“Covering America for the world, including Americans.”
June 21, 2017 7:19 AM Subscribe
How The Guardian Lost America (Steven Perlberg/Buzzfeed News) -
"The Guardian’s US newsroom didn’t become the voice of the Bernie left during the election. It didn’t break huge campaign scoops. Years after winning a Pulitzer for the Edward Snowden story, Guardian US has slashed costs, leaving employees stewing about mismanagement, infighting, a sexual harassment allegation, and unrealistic business expectations."
“The Hunger Games began,” one former Guardian journalist said. “It was an entrenched political place. They all operated by building up their camps for the day they would fight for the throne.”
As the succession campaign heated up, Viner would regularly leave New York for London to rally her base, leaving Guardian US in the care of Glendinning, who at the time held the newsroom’s support. As the closely watched battle for the Guardian’s top editorship intensified, it became increasingly apparent that Gibson’s victory was far from certain and that Viner had made inroads.
“Kath is very, very good at corporate communications, and she wins over the union. What everyone thought was going to happen didn’t,” said the former executive.
In late March of 2015, the Guardian appointed Viner as its first female editor. Glendinning was named her permanent successor in the US, and Gibson resigned from the paper. Shortly thereafter, the Guardian promoted David Pemsel from deputy chief executive to CEO, replacing Andrew Miller, who in an exit speech reportedly alluded to Game of Thrones' fifth-season finale...
Another reminder that competition is only healthy between companies, not within companies.
posted by Brian B. at 7:47 AM on June 21, 2017 [16 favorites]
As the succession campaign heated up, Viner would regularly leave New York for London to rally her base, leaving Guardian US in the care of Glendinning, who at the time held the newsroom’s support. As the closely watched battle for the Guardian’s top editorship intensified, it became increasingly apparent that Gibson’s victory was far from certain and that Viner had made inroads.
“Kath is very, very good at corporate communications, and she wins over the union. What everyone thought was going to happen didn’t,” said the former executive.
In late March of 2015, the Guardian appointed Viner as its first female editor. Glendinning was named her permanent successor in the US, and Gibson resigned from the paper. Shortly thereafter, the Guardian promoted David Pemsel from deputy chief executive to CEO, replacing Andrew Miller, who in an exit speech reportedly alluded to Game of Thrones' fifth-season finale...
Another reminder that competition is only healthy between companies, not within companies.
posted by Brian B. at 7:47 AM on June 21, 2017 [16 favorites]
Damn, I just got the first disc of the Game of Thrones fifth season from Netflix. (Spoiler alert for the OP article... never mind, it's in the thread now.)
posted by XMLicious at 7:51 AM on June 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by XMLicious at 7:51 AM on June 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
But Guardian US, many insiders believe, missed its core political opportunity in 2016 to align itself with the Bernie Sanders insurgency in the way its British parent paper has long been linked with the UK Labour left.
1. The Guardian has _never_ been a paper of the left. It has always been a liberal (in the British sense) paper.
2. "the Bernie Sanders insurgency": do me a lemon.
3. "missed its core political opportunity in 2016 to align itself": The Guardian's main opportunity is surely in news, not opinion. And the whole point of The Guardian is a strong separation between the two.
posted by hawthorne at 8:24 AM on June 21, 2017 [57 favorites]
1. The Guardian has _never_ been a paper of the left. It has always been a liberal (in the British sense) paper.
2. "the Bernie Sanders insurgency": do me a lemon.
3. "missed its core political opportunity in 2016 to align itself": The Guardian's main opportunity is surely in news, not opinion. And the whole point of The Guardian is a strong separation between the two.
posted by hawthorne at 8:24 AM on June 21, 2017 [57 favorites]
And the whole point of The Guardian is a strong separation between the two
Which is why it's doomed.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:26 AM on June 21, 2017
Which is why it's doomed.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:26 AM on June 21, 2017
Mod note: Deleted spoiler from the thread, per request.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:27 AM on June 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:27 AM on June 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
The Guardian's main opportunity is surely in news, not opinion.I think the British press tradition has always been more tolerant of newsrooms with an acknowledged point of view. That doesn't mean that the reporting is deliberately distorted or dishonest (or it doesn't necessarily mean that), but they acknowledge that they have a perspective. We all know that American news outlets also have a perspective, but they're a lot less open about it.
It's interesting. I've been paying a lot less attention to the Guardian recently, but I didn't even realize I was doing it.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 8:47 AM on June 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
This is interesting. It reminds me of my feeling about Manchester that the New York Times coverage of the UK hit all the wrong tones. I think all those that have branched out into other countries have learned that it's far harder than they expected to report in a way that is sensitive to the prevailing cultural context, but also true to their brand and history. The Guardian also branched out into Australia - there the longer established companies are doing everything they can to try and cut the Guardian down at the moment.
