“Reporters are mouthpieces for people in power”
On Today, Guardian writer and one-time journalist of the year Nick Davies tells us that the internet is a mechanism for distributing falsehood and madness.
But not to worry. Although much journalism is necessarily inaccurate, the bastions of truth and good journalism are the BBC and the Guardian.
…’.bastions of truth and good journalism are the bbc’.
That will be why Farming Today had the utterly incompetent former Defra veggie and failed minister, hilarity benn on this morning . He was allowed to ramble on completely unchallenged, claiming that the Krebbbs trials had shown , blah, blah, musn’t control badgers in TB hotspots, blah, blah.
The only thing the Krebbs trials showed, was that Defra couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery.
The bbc, the last bastion of selective reporting . They make the daily mirror look impartial by comparrison !
I heard that item on the radio this morning and Nick Davies got to puff his book. I’m anxiously waiting to see how much of the cuts the bbc will be bearing come the budget, nothing I suspect. Also just heard that fool and fraud Diane Abbot on woman’s hour. Is she really as idiotic as she sounds
Pass the sick bag Alice.
This whole smug, self-satisfied “report” had three people who present their opinions as “facts” and are all upset that the great unwashed do not believe them.
You’ll note that the Wash-Poo harpy talks about BUSH.
Not one damned word about the way the US media is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat party.
Or how “journalists” still spends 100 times for effort “investigating” a private citizen called Sarah Palin, than the actual President of the United States who hasn’t held on open question press conference for a year.
Nick Davies book, ‘Flat Earth News’, is very much a game of two halves.
The first part, about the effects of the destructive business model of modern news; mergers, PR, spin, and the time pressures that have effectively destroyed investigative journalism and replaced it with retyping press releases, is extremely interesting, well researched and relevant.
The second part of the book, detailing specific instances of manipulation of the news media is woefully biased. The vast majority of the examples quoted are from the right-wing media. The left-wing media, and specifically the BBC in those almost unscathed. Nick Davies is completely colourblind and simply cannot see the offences committed by his ‘team’.
It’s a shame as it detracts from what is an interesting and well argued first path.
He is also very much from the ‘gatekeeper’ school of journalism. He detests power and authority, unless it resides in the hands of journalists like himself.
Rank hypocrisy.
He cited time pressures and commercial pressures. Well, what’s the BBC’s excuse for its lack of investigative journalism, then?
And it wasn’t the BBC or the Guardian who revealed the MPs’ expenses scam as I recall. Funny that.
How did someone so blatantly biased as this Davies clod win an award for journalism? Who awards it anyway? Something that would bear some investigations itself, methinks.
That is a great comment.
Nick Davies’s attitude epitomises what’s wrong with the BBC and the Guardian. So confident in the assumption that the consensus they share is universal and righteous, they can’t entertain the possibility that it could be questioned.
I haven’t read Robin Aitken’s ‘Can we trust the BBC’, or Flat Earth News, but I do know a bit about Churnalism.
I have read Stephanie Gutmann’s The Other War, and you only have to visit CiFWatch to see what a disgrace The Guardian has become.
“Reporters are mouthpieces for people in power”
The correct quote is, of course:
“Reporters are mouthpieces for LEFTISTS in power”
Which is ironic because there are very few “lefty” thinkers in great power -its the opposite of great power in most cases.
Hear hear for the BBC to have any bias (although Nick Robinson heavily balances anything remotely like that out – notice you dont have many “lefty” quotes from that bent git on here) – because sure as hell 95% of other media outlets in the UK are run by money hungry, greed power overload such as Murdoch…
…and I suppose you’d think you’d think it would be a perfect place to scrap the BBC and have Murdoch take over everything you think, do and see in the UK and charge you twice as much for it too do you?
Although I suppose that would make you happy because all the voices aired would be in agreement with your single minded selfish “rightist” opinions??
What a joke.
What a moron.
And just how much do I have to pay (on threat of prison) for the right to read Murdochs papers?
You’ll only be able to find out when the BBC doesn’t exist wont you.
Or rather how much more you’ll have to pay for Sky instead.
