maybe it was about Brockwell Park? What's been going on there in recent years is one of the most gravely worrying scandals in modern Britain.

They've cancelled the Lambeth Country Show there which is pretty sad - apparently that doesn't make money (anymore?) but the numerous walled-off music festivals there do (tho I know the council are caught in the middle whether to maintain or reduce these too).

I was mainly joking just having read about all the storms in teacups there, but obviously uses of the parks is a hot enough issue in general.

The annoying part being, for years the evil briefcases at Lambeth Council rationalised all the paid festivals by saying ‘these underwrite the Lambeth Country Show’ and now…

Some quality writing from Pitchfork staffer and Guardian columnist Shaad D'Souza, who this year discovered Dido:
https://www.theguardian.com/music/2025/dec/25/the-best-old-music-we-discovered-this-year

"The first time I heard White Flag, I was roughly five years old and it happened, memorably, as I was tasting Heinz's new green and purple ketchup. But I listened to her second album on a whim this year after listening to the new Snuggle album and marvelled at what a good Dido approximation their song Woman Lake is. As it turns out, Woman Lake only has the light perfume of Dido.

The woman herself contains much more than featherweight power ballads: there's the harried Balearic grooves of Sand in My Shoes; Mary's in India, a song about – I believe – stealing your best friend’s man while she's on holiday; and Paris, a dejected and atonal ballad that’s not too far removed from PJ Harvey at her starkest. I was mainlining Life for Rent for a few weeks, but I had to stop – a friend told me I was beginning to romanticise everyday life too much."

This is pathetic hype, and doesn't say The Guardian have a partnership with Open AI.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/dec/29/sam-altman-openai-job-search-ai-harms

Several such examples lately, like the one upthread. Pretty grim.

The urgent threats facing the free press today would have been unimaginable for most of the Guardian’s 204-year history. With big tech, billionaires, and authoritarians seizing more control of the world’s news and information, our independent journalism needs your support.

the fucking temerity of these big tech shills, they are already dead.

There was also Could AI relationships actually be good for us? this AM:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2025/dec/28/could-ai-relationships-actually-be-good-for-us

It's a weirdly flip-floppy article with some odd mental gymnastics. It has "to be fair" and "research is emerging", which are bad words. And as always when I read The Guardian it strikes me that I could have written a better column myself. So could you, probably. Several people on Ilxor could have done a better job. Two paragraphs that stand out are:

"We have a long history of engaging in healthy interactions with nonhumans, whether they be pets, stuffed animals or beloved objects or machines ... In the case of pets, these are real relationships insofar as our cats and dogs understand that they are in a relationship with us. But the one‑sided, parasocial relationships we have with stuffed animals or cars happen without those things knowing that we exist. Only in the rarest of cases do these relationships devolve into something pathological. Parasociality is, for the most part, normal and healthy."

That's okay then! And also:

"In one study, patients who chatted with an AI-powered therapy chatbot showed a 30% reduction in anxiety symptoms. Not as effective as human therapists, who generated a 45% reduction, but still better than nothing. This utilitarian argument is worth considering; there are millions of people who are, for whatever reason, unable to access a therapist. And in those cases, turning to an AI is probably preferable to not seeking any help at all."

e.g. literally one study. "Probably" isn't very reassuring. It focuses on just one outcome and glides over the implication - which is odd for a newspaper founded to advance the cause of organised labour - that it's perfectly okay to have a two-tier health service.

there’s an ad right now on the Guardian website that says

BRITAIN’S FULL
….. of courageous, dedicated people from all over the world striving to make this country better etc

really pretty poor taste imo

also can there really be many people from Britain or elsewhere 'striving to make the country better'. not something that's ever crossed my mind tbh and not anything that should be a condition/goal of entry either. i

i am just making up that part because i can’t find the ad again but it was words to that effect. probably followed by a donation request lol

Yes I noticed it the other day, as you say, totally tasteless given what's going on in the UK at the moment.

hate those ads - 'OUR COUNTRY IS FULL' of something alright

the same ad campaign's first outing was MAKE BRITAIN GREAT AGAIN - just utterly weird in tone, amazing how many people must have had to see this and approve it for it to go live. it's honestly one step away from like "RACISM IS GOOD (for nothing, please support our journalism)".

SEND THEM BACK (not what you'll be doing when you subscribe to the Guardian)

lol it's literally that level. Ronan have you thought about applying for a job there

don dracist

WE HATE MUSLIMS (and everyone else not being able to have access to our journalism)

BRING BACK HANGING (receive a free wall calendar when you subscribe to the Guardian)

Burger King already did this perfectly

https://i.postimg.cc/CLNwXY5T/1-trq-EJ-om-Wkv-C9OGl5T1Ijw.png

WE LOVE HUNTING (out fresh new writers and challenging the status quo).

WE RESPECT AND SUPPORT TRANS PEOPLE (being excluded from public life)

FUCK THE POOR bastard who has to write these

TOMMY ROBINSON IS RIGHT (wing, however you'll find no such views in our content)

WE SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP ('s removal from high office, btw please send us some money so we can run thinkpieces from anti-trans activists)

GYPSIES SHOULD BE GASSED
about our award-winning coverage of travellers' rights

TRANS WOMEN ARE WOMEN
in name only - don't worry, we're still morons

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jan/18/reform-tory-defections-robert-jenrick

imagine paying John Harris to write stuff

spending the first two paragraphs talking about UB40 is god-tier harris-brain

that was about as far as i got. what a cunt.

"Kemi Badenoch will surely now be asking herself who the next Rat In Mi Kitchen will be"