As for the Guardian's political views, they've become far more supportive of Corbyn in recent weeks, and Owen Jones is one of their very regular contributors. Fair bit of backpedalling.
posted by wingless_angel at 8:50 AM on June 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
As for the Guardian's political views, they've become far more supportive of Corbyn in recent weeks, and Owen Jones is one of their very regular contributors. Fair bit of backpedalling.
posted by wingless_angel at 8:50 AM on June 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
ZeusHumms: "has slashed costs, leaving employees stewing about mismanagement, infighting, a sexual harassment allegation, and unrealistic business expectations.""
In other words, it's a newspaper.
posted by chavenet at 8:57 AM on June 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
In other words, it's a newspaper.
posted by chavenet at 8:57 AM on June 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
"has slashed costs, leaving employees stewing about mismanagement, infighting, a sexual harassment allegation, and unrealistic business expectations.""
In other words, it's anewspaper. corporation
Fixed.
posted by Fizz at 9:26 AM on June 21, 2017 [10 favorites]
In other words, it's a
Fixed.
posted by Fizz at 9:26 AM on June 21, 2017 [10 favorites]
The "not becoming the voice of Bernie" seems like such a bizarre criticism to this American.
posted by octothorpe at 9:27 AM on June 21, 2017 [33 favorites]
posted by octothorpe at 9:27 AM on June 21, 2017 [33 favorites]
"not becoming the voice of Bernie"
Twitter bots don't buy subscriptions to newspapers.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 9:42 AM on June 21, 2017 [10 favorites]
Twitter bots don't buy subscriptions to newspapers.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 9:42 AM on June 21, 2017 [10 favorites]
But imagine if they could... golly, why can't they? It would solve everything!
posted by Naberius at 9:44 AM on June 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Naberius at 9:44 AM on June 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
The "not becoming the voice of Bernie" seems like such a bizarre criticism to this American.
I agree. And not because I would be wary of a newspaper with an acknowledged perspective - because "voice of Bernie" is a very narrow perspective, focused on a single politician instead of a set of political values.
The article's focus on Bernie strikes me as really weird, and similar to a lot of "Bernie would have won!!!!" opinions on FB, Tumblr, etc.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:45 AM on June 21, 2017 [23 favorites]
I agree. And not because I would be wary of a newspaper with an acknowledged perspective - because "voice of Bernie" is a very narrow perspective, focused on a single politician instead of a set of political values.
The article's focus on Bernie strikes me as really weird, and similar to a lot of "Bernie would have won!!!!" opinions on FB, Tumblr, etc.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:45 AM on June 21, 2017 [23 favorites]
They didn't have to become the Bernie mouthpiece, they just had to not follow the line that virtually every other media outlet took: that the guy with an actual grassroots following was getting people excited and filling stadiums at a time when HRod couldn't fill a school gym--Bernie was a non-story, a joke that didn't deserve attention, whereas the orange guy was a joke that deserved all their attention. What could go wrong?
posted by Locobot at 9:47 AM on June 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
posted by Locobot at 9:47 AM on June 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
You know what I never tire of? Refighting the primaries over and over and over again. It's solved so much.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:00 AM on June 21, 2017 [65 favorites]
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 10:00 AM on June 21, 2017 [65 favorites]
It is bizarre, especially considering Guardian US has done and continues to do longform reports and opinion pieces on class, race, poverty, etc. in the US which specifically address how these factors intersected with the presidential election, where both Clinton and Sanders fell down with regards to them and how so many of them got packed into Trump's dogshouting. I can recall a number of fairly pro-Sanders pieces during and for a few months after the election, on top of that, so. Buh?
posted by byanyothername at 10:01 AM on June 21, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by byanyothername at 10:01 AM on June 21, 2017 [12 favorites]
The article implies that they made a mistake by not:
* "becoming the voice of Bernie"
* "align[ing] itself with the Bernie Sanders insurgency"
* "becoming the outlet for the Bernie faithful"
I think the real missed opportunity is something else that they mention in the article: The obsession over reporting on the horserace, instead of policy positions and analysis.
Maybe they could have done better with their reporting on Bernie. That's different than saying that "becoming the voice of Bernie" would have helped them. The phrase "Bernie faithful" is not the same as "political progressives", despite a lot of die-hard Bernie supporters thinking that it is. Neither was Bernie the solution to all our problems.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:06 AM on June 21, 2017 [22 favorites]
* "becoming the voice of Bernie"
* "align[ing] itself with the Bernie Sanders insurgency"
* "becoming the outlet for the Bernie faithful"
I think the real missed opportunity is something else that they mention in the article: The obsession over reporting on the horserace, instead of policy positions and analysis.