Answer the implication of Roger’s question: How much is the compulsory government tax that finances NewsCorp — the pet bogeyman of all leftists.
Although many of Newscorp’s publications publicly endorsed Labour in three consecutive elcetions.
Jay Jay
Very nice of you to join in.
I think you flatter Nick Robinson. One voice to balance a torrent.
I love the idea that you think ‘money hungry’ is a huge evil. (As if lefties, BBC execs and “stars” aren’t. )
Isn’t being ‘money hungry’ also the drive that makes the world go round?
You’re not the first to confuse asking for balance with demanding conformity. Since we’re supposing things, I suppose you can’t imagine such a scenario.
It’s so nice to be lectured at on “selfishness” by thieving socialists.
How do you know what my politcal stance is?
You dont, im neither a socalist nor a dumb righty.
Much rather im an anti idiots, like yourself who somehow seem to think the world would be a better place without the BBC who may or may not have a slight left of centre biased (though do extremely well to hide it) compared to the ridiculous amounts of extremely wealthily corporate organisations who have a very very biased and obvious right wing agenda.
You think its a better, safe and even world when Murdoch turns up at 10 Downing Street the day after Cameron enters do you?
Look out behind you!
Murdoch (and his “empire”) endorsed the Labour party in the three elections from 1997. Please try to spout something reasonably intelligent.
I could CARE LESS about the BBC. I just don’t want to pay the BBC Pollicence Tax for the Institutional Leftism of the lumpen marxetariat. Try getting that through your skull,
What a load of crap. What is your obsession with Murdoch? The BBC is a dinosaur that just doesn’t know it’s time to die. A bloated organisation full of twats who are all white middle class luvvies/celts who seem to have no concept of efficiency. They see the licence fee as an entitlement not a privilege.
If people like YOU think the BBC delivers such a great service why are you all opposed to scrapping the TV tax and letting the BBC raise money through subscription and advertising? After all if as you think the BBC is great then people will pay double or three times what they pay now won’t they?
That you cite NewsCorp / Murdoch as the great satan that the BBC needs to defend the little people against, rather than the Guardian suggests that you accept that the BBC has an left wing bias.
Jay Jay, why do you assume that there is not a place for a leftist broadcaster in a deregulated market? Why do you assume that “scrapping” in your words, the BBC, means only one player entering the new market and that being “right wing”?
The US does very well with a multitude of channels. Over there, I’d watch Fox and you might watch CBS or somesuch. Both of us would be happy and neither of us would be subsidising each other – and certainly not under threat of imprisonment.
In an open market, there would inevitably be a channel which would continue the BBC line because there is a percentage who subscribe to that worldview. Excellent, I hope those people like it. I don’t want to pay for it though.
And thats a fair enough (and more balence and intelligent view than Jack Bauer whos obviously a clueless fuck wit of the extreme nature)
Its true I dont particularly agree with being forced to pay for a license fee as if its a tax. However I do like the idea that the BBC is funded body rather than a corporate owned body.
If the license fee was to be scrapped and the BBC changed ofcom would still need to exist to make sure TVs follow strict regulations. Sky would still need to be made sure they cannot buy up every single sporting event available. Maximum advert times would need to run so we dont have to have an advert break every 10 minutes like in the US.
The US do not have a perfect broadcast choice at all, so dont think they have.
Jack you dont seem to “CARE LESS” about the BBC, you visit a website called “the biased BBC’ and spout shite about what you believe.
Nevermind what I believe, what I KNOW and have first hand experiance of in many industry, both as the ring leader and as someone trying to get into that closed niche, you DO NOT want this countries media run by an inner circle of people intent on using their media outlet to push their own views. YOU will not benefit that just because you dont have to pay £110 a year (instead of the £60 a month I pay for Sky right now as I have no choice if I want to watch Football)
I could care less who Murdoch supported, the Labour party in 1997 and onwards to today were far from “left wing” and only continue Tory policy of letting the big boys (like Murdoch) dodge tax and do what they want…partly the reason the banks selfishly screwed the lot of us. Having a media outlet able to blatantly say who they are supporting and then doing it is a nightmare for anyone when you have a democracy being so many people have no idea what they believe. Sky are currently not allowed to push opinions as biased (and ridiculously uneducated) as the The Sun and if the BBC were to go, that regulation would have to stay in place, or we’d effectively all end up watching genuinely bent, corrupt television that could effectively be an advert posing as a program for you know…
…or you could stick with the so called “biased BBC” and their pundits like Michael Portillo and Nick Robinson.
