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

WHO THE FUCK READS THE GUARDIAN?

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
I mean really, the same old slop, day after day, never challenging its readers, never looking outside the cosy confines of its middle class world...

― Enrique (Enrique), Thursday, 23 October 2003 12:01 (twenty-two years ago)

The Guardian - classic or dud?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Thursday, 23 October 2003 12:04 (twenty-two years ago)

People in cardigans, obviously. While listening to Radio 4!

― kate (kate), Thursday, 23 October 2003 12:05 (twenty-two years ago)

As opposed to all the far superior thrillingly challenging alternative dailies?

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Thursday, 23 October 2003 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

Exactly! Why would I want to read the Guardian, when the Sun has oh so much more to show---than whoever gets her tits out this week?

Silly me.

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Thursday, 23 October 2003 20:34 (twenty-two years ago)

As Ronan mentioned in the linked thread its foreign coverage is good. As with all papers to be forewarned of its agenda is to be forearmed.
Having said that it look at Saudi & BAE Systems recently has been very good.

― Jack St E (Jack St E), Thursday, 23 October 2003 20:47 (twenty-two years ago)

The Gurdian's foreign coverage is good in the sense that it has interesting in depth reports and features, but in terms of column inches (and numbers of correspondents) the Telegraph still beats it, I think.

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 23 October 2003 20:52 (twenty-two years ago)

dude what's up with simon hoggart? i am simultaneously on the floor laughing, but also thinking "who the fuck let him publish that!"

― marcg (marcg), Thursday, 23 October 2003 20:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Nick - you could well be right, I haven't seen the Tel for a long while. Which goes against my belief that one should always check out other papers (not just for one day) every so often to see how they are reporting / viewing things & new writers.

Brit papers are a bit expensive here though & I can only spend so much time online.

― Jack St E (Jack St E), Thursday, 23 October 2003 21:10 (twenty-two years ago)

Marc - is this just in general, or a specific piece?

― N. (nickdastoor), Thursday, 23 October 2003 21:12 (twenty-two years ago)

just in general. he is usually witty, but he comes up with these expletive laden slights that alternately shock and amuse. i think i am just used to the ny times which seems to occupy more of an editorial middle ground.

― marcg (marcg), Thursday, 23 October 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

The closest thing to the NY Times seems to be the Independent. Am I right, here?

Anyway I read the Guardian because it confirms my own beliefs and prejudices.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 23 October 2003 23:38 (twenty-two years ago)

Tracer, you have prejudices? Shocking! Like what?

― Nichole Graham (Nichole Graham), Thursday, 23 October 2003 23:39 (twenty-two years ago)

That Guardian readers are fuX0rs—wait a minute!

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Thursday, 23 October 2003 23:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I actuually don't like any of the papers. I want to find a tabloid I like but I haven't yet.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Friday, 24 October 2003 00:04 (twenty-two years ago)

i think i am just used to the ny times which seems to occupy more of an editorial middle ground.

Oh yeah -- real 'middle ground' stuff. The NYT's war stance is like a kid running up to someone's door, ringing the bell, and fucking off. They didn't have the balls to really go against. The Independent -- oh it's a Friday, I don't want to hate.

― Enrique (Enrique), Friday, 24 October 2003 07:39 (twenty-two years ago)

so maybe i will try out the indy today. off to the shop now. so do i pick up the broadsheet or the tabloid? decisions...

enrique--i think my main reaction has just been the language with which hoggart writes. by middle ground i just mean you find, for the most part, more linguistically measured pieces in the nyt op-ed--ie. not a lot of f-this, f-that. it seems like hoggart is an anomaly within the guardian itself--have not found any others with quite his "off the cuff-ness."

― marcg (marcg), Friday, 24 October 2003 08:03 (twenty-two years ago)

They're exactly the same Marc - it just depends on which one you're physically more comfortable reading (I always buy the tabloid these days).

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 24 October 2003 08:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Yes, but what do they do with all the news that doesn't fit in the little version? I want to know! What do they do with all that news?

― kate (kate), Friday, 24 October 2003 09:51 (twenty-two years ago)

It didn't actually happen Kate, they were making up the extra news all along.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 24 October 2003 09:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I always suspected that.

I remember being shocked when I moved from the UK to the US at how ENOURMOUS the papers, even the local papers, were. Where did all tht extra news come from? (I realise now that it was probably adverts but still.)

― kate (kate), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:02 (twenty-two years ago)

All the news is in there, kate. No words dropped.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:02 (twenty-two years ago)

WELL, HOW DO THEY MAKE IT SMALLER, THEN?!?!?

I don't believe them. It's just a plot to make suspicious types like me buy two newspapers to compare them word by word.