Maybe they could have done better with their reporting on Bernie. That's different than saying that "becoming the voice of Bernie" would have helped them. The phrase "Bernie faithful" is not the same as "political progressives", despite a lot of die-hard Bernie supporters thinking that it is. Neither was Bernie the solution to all our problems.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 10:06 AM on June 21, 2017 [22 favorites]
The Guardian is very much a Middle Class paper, rather than a Working Class one. "Guardian readers" may be shorthand for left-leaning middle class, but it doesn't actually mean much about the paper itself. "Guardian readers" really means "not Times or Telegraph readers, and especially not Daily Mail and Daily Express readers, but also not Daily Mirror readers."
The Guardian is really rather neutral, or, when vocal, centrist to centre-left, which is a perfectly sensible and admirable thing to be, but newspaperwise the American market is not exactly starved of that sort of editorial stance. It's rare for American print media to proudly wave its bias the way its British counterparts do. If the Guardian's editorial stance has a name, that name might as well be "American-style."
posted by Sys Rq at 10:14 AM on June 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
The Guardian is really rather neutral, or, when vocal, centrist to centre-left, which is a perfectly sensible and admirable thing to be, but newspaperwise the American market is not exactly starved of that sort of editorial stance. It's rare for American print media to proudly wave its bias the way its British counterparts do. If the Guardian's editorial stance has a name, that name might as well be "American-style."
posted by Sys Rq at 10:14 AM on June 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
I was embarrassed by The Guardian's crowing over winning the Pulitzer for the Snowden story. Snowden did all the work and took all the risk. It's like Metafilter itself taking credit for something I post here.
posted by w0mbat at 10:16 AM on June 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by w0mbat at 10:16 AM on June 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
And I'm still trying to figure out why the Gruaniad has decided not to renew Nicholas Lezard's contract for Paperback of the Week. So is, among many others, author Philip Pullman.
posted by Mister Bijou at 10:30 AM on June 21, 2017
posted by Mister Bijou at 10:30 AM on June 21, 2017
At least they aren't a solid wall of Glenn fucking Greenwald anymore.
posted by Artw at 10:31 AM on June 21, 2017 [19 favorites]
posted by Artw at 10:31 AM on June 21, 2017 [19 favorites]
Perhaps now the Guardian ombudsman can emerge and figure out how to do technology reporting. The paper falsely reported stuff about WhatsApp and still has yet to retract, discuss
posted by nixon's meatloaf at 10:54 AM on June 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
posted by nixon's meatloaf at 10:54 AM on June 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
"I think the real missed opportunity is something else that they mention in the article: The obsession over reporting on the horserace, instead of policy positions and analysis. "
Good lord, I wish the whole press would get the hell off it's high-horserace.
posted by jetsetsc at 11:20 AM on June 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
Good lord, I wish the whole press would get the hell off it's high-horserace.
posted by jetsetsc at 11:20 AM on June 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
MetaFilter: It's like Metafilter itself taking credit for something I post here.
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:35 AM on June 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by GenjiandProust at 11:35 AM on June 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
I'm a bit dismayed by the Bernie antipathy in here, of all places. Whether or not you like the guy himself, surely we can agree that there's a distinct deficit of major media coverage when it comes to the emerging left in the U.S. and it's inescapable that this head-in-the-sand attitude (which I'm sure has nothing to do with the fact that the heads of these major media outlets depend on the [intensely Capitalist] status quo for their supper) has contributed significantly to our current state of disaster.
Everyone has a "bias" the moment they decide what to report on and what to ignore. Why not distinguish yourself by reporting on something that could change the political climate for the better?
posted by Mooseli at 12:02 PM on June 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
Everyone has a "bias" the moment they decide what to report on and what to ignore. Why not distinguish yourself by reporting on something that could change the political climate for the better?
posted by Mooseli at 12:02 PM on June 21, 2017 [13 favorites]
Why not distinguish yourself by reporting on something that could change the political climate for the better?
Well maybe because to a lot of us Bernie isn't someone who we think will change the climate for the better?
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 12:07 PM on June 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
Well maybe because to a lot of us Bernie isn't someone who we think will change the climate for the better?
posted by Homo neanderthalensis at 12:07 PM on June 21, 2017 [15 favorites]
Everyone has a "bias" the moment they decide what to report on and what to ignore. Why not distinguish yourself by reporting on something that could change the political climate for the better?
But that's not what the Buzzfeed article said. It was talking about aligning with a specific primary candidate who was totally out of contention by late Spring last year. What would they have done from June until November, just harangued Clinton for not being Bernie?
posted by octothorpe at 12:19 PM on June 21, 2017 [8 favorites]
But that's not what the Buzzfeed article said. It was talking about aligning with a specific primary candidate who was totally out of contention by late Spring last year. What would they have done from June until November, just harangued Clinton for not being Bernie?
posted by octothorpe at 12:19 PM on June 21, 2017 [8 favorites]
If you want that The Intercept did it up to the election and up until right now.
posted by Artw at 12:27 PM on June 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 12:27 PM on June 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Why not distinguish yourself by reporting on something that could change the political climate for the better?