You should remember than actually, the world is not a very simple place, and that as you get older simple-minded solutions seem less attractive. Just because you suddenly feel you should be excempt from License payers fee (so you honestly dont want ANY BBC material?) maybe they should give you the choice to be unable to access those channels or radio stations if you dont pay the fee…If you think you’d have good viewing with ITV and Sky One…christ.
Next you’ll be telling me the main reason you dont want to pay is because they employ gays and jews and both should be burnt to make boots or something ridiculous. You have to pay the fee, not point in arguing about it just because you dont want to, I dont believe you dont watch any BBC programming (you certainly do unless you hate comedy) – if you dont like that you could always move countries? (or dont you like foreigners either?)
Actually most of the BBC’ output is utter shit pure and simple. As for Sky, you quote Sky 1 but what about Sky arts? Or the endless range of channels like Discovery, National Geographic etc? Have you watched the BBC lately? Utter shit like EastEnders, some programme with a bunch of women who can’t sing trying to be Dorothy or something and skinny wags ‘educating me’ about Africa. Wow real quality TV there.
As for sporting events, why should the BBC get sporting events at knock down prices? I don’t know what you do for a living but would you sell your services to one person for less than market rate?
Sky only have a monopoly for sports because Sky bid for them. Can I point out that on the BBC they often whine on about the lack of womens’ sport on TV. Um except of course Sky have a lot of womens’ sport on, be it Cricket, Football, Netball, Golf and so on. Why doesn’t the BBC buy up these sports?
Because the BBC is full of fat talentless wankers who are only interested in the BIG events which they think they should get for free.
Martin if you think the BBC is full of poor programming your taste (and sense of humour) is horrendous. Its true the programs you mentioned are shit, but they are mainstream programs for idiots, the same as X-Factor, Big Brother, Shipwrecked, Coronation Street, Hollyoaks and all that other non BBC drivel that id rather gauge my own shins out and stick them through my throat than watch.
National Geographic and Discover have fine, bought in American programming, and theres plenty of good documentaries on BBC 4 as well.
But both BBC and Channel 4 are pioneering in bringing the only good intelligent comedy around.
Don’t like The Office, Extras, Peep Show, The Thick Of It, Alan Partridge, The Day Today, Brass Eye, Father Ted, Green Wing, Marion and Geoff, People Like Us, Operation Good Guys to name but a few.
…and if you dont like any of those, you’re a fucking retard pure and simple.
As much as I wouldn’t want to engage the rantings of a sixteen year old film student, it does make me laugh that your only argument is to accuse anyone who doesn’t support your rabid fanatacism for the BBC as being a pack of pro-murdoch, anti-comedy facists Where the only natural progression from that is of course to start burning Jews.
Laughable that you lay claim to the BBCs excellence in comedy by listing as many Channel Four comedy shows as BBC. How about these:-
Red Dwarf
The Young Ones
Bottom
Fawlty Towers
Monty Python
Little Britain
Absolutely Fabulous
Bottom
Undoubtedly, these are all excellent comedies. But do you honestly believe that it was the geniuses in BBC programming that dreamed up these wonders? All of these comedies would have fared just as well (if not better) on other channels, but they didn’t because only the BBC has a never ending pile of cash to stoke their comedy production studios with. Hence why they get first dibs on all the best comedies and also why they have the biggest output of dogshit comedy to boot.
It’s called the law of averages JayJay. When you make as much shit as the BBC, inevitably you are going to land something that works. BBC budget for comedy must be about 20 – 1 of that compared to Sky. And as you have inadvertantly pointed out, Channel Four seem to have had just as much success with their comedy as the BBC on a far, far smaller overall budget and with far, far smaller failure to success ratio of output.