― kate (kate), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:05 (twenty-two years ago)

They make it thicker, Kate.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:09 (twenty-two years ago)

More pages, I assume? Smaller headlines? Less white space? I don't know - I'm just trusting what the guy from the Independent said on the radio last night - we can't buy it in Scotland yet.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:10 (twenty-two years ago)

It's because your canny Scots eye would see through the news theft.

― Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:10 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean really, the same old slop, day after day, never challenging its readers, never looking outside the cosy confines of its middle class world...

This is like looking out of a window and saying bloody hell you can see the same thing through it today as you could yesterday.

What newspaper is this not true of? Newspapers write for the audience they wish to pretend they have when they try and sell advertising space. Hence the fiction that anyone reading the Guardian (apart from their mega-bucks columnists) gives a fuck about fashion, or can afford expensive holidays.

But to complain that a newspaper panders to its audience is like complaining about a tree being a tree. If you're fed up with the Guardian, read something else. Or like most of the other people on this board -- or this is the impression I get whenever the subject comes up -- give up reading one paper and pick and choose from a whole bunch online.

― alext (alext), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I suspect every newspaper's real life readership is far broader than most people are assuming from these threads. When and where does this homogenous group 'Guardian readers' exists?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:21 (twenty-two years ago)

it exists here matt. (we are legion etc)

― Pashmina (Pashmina), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:29 (twenty-two years ago)

And they all wear cardigans.

Oh my god, right back to my first post.

― kate (kate), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:30 (twenty-two years ago)

(to be fair to enrique wasn't this thread a sardonic response to matt's v.similar one abt the express?) (ie making alext's point by the medium of sarcasm?)

― mark s (mark s), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I give a fuck about fashion. Except, ahem, you wouldn't guess it by looking at the only clean clothes I have left which I slung on this morning.

― Madchen (Madchen), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:34 (twenty-two years ago)

Me too! Though I'm not sure if these trousers count as clean or not.

― N. (nickdastoor), Friday, 24 October 2003 10:45 (twenty-two years ago)

If so - sorry to Enrique! That'll teach me to start reading from the top of the New Answers"

― alext (alext), Friday, 24 October 2003 11:05 (twenty-two years ago)

one year passes...
HAHAHAHAHA OMG I PWN SELF + MARTIN KETTLE + LOOK A BIT DICKISH

attn ilx: don't confuse emailing national newspapers with pressing submit here, m'kay?

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 08:43 (twenty years ago)

i.e. http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,3604,1531889,00.html

― toby (tsg20), Wednesday, 20 July 2005 08:53 (twenty years ago)

bluddy subs.

― N_RQ, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 08:56 (twenty years ago)

oy.

― grimly fiendish (grimlord), Wednesday, 20 July 2005 09:09 (twenty years ago)

oy oy!

― dahlin (dahlin), Wednesday, 20 July 2005 09:38 (twenty years ago)

i was reading the guardian corrections section today and they owned up to making a grievous error in figures for how much power a tv uses while on standby for a year... they had reported that it used up something like 500kw when it reality it's just 1.5!!!! shocking....

― dahlin (dahlin), Wednesday, 20 July 2005 17:51 (twenty years ago)

Let's keep things straight here. On July 7 they stated that the amount of CO2 produced by a television left on standby for a year would be 436.9kg when it would really be 98.8kg a year. I applaud their ability to admit their mistakes.

― Stan Fields (Stan Fields), Wednesday, 20 July 2005 21:44 (twenty years ago)

No wonder I always fall asleep in front of the TV BOOM BOOM.

― Alba (Alba), Wednesday, 20 July 2005 21:46 (twenty years ago)

DAEREST BRITISHES

get over your crappy newspapers.

sincereley,

― Marco Salvetti - Proffesor of Neurology at Sapienzaa Unviersity, Rome (moustache, Wednesday, 20 July 2005 21:48 (twenty years ago)

God I miss British newspapers.

― Adam In Real Life (nordicskilla), Wednesday, 20 July 2005 21:52 (twenty years ago)

five years pass...

tim jonze

― roy stride or die (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 February 2011 14:04 (fifteen years ago)

There is much here that will please the 'Head faithful, who willl delight in the claustrophobic likes of Morning Mr Magpie and Little By Little. But you don't have to be a diehard fan to see the worth in Codex, a beautiful melody brought into focus by the band's decision to dispense of the usual trimmings in favour of piano and ghostlike effects.

― roy stride or die (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 February 2011 14:07 (fifteen years ago)

Don't see what Bruce Willis has to do with it.

― seminal fuiud (NickB), Friday, 18 February 2011 14:10 (fifteen years ago)

Crazyhead have reformed?

― Tom D (Tom D.), Friday, 18 February 2011 14:10 (fifteen years ago)

the radioheads will be disappointed by the torrid time suffered by the oxfordshire fivepiece itt

― roy stride or die (nakhchivan), Friday, 18 February 2011 14:26 (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