Report on Bernie.
Report on something that could change things for the better.
It's one or the other.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:56 PM on June 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
Report on Bernie.
Report on something that could change things for the better.
It's one or the other.
posted by NotMyselfRightNow at 12:56 PM on June 21, 2017 [3 favorites]
Fact: Arthur Dent was a Guardian reader.
Perhaps not a *relevant* fact....
posted by Chrysostom at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Perhaps not a *relevant* fact....
posted by Chrysostom at 1:01 PM on June 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
I'm a bit dismayed by the Bernie antipathy in here, of all places.
Disagreeing that the Guardian should have become the voice of Bernie Sanders isn't the same as antipathy towards Bernie Sanders. Neither is disagreeing with the attitudes of a subset of Bernie supporters. I like Bernie Sanders, for the most part.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:03 PM on June 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
Disagreeing that the Guardian should have become the voice of Bernie Sanders isn't the same as antipathy towards Bernie Sanders. Neither is disagreeing with the attitudes of a subset of Bernie supporters. I like Bernie Sanders, for the most part.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 1:03 PM on June 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
And I'm still trying to figure out why the Gruaniad has decided not to renew Nicholas Lezard's contract for Paperback of the Week. So is, among many others, author Philip Pullman.
Lack of money and competence, mainly. The Graun's HR department has long been a thing of myth and wonder - it absolutely could be that they just forgot he was on the books, which is by no means unknown. But I suspect it's part of operation Rolling Fuckoff.
Other things going on - the Guardian is selling its Berliner presses (or walking away from them, I'm not sure) and going tabloid, buying time on Trinity MIrror's presses. Sic transit gloria Rusbridger. And it may or may not be moving back to Manchester, fleeing its posh KIngs Cross offices not that long (in newspaper terms) after leaving its Farringdon Road offices.
But basically, it's losing money at an alarming rate. It was losing money at a HORRIFYING rate, and burning through its huge cash pile at a speed that was adding an inch a year to sea levels.
posted by Devonian at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Lack of money and competence, mainly. The Graun's HR department has long been a thing of myth and wonder - it absolutely could be that they just forgot he was on the books, which is by no means unknown. But I suspect it's part of operation Rolling Fuckoff.
Other things going on - the Guardian is selling its Berliner presses (or walking away from them, I'm not sure) and going tabloid, buying time on Trinity MIrror's presses. Sic transit gloria Rusbridger. And it may or may not be moving back to Manchester, fleeing its posh KIngs Cross offices not that long (in newspaper terms) after leaving its Farringdon Road offices.
But basically, it's losing money at an alarming rate. It was losing money at a HORRIFYING rate, and burning through its huge cash pile at a speed that was adding an inch a year to sea levels.
posted by Devonian at 1:09 PM on June 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
It's odd that a news outlet that's supposed to be objective is also supposed to support a particular politician. What happens if that politician does things that you don't agree with?
This FT podcast provides some context for the rise and fall of the Guardian in the US. In short, Alan Rusbridger liked to spend money.
posted by My Dad at 1:10 PM on June 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
This FT podcast provides some context for the rise and fall of the Guardian in the US. In short, Alan Rusbridger liked to spend money.
posted by My Dad at 1:10 PM on June 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
I think this article is odd, as an analysis that anthropomorphizes and individualizes Guardian as its own cause of its failings. The entire premise of a Continental paper "failing" to enter and succeed in a context of the existing, established inertia and power relations in US media is the problem. Does this author even media studies? The story is not a leftist perspective at all. So considering that, the way that this attempt to reflect on what the Guardian failed to do with Bernie doesn't make any coherent sense.
posted by polymodus at 1:11 PM on June 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 1:11 PM on June 21, 2017 [2 favorites]
You know what I never tire of? Refighting the primaries over and over and over again. It's solved so much.
Only two years to go before we have all new primaries to fight over!!
posted by srboisvert at 1:24 PM on June 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Only two years to go before we have all new primaries to fight over!!
posted by srboisvert at 1:24 PM on June 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
I was embarrassed by The Guardian's crowing over winning the Pulitzer for the Snowden story. Snowden did all the work and took all the risk. It's like Metafilter itself taking credit for something I post here.
posted by w0mbat at 12:16 PM on June 21 .
That comment is by Mefi's owned wOmbat.
posted by srboisvert at 1:27 PM on June 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by w0mbat at 12:16 PM on June 21 .
That comment is by Mefi's owned wOmbat.
posted by srboisvert at 1:27 PM on June 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
The Guardian in crisis: How Britain’s liberal bugle is destroying itself (Bryan MacDonald, May 6, 2016 RT)
posted by Auden at 2:36 PM on June 21, 2017
posted by Auden at 2:36 PM on June 21, 2017
I'm a bit dismayed by the Bernie antipathy in here, of all places.