And if the BBC are such fine purveyors of excellent comedy, then why did Red Dwarf have to turn to ‘Dave TV’ to get funding for their last few shows. Why did the BBC decide to reject the latest series of Bottom? Why do so many comedies have to be laboriously tested out on radio or can only come from already contracted talent? The BBC wouldn’t know a good comedy if it hit them in the face, they have to be told, told and told again. Channel Four on the other hand don’t believe in playing it quite so safe.
If the licence fee remains, I’m all for having it carved up to fund Channel Four and to give Sky and the ITV networks to make public funded programmes that they would not otherwise get the chance to make. You know, all that non-BBC drivel like “Over the Rainbow”, “Strictly Come Dancing” and “The Apprentice.”
By the way I listed Bottom twice, because it’s so excellent. I should also have mentioned ‘Hippies’.
An utterly brilliant Simon Pegg venture that wasn’t continued because the BBC were too interested in chasing ratings and if they don’t land the entire population of Britain watching it instantly then they assume it must be rubbish.
Not something a public broadcaster should really be obsessed about, but you couldn’t expect anything more from the talentless, uni tosspots that roam the corridors of Broadcasting House trying to think up something Ben Elton would like.
Bottom is excellent is it…
…right…
…compared to the comedies I listed…thats what we’re dealing with here, sigh.
These comedies are more enjoyable without commerical breaks. BBC political coverage is more edifying without the political bias.
Jay Jay,
Just because most people on here aren’t left wing doesn’t make them anti-semitic. You will find numerous posts on here defending Israel against the BBC’s stance. Historically anti-semitism has been much more associated with those on the left than with those on the right.
Just because most people who post on this site aren’t left-wing means that they’re not anti-semitic.
Apart from in the case of the Nazi right, possibly the most well known righties?
Nazis were Leftists. National Socialists. Not righties. Yet another ignorant defender of the indefensible dealing in emotions and not facts. Self-righteous indignation is not the same thing as an informed opinion.
Jay Jay,
Is this the first time you have posted on this site ? And will you be back today ?
(and more balence and intelligent view than Jack Bauer whos obviously a clueless fuck wit of the extreme nature)
Says the guy who assumes that him being a half-wit and a dim-wit makes him a wit. It doesn’t.
Though ploughing through the self-aggrandizing toss you spew, I will admit you reach the level sanctimonious prick without effort.
Do you really think ANYTHING you certinously assume was minted from your second-rate brain, has not been addressed and demolished here by so many others?
Stop wasting our time, hack.
This entire website is just full of irony and contradictions.
Its fucking ridiculous.
If you take a step back and sum it up – the majority of the people on this website are annoyed they have to pay a license fee for something possibly (and only very slightly with very little influence on voters and more importantly barely provable as there as just as many right wing and Labour/Liberal bashing on the BBC as their is Tory bashing if you are not too busy being ignorant)
…anyway, the they have to pay for something THEY deem as not expressing their own personal bias enough.
This has nothing to do with the BBC being biased. ALL of you posting on here are RIDICULOUSLY and EXTREMELY BEYOND biased. You are annoyed at the fact that the BBC isn’t biased enough to your own beliefs, which is ridiculous.
None of you are right, you’re all fucking cretins.
Jayjay, you seriously need to go out and have sex.
Someone who makes facile, snide left-wing assumptions. How unexpected someone like Jay jay should support the BBC.
Thanks jayjay for confirming that the BBC is biased. If it stopped pretending that it isn’t it wouldn’t be so objectionable.
Was going to add it to one of the AGW threads, but this seems more appropriate, somehow:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ethicalman/2010/05/are_we_doomed_by_democracy.html
Well, I wonder what Richard, David, Roger, etc think and, indeed, think others should think?
Guest Who,
The article you have highlighted ties in with the ‘Common Purpose’ agenda for the ‘Post Democratic Society’.
A hell of a lot of BBC employees are ‘graduates’ of the charity ‘Common Purpose’, which is in fact a left-wing pro-European brainwashing unit, receiving £51million a year mainly, but indirectly from central Government.
It has infiltrated the judicary, police, NHS, and of course, the BBC:
http://www.tpuc.org/node/107
Ethical man, like cro-magnon man but with less common sense.