Gee, could it be because his followers threw a fit last spring and are still sulking? Could it be because, charitably, he created an army he couldn't control?
No. It must be because we're all capitalist sell-outs and no better than Republicans.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:01 PM on June 21, 2017 [9 favorites]
Gee, could it be because his followers threw a fit last spring and are still sulking? Could it be because, charitably, he created an army he couldn't control?
No. It must be because we're all capitalist sell-outs and no better than Republicans.
posted by steady-state strawberry at 5:01 PM on June 21, 2017 [9 favorites]
could it be because his followers threw a fit last spring and are still sulking?
Is this a thing more than utter meltdowns when the idea that the election might have gone a different way if a different candidate had been the nominee is suggested?
posted by Space Coyote at 5:07 PM on June 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
Is this a thing more than utter meltdowns when the idea that the election might have gone a different way if a different candidate had been the nominee is suggested?
posted by Space Coyote at 5:07 PM on June 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
For fuck's sake, you guys.
Some people here like Bernie a lot. Some people here don't like Bernie. A lot of people are sick of the whole damn argument, and I suspect that includes both many people who like Bernie and many people who loathe him. Can we not turn this discussion into a referendum on Bernie? And it's actually possible to separate the question of whether the Guardian editorial team should have embraced Bernie from ones personal feelings about the man or his candidacy.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:15 PM on June 21, 2017 [14 favorites]
Some people here like Bernie a lot. Some people here don't like Bernie. A lot of people are sick of the whole damn argument, and I suspect that includes both many people who like Bernie and many people who loathe him. Can we not turn this discussion into a referendum on Bernie? And it's actually possible to separate the question of whether the Guardian editorial team should have embraced Bernie from ones personal feelings about the man or his candidacy.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 5:15 PM on June 21, 2017 [14 favorites]
Mooseli: I'm a bit dismayed by the Bernie antipathy in here, of all places.
You musta missed some threads. Some big, angry, nasty threads. Some threads with lots of deleted comments so you won't be able to tell how bad it got even if you wanted to.
I missed the threads in which Greenwald became persona non grata, so we've all got our Metafilter Blind Spots.
I'm curious about $250,000 for screwing up the move: A couple of years ago the company I was working for lost that much-ish because of bad move planning, but they survived. How big of a number is that in newspaper terms?
posted by clawsoon at 7:20 PM on June 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
You musta missed some threads. Some big, angry, nasty threads. Some threads with lots of deleted comments so you won't be able to tell how bad it got even if you wanted to.
I missed the threads in which Greenwald became persona non grata, so we've all got our Metafilter Blind Spots.
I'm curious about $250,000 for screwing up the move: A couple of years ago the company I was working for lost that much-ish because of bad move planning, but they survived. How big of a number is that in newspaper terms?
posted by clawsoon at 7:20 PM on June 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm a bit dismayed by the Bernie antipathy in here, of all places. Whether or not you like the guy himself, surely we can agree that there's a distinct deficit of major media coverage when it comes to the emerging left in the U.S.
That's probably because the emerging left in the US is resembling, not so much a political movement, as a fanbase fixated on a single person. Not to mention the unhealthy whiff of racism and misogyny, with the insistence that identity politics be discarded n favor of the "working class". A group that often seems oriented mostly to attacking Liberals and Democrats.
Maybe the Left needs to work on things a bit more to get media coverage.
posted by happyroach at 9:03 PM on June 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
That's probably because the emerging left in the US is resembling, not so much a political movement, as a fanbase fixated on a single person. Not to mention the unhealthy whiff of racism and misogyny, with the insistence that identity politics be discarded n favor of the "working class". A group that often seems oriented mostly to attacking Liberals and Democrats.
Maybe the Left needs to work on things a bit more to get media coverage.
posted by happyroach at 9:03 PM on June 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
I don't think that it's accurate to say that the emerging left resembles a fanbase fixated on a single person. I think that was the narrative that was being promoted by the media in the primaries, but the emerging left is diverse - often to its detriment when it comes to the polls.
This is one of the reasons the focus on Bernie in the article strikes me as so odd. I can understand someone who is making an argument that an established newspaper should try attracting the emerging left as an audience. I can't really understand the argument that the newspaper should have become the voice of a single politician. It makes me think that the author is confusing what's "left" with what's "Bernie."
And honestly, I think part of the reason that this idea that Bernie is the voice of the emerging left is so popular is that it's just much simpler to write headlines about a single, charismatic person who is doing something. Especially if you're trying to look in on a movement from the outside.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:27 PM on June 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
This is one of the reasons the focus on Bernie in the article strikes me as so odd. I can understand someone who is making an argument that an established newspaper should try attracting the emerging left as an audience. I can't really understand the argument that the newspaper should have become the voice of a single politician. It makes me think that the author is confusing what's "left" with what's "Bernie."