That was really awful. At first I was giving credit to Montague for seeing the inanity of Lorraine Adams’s position for what it is. But then the ugliness of the BBC and Leftoid journalists got to be too much.
I’m still laughing at a Washington Post reporter saying that news organizations don’t really tell the truth and are just mouthpieces for government. The proof Adams offered was – what else? – the NY Times’ Judith Miller on Iraq. Miller’s reporting on the situation leading up to the invasion of Iraq has long been a kind of bête noir for the anti-this war crowd. The idea among the angry crowd is that the mere fact that Miller reported White House statements made her a cheerleader and complicit in the so-called lies which led to the war. They all think Miller’s reporting in the Times was a big reason the public bought into the war. Adams is very clearly one of these poeple (no disagreement from Sarah, either), and obviously felt frustrated that working for the WaPo restricted her ability to speak truth to power.
What Montague failed to point out, though, is that the publisher of the WaPo had to apologize for its biased reporting during the last election. That paper spread lies and hid truths to support The Obamessiah’s campaign. He was not in power at the time. In fact, the WaPo and nearly every other media organization in the country worked very hard against the people in power. Now that we’re in the Obamessianic Age, yes, they’re mouthpieces for the people in power, but only because of a shared ideology. If the politics of the people in power change, they’ll be against them once again.
The BBC is, of course, the number one example of a news organization being a mouthpiece for those in power – when it’s a Labour Government. I’ve also shown here several times how the BBC is even a mouthpiece for the current US President. Facts are out the window in these cases. But it’s ideologically based, and not just abeting those in power. So Adams is clueless, and Montague no better.
The other big laugh I got was Nick Davies explaining the problems facing journalism today. He spoke of a “busted business model”, but the BBC is the exception, as they don’t have to live in the real world. No mention of that from anyone. Davies other great joke was that the internet is “becoming a mechanism for distributing falsehood and madness”!
Alternatively, one could also say to Davies and the rest of the defenders of the indefensible, that part of why mainstream media journalists are facing trouble from the internet is that it has become a mechanism for distributing facts and stories that the rest of you either lie about or hide from the public entirely. The internet has broken more real stories than any newspaper has in ages. That’s why people like Davies hate it, and that’s why loopy Leftoids like Adams think that writing fiction is better for speaking truth to power.
It’s the blind leading the blind, really.
I was going to listen to the piece but then I heard that Adams’ woman using phrases like ‘signalising’ I felt myself losing the will to live. ..
I’d be happy for the BBC to be financed from the profits of property dealing and the income from a second hand car mag/website. It works for the Guardian. I don’t have to pay for that paper just because Davies and plenty of lefties think it is so wonderful.
Phil — you’re a bit behind.
The Guardian Media Group has been flogging off assets for years to keep the Grauniad afloat — rather like David Niven as Phinneas Fogg in Around The World In 80 Days, the bit where he stripped the paddle steamer of its wooden decks for fuel.
They sold off Auto Trader a few years back. And just sold their local paper assets, including the Manchester Evening News.
Oh the “Grauniad” dont consider that to come from a too biased publication do you Jack? Or is Private Eye ok?
Funny how your on a website moaning about how biased the BBC is yet you’ve got by far the most biased and biggoted views of anyone ive ever come across on the internet.
Ironic much?
So if you were in charge of the BBC everyone would be happy?
Can you please rephrase your first and second sentences so that they make some sort of sense?
Thank you.
I read the first and second sentence of his spastic meanderings about four times and I still can’t get what he’s wetting himself about.
Is the suggestion that Private Eye is partisan to the right or the left? Or was it some kind of student uni irony that only makes sense after 2 halves of cider and a game of soggy biscuit with his media study pals.
Yes Jack, “Grauniad” the phase you enjoy using because it harness your biased right wing views (on a website where you complain of others being biased) was made up with Ian Hislop editor of Private Eye (if you didn’t know because that seemed to confuse you) and also employee of the BBC for about two decades.
Ah well.
And if Georgie scraps the Grauniads monopoly on Government jobs they will be well and truly f****d.
Oh “Gideon” you mean? The bullingdon boy whos got a fucking history degree and is now in charge of the whole countries economy.
Thats not worrying is it, you have to have better and more specific quialifications than that to be deputy manager in my local Natwest bank in the middle of a small village!
Thank god Vince Cable a man with true intellect is there to help out.
And what qualified the one eyed mong to run England shit head?
And what qualified the one eyed mong to run England shit head?
His winning personality? Which is obviously modeled on Mr JJ.
Nothing, who said I wanted “the one eyed mong” messing things up either??
Give me a good insulted reply Jack “the american” Bauer can click “like” on because he can’t come up with any of his own.
Jay Jay,
Gordon the Moron’s degree was history. He knows nothing about economics as he has proved to all our costs, meanwhile feathering his own nest. Typical socialist hypocrite.
Martin — they are already well and truly effed.
Despite the massive cover price and the government cheese ad revenue, they lose a million quid a week.
Hence the selling off of assets.
They are the perfect socialist business model.
“I’d be happy for the BBC to be financed from the profits of property dealing and the income from a second hand car mag/website”.
They are. It’s called Top Gear.
JayJay
You are very welcome to comment but can you please refrain from the swearing? Thanks. 🙂
Be gentle with Jay Jay. I sense English is his second language.
“we’d effectively all end up watching genuinely bent, corrupt television.”
Heaven forfend.
I sense English is his second language.
I’m betting third. Picked up from old Peter Cook/Dudley Moore albums judging by his use of the f-word.
Kenneth Tynan you have a lot to answer for.
You dont even speak English Jack, you use ‘Z’ (that Zed, not Zee) where ‘S’ should be used, retard.
The F-word? you mean “fuck” sorry you dont like that do you, id better censor it…F**KUNT.
Jay Jay: Vince Cable was totally stripped by Andrew Neil to reveal that he held a few sets of conflicting views simultaneously. Psychologists have a name for that condition.
As for having a History degree and being in charge of the economy, you are correct to warn us given the scorched earth job that Gordon Brown did.
Andrew Neil of the left wing BBC you mean?? How very unbiased of him!
Great reply…I bet you’ve never heard of half those comedies up there have you – what a cultural monkey.
Do you not think its ironic that you’re all sat here with the most biased and one sided views on a website that claims the BBC is biased.
Brilliant, truely brilliant.
As for you Jack, you’re about as quick witted as a poised rat. Id love to have a conversation with you, but id probably enjoy having type 2 diabetes more.
Actually I have a pet rat.
Coincidentally his name is Jay Jay. What are the odds?
No relation I’m sure, as he talks a lot more sense than you.
In his squeakly little rat language, of course. He’s also very poised.
To paraphrase old Dennis, being attacked by you is like being savaged by a dead sheep.
Troll, go to bed or get some air conditioning. I can’t tell if it’s lack of sleep or the heat that’s making you hammer your keyboard like this but your juvenile bile would be more at home in the comments section of Youtube.
Does anyone else get the impression of this author as sitting in a darkened basement with a container of pills split open on his desk as he waits for them to kick in as he types?
P.S. Jack, dont worry, i’ll leave you alone now to talk amoungst other like minded idiots who think they are correct but are unaccepting of anyone else opinion becase, as ive said before, the country would be a much better place if you lot got your way…christ almight.
Hope you choke on your throat cancer soon. (id consider changing your homosexual profile picture too because im almost positive you hate gays…they do run the BBC remember)
Hope you choke on your throat cancer soon.
Charming.
Yup. It’s a BBC employee.
Tavis — you think? What are the tell-tale clues? Could it be that guy who announced the Queen’s death last week?
Ahh, how wonderful it must be to be graced with such ‘culture’. TB, yes, that bottle of pills image is beginning to kick in …
“Hope you choke on your throat cancer soon.” An incredible comment from someone who likes the BBC so much that his ideology comes before humanity. I shouldn’t be surprised.
marky — he’s a keeper, no? The perfect BBC drone!
Hope you choke on your throat cancer soon.
One of life’s mysteries must be how the Conservatives ever allowed themselves to be labelled “The Nasty Party”. For sheer vindictive bile you can always rely on the left to trump anything the right can produce. It’s interesting how it’s exactly these types who most vociferously support the BBC.