And honestly, I think part of the reason that this idea that Bernie is the voice of the emerging left is so popular is that it's just much simpler to write headlines about a single, charismatic person who is doing something. Especially if you're trying to look in on a movement from the outside.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 9:27 PM on June 21, 2017 [6 favorites]
Guardian's top priority should always be not getting devoured and shredded to pieces by the robber barons like Murdoch or Dacre.
posted by runcifex at 11:02 PM on June 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by runcifex at 11:02 PM on June 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm a British Rugby League fan. It is a tiny sport here. It is huge in Australia. I go to the RL section of this British newspaper and Wade through reams of Australian RL stories before finding a week old British one.
This is what pisses me off about The Guardian.
Also, few if any mentions of Bernie Dwyer when he played in the second row for us.
posted by vbfg at 1:25 AM on June 22, 2017
This is what pisses me off about The Guardian.
Also, few if any mentions of Bernie Dwyer when he played in the second row for us.
posted by vbfg at 1:25 AM on June 22, 2017
Not to mention the unhealthy whiff of racism and misogyny, with the insistence that identity politics be discarded n favor of the "working class".
I'm confused, because the insistence that 'working class' does not include people of colour, and that free college is useless 'because people of colour don't even go to college' hasn't come from the "Bernie Left", it's come from kick-the-can-down-the-road Democrats. Online, I've seen white liberals tell WOC leftists they're liars/fake accounts and they must really be white men in disguise if they support Sanders. I agree that fixation on a single figure - a fairly boring old white dude long past a reasonable retirement age - is very silly. But whatever. Take a look at the increasingly lopsided income distribution in the US and go try and win an election without the working class on board. I'll watch from over here.
posted by Jimbob at 1:42 AM on June 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
I'm confused, because the insistence that 'working class' does not include people of colour, and that free college is useless 'because people of colour don't even go to college' hasn't come from the "Bernie Left", it's come from kick-the-can-down-the-road Democrats. Online, I've seen white liberals tell WOC leftists they're liars/fake accounts and they must really be white men in disguise if they support Sanders. I agree that fixation on a single figure - a fairly boring old white dude long past a reasonable retirement age - is very silly. But whatever. Take a look at the increasingly lopsided income distribution in the US and go try and win an election without the working class on board. I'll watch from over here.
posted by Jimbob at 1:42 AM on June 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
People bind to one another by shared opinion. But there's too many things to like, and rarely are people in sync on how much they like a thing. But hatred? Shared hatred works amazingly.
I call it the Nickelback effect. It's also at the heart of weird "BERNIE SUX AMIRITE" (replace Bernie with all sorts of political figures) narratives. "If you hate this guy, you'll be one of us, you won't be alone."
posted by effugas at 2:27 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
I call it the Nickelback effect. It's also at the heart of weird "BERNIE SUX AMIRITE" (replace Bernie with all sorts of political figures) narratives. "If you hate this guy, you'll be one of us, you won't be alone."
posted by effugas at 2:27 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Especially with the Corbynites, there's far too much unhealthy expectation that the press ought to be uncritical and fawning about their chosen one
can we not
posted by ominous_paws at 6:35 AM on June 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
can we not
posted by ominous_paws at 6:35 AM on June 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
Manchester will welcome back the Guardian as a the wayward offspring it is, but we'll be expecting its non-London coverage to improve pretty sharpish.
posted by mushhushshu at 6:59 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by mushhushshu at 6:59 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
The Graun's coolness towards Corbyn - which was most definitely not the firehose of hatred spurted out by other papers - was largely informed by contact with the man himself and him not being able to explain his plans very well. For all its many faults, the paper does take its job and its readers seriously; it's not a cynical organ.
posted by Devonian at 9:05 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by Devonian at 9:05 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
the 2016 Democratic Primary is the Platonic narrative, the ur-story, the fundamental event of which all other stories and incidents in history are but crooked reflections. fortunately, there's many people skilled in hermeneutics who can show us the infinite ways in which this is always true.
posted by vogon_poet at 9:13 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by vogon_poet at 9:13 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Take a look at the increasingly lopsided income distribution in the US and go try and win an election without the working class on board.
It's not quite that simple. Every major candidate claims to be for the working class, and you can argue it both ways about the current president, Donald Trump. He didn't win the popular vote and didn't win the majority of the minority vote, but he was perceives as the champion for the working class.
posted by FJT at 10:42 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
It's not quite that simple. Every major candidate claims to be for the working class, and you can argue it both ways about the current president, Donald Trump. He didn't win the popular vote and didn't win the majority of the minority vote, but he was perceives as the champion for the working class.
posted by FJT at 10:42 AM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
I was really bummed to read this because in the past few years I've increasingly gone to the Guardian for when I want thoughtful analysis that's less biased towards a purely US point of view. That's one of the appeals of The Economist too. The Guardian's website is always bugging me for a donation, and from what I can tell there isn't a way to set up a monthly recurring one. That seems like a big oversight.