I can understand the reticence of the BBC to give up its bizarre, outdated revenue stream. Look at the Guardian; it’s about as popular as tertiary syphilis and the shitload of money it loses each day is testament to that. If the BBC had to survive in the real world, without its state-sanctioned theft, well, there simply aren’t enough linen-suit-wearing, bed-wetting, leftyfags willing to pay for the torrent of low-grade effluent it squirts out on to the EM spectrum each second.
Maybe the BBC could hold telethons to raise money like other public broadcasters do. They could use their talent to host said telethons. People like…uh…I can’t think of any. But that doesn’t necessarily mean there isn’t any. Yeah.
Whatever, the BBC can cease to be as far as I’m concerned. Apart from Moto GP, it’s entirely worthless to me. Almost everyone else does it better, more professionally and cheaper than the BBC does. The experiment is over boys and girls. It’s time to put on the big boy pants and see if those Media Studies and English degrees can be put to any use. McDonald’s is always hiring.
How much longer can the Guardian survive when it’s MD Tim Brook’s has already admitted it – and it’s deformed twin ‘The Observer’ – is urinating £100,000 a day down the karzi? It’s declining sales drop 16% with every passing year. All it has left now is it’s on-line gamble that by offering free content to the world, advertisers will beat a path to their door to fund their ‘excellent journalism’. How many advertisers are there selling couldroy jackets and man-bags to sustain such a hopelessly optomistic business model?
It’s circulation is a mere 289,000 compared to the Daily Mail’s 2 million and the Sun’s 3 million.
The Guardian also has a disproportionate amount of readers in London closely followed by the home counties. The home counties would have come top of the league but Guardian readers enjoy nothing more than flouncing in and out of London newsagents like mincing queens, waving their broadsheet like national flags on the London underground so we can all feel that little bit less important than they are.
The majority of Guardian readers are also from the A and B social Grade, which according to the NRS National Readership Survey are the “wanker” class.
which according to the NRS National Readership Survey are the “wanker” class.
Ha ha. I am sure they’ve gentrified themselves into the “monoist” class.
I wonder if Jay Jay will return today. He seemed to be really wound up yesterday !
I think a relative of his has offered him sex to calm him down today.
He, with his shaky grasp of English, was daft enough to get wound up about Jack using Z instead of S. He doesn’t realize or realise that it is perfectly correct, standard English, even though modern usage in England / UK tends to prefer the S. (American modern usage adheres to the original primary English spelling.)
Millie — EXACTLY. It is nice that someone knows her OED!
To be honest, I just couldn’t be bothered to correct the dope and let it ride.
The British use of the French/late Latin suffix ise in lieu of Greek ize seems to be a 20th Century phenomeon.
As the OED usage guide explains ize is often MISTAKEN for an Americanism (of English) but it is most definitely not.
For most of the 20th Century The Times style bible insisted on the use of ize in print, which I must prefer as a former ad copywriter, not least because it looks so crisp in headlines and copy.
In fact, American-English is quite often closer our linguistic roots than we are.
I particularly like the way they have retained the old English “gotten” and have been doing my bit to reintroduce it back to the mother country.
Hope you choke on your throat cancer soon.
I used to wonder how the atrocities that occurred in the Soviet Union, China etc., came to be – how they could do those things to their own people. The internet has given me some insight this. Reading the internet musings of Jay Jay and his ilk, I think that given sufficent power, these “Progressives” may not have a problem with rounding up the likes of me and drip feeding me carcinogens. Simply because I disagree with them. The journey from trendy lefty to commie monster may be a short one.
You’re not far wrong, I fear. Here’s a timely post from a US blog on that very subject:
The Priveleged Call for Limited Dictatorships
And I think we all remember Matt Frei’s dreamy musings about the same thing.
Well, I noticed Jay Jay hasn’t returned today yet. His postings yesterday were gettin increasingly hysterical. Wonder whst he is on ?
Just another drive-by trolling.
David P,
Yes , or possibly it is because next monday is a public holiday in the UK !
Wonder what he is on ?
Fire?
But then, I am one of life’s optimists. Until I’m not!
“Getting” and “what”, it should read.