Every major candidate claims to be for the working class
Yeah, exactly. When a lot of people talk about the priorities of the "working class", the priorities they detail (whether they realize it or not) are often specifically the priorities of the white, cis-gendered straight guy working in a blue-collar position who lives in the suburbs or rural areas. Like, a lot of "working class" rhetoric involves things like financial inequality between the richest and poorest, manufacturing jobs, unionization, etc. But people who operate outside that white cis-gendered straight guy often have other things they need to focus on as well. Examples:
It really bothers me when people talk about "the working class" as if that's a different issue than the discrimination one faces for being a woman, and/or LGBTQ+, and/or a POC, and/or a non-citizen, and and and . . . Many of these groups disproportionately belong to the working class income level, and yet the positive effects of policies directed towards "the working class" disproportionately affect people who don't face their discrimination. It also allows politicians like Trump to conceal their bigoted rhetoric under this cloak of "the working class" and pretend it's the economically anxious who vote for them, rather than those who just really, really like the sound of getting them Mexicans to stop stealin' our jerbs.
posted by Anonymous at 1:08 PM on June 22, 2017
Every major candidate claims to be for the working class
Yeah, exactly. When a lot of people talk about the priorities of the "working class", the priorities they detail (whether they realize it or not) are often specifically the priorities of the white, cis-gendered straight guy working in a blue-collar position who lives in the suburbs or rural areas. Like, a lot of "working class" rhetoric involves things like financial inequality between the richest and poorest, manufacturing jobs, unionization, etc. But people who operate outside that white cis-gendered straight guy often have other things they need to focus on as well. Examples:
- Women are affected by wage gaps, lack of access to birth control/abortion/OB-GYN healthcare, poor family leave policies, ineffective sexual harassment and sexual assault laws, and hiring discrimination.
- The bulk of working-class and/or low-skill positions are in service or low-income white collar work.
- Related to the above, the bulk of people in working-class positions live in cities. They have to deal with poor quality public education, poor transportation systems, shitty, expensive housing, etc.
- LGBTQ+ people still face a great deal of discrimination, especially as a result of not being a protected class.
- Do I even need to get into the shit that both legal and not-legal immigrants face?
- And last but not least, people of color are disproportionately affected by all of the above, in addition to the day-to-day discrimination faced on the basis of skin color/ethnicity/language and, like, having the entire justice system arrayed against them.
It really bothers me when people talk about "the working class" as if that's a different issue than the discrimination one faces for being a woman, and/or LGBTQ+, and/or a POC, and/or a non-citizen, and and and . . . Many of these groups disproportionately belong to the working class income level, and yet the positive effects of policies directed towards "the working class" disproportionately affect people who don't face their discrimination. It also allows politicians like Trump to conceal their bigoted rhetoric under this cloak of "the working class" and pretend it's the economically anxious who vote for them, rather than those who just really, really like the sound of getting them Mexicans to stop stealin' our jerbs.
posted by Anonymous at 1:08 PM on June 22, 2017
The Graun's coolness towards Corbyn - which was most definitely not the firehose of hatred spurted out by other papers - was largely informed by contact with the man himself and him not being able to explain his plans very well. For all its many faults, the paper does take its job and its readers seriously; it's not a cynical organ.
I'm not really so certain: even from a distance of two hundred miles up the road, Corbyn's plans to me were pretty transparent from day one and have been consistent pretty much since the moment he began leading the party. It's also an ideology that was clear enough to inspire tens of thousands to join (or more significantly, rejoin) Labour over the past year, a movement the Guardian has done its murky level best to erode or belittle on a daily basis. Their volte-face since the General Election has only been forced because they simply had no credibility left.
http://theguardian.fivefilters.org/?v1 has done a decent job in recording the levels of their attrition, and makes all the more interesting reading now in the wake of Corbyn's success.
Ultimately, however, as the result so empirically proved, the Guardian's stance just didn't matter, and nor did the stance of the right wing press that dominate 90% of the rest of Britain's print media. The battleground was online and mainstream media was shown to be what it is: a vehicle for advertisements and entertainment hokum.
posted by specialbrew at 1:32 PM on June 22, 2017
I'm not really so certain: even from a distance of two hundred miles up the road, Corbyn's plans to me were pretty transparent from day one and have been consistent pretty much since the moment he began leading the party. It's also an ideology that was clear enough to inspire tens of thousands to join (or more significantly, rejoin) Labour over the past year, a movement the Guardian has done its murky level best to erode or belittle on a daily basis. Their volte-face since the General Election has only been forced because they simply had no credibility left.
http://theguardian.fivefilters.org/?v1 has done a decent job in recording the levels of their attrition, and makes all the more interesting reading now in the wake of Corbyn's success.
Ultimately, however, as the result so empirically proved, the Guardian's stance just didn't matter, and nor did the stance of the right wing press that dominate 90% of the rest of Britain's print media. The battleground was online and mainstream media was shown to be what it is: a vehicle for advertisements and entertainment hokum.
posted by specialbrew at 1:32 PM on June 22, 2017
Many of these groups disproportionately belong to the working class income level, and yet the positive effects of policies directed towards "the working class" disproportionately affect people who don't face their discrimination
That's all true, but please point me to which major party candidate in November 2016 was addressing this issue, because there wasn't one. You know what would help start to address those issues that affect real, non-white-guy-in-car-factory workers? Strong labour laws so you can't be fired indiscriminately. Unionization. Universal healthcare so trying to keep your job under an abusive and discriminatory employer doesn't involve a trade off with your actual life. Centrist corporate Democrats aren't offering any of this. Many are actively working against it. It absolutely boggles my mind that weak centrist liberals with no actual policies that help these people are somehow the heroes of identity politics.
posted by Jimbob at 1:55 PM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
That's all true, but please point me to which major party candidate in November 2016 was addressing this issue, because there wasn't one. You know what would help start to address those issues that affect real, non-white-guy-in-car-factory workers? Strong labour laws so you can't be fired indiscriminately. Unionization. Universal healthcare so trying to keep your job under an abusive and discriminatory employer doesn't involve a trade off with your actual life. Centrist corporate Democrats aren't offering any of this. Many are actively working against it. It absolutely boggles my mind that weak centrist liberals with no actual policies that help these people are somehow the heroes of identity politics.
posted by Jimbob at 1:55 PM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
It absolutely boggles my mind that weak centrist liberals with no actual policies that help these people are somehow the heroes of identity politics.
That's just not true. You can argue that the medicine is not strong enough (and I'd agree), but 'no actual policies' just makes me think you're not really understanding what this election was fought over. Remember, the promise of The Wall is still out there. There's still deportations going on. A path to residency/citizenship would have been directly beneficial to millions of people. Not only in their right to be here, but in their right to access critical social services.
posted by FJT at 2:23 PM on June 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
That's just not true. You can argue that the medicine is not strong enough (and I'd agree), but 'no actual policies' just makes me think you're not really understanding what this election was fought over. Remember, the promise of The Wall is still out there. There's still deportations going on. A path to residency/citizenship would have been directly beneficial to millions of people. Not only in their right to be here, but in their right to access critical social services.
posted by FJT at 2:23 PM on June 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Corbyn's plans to me were pretty transparent from day one and have been consistent pretty much since the moment he began leading the party.
That's not the point. The question that he couldn't answer, is how does that translate into power, given the electoral system and the distribution of seats. Which boils down to how do you win over key marginals? The Tories ran a truly dismal campaign which directly attacked their own key demographics, and still won the popular vote and more seats, because those demographics didn't go over to Labour.
It's true that Corbyn did much better than expected. But the Guardian's reticence to back him was well-founded: he didn't win against May. And while it's also true that a few thousand votes in the right places would have made Labour the bigger party in the Commons, a very much smaller number of votes (perhaps under 100) would have given the Tories a working majority. It's still not clear that Corbyn's approach can produce a majority Labour government, even if there was a much bigger youth vote. He needs to win Tory voters across the board - as Blair did - and how is he going to do that?
You may disagree with that stance or think it unhelpful (or disregard it because who cares what the Guardian thinks). I'm just pointing out that there is reasoning involved, and it's not driven by ideology - except the belief that the Tories are bad news and not having them in power would be good news.
posted by Devonian at 2:44 PM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
That's not the point. The question that he couldn't answer, is how does that translate into power, given the electoral system and the distribution of seats. Which boils down to how do you win over key marginals? The Tories ran a truly dismal campaign which directly attacked their own key demographics, and still won the popular vote and more seats, because those demographics didn't go over to Labour.
It's true that Corbyn did much better than expected. But the Guardian's reticence to back him was well-founded: he didn't win against May. And while it's also true that a few thousand votes in the right places would have made Labour the bigger party in the Commons, a very much smaller number of votes (perhaps under 100) would have given the Tories a working majority. It's still not clear that Corbyn's approach can produce a majority Labour government, even if there was a much bigger youth vote. He needs to win Tory voters across the board - as Blair did - and how is he going to do that?
You may disagree with that stance or think it unhelpful (or disregard it because who cares what the Guardian thinks). I'm just pointing out that there is reasoning involved, and it's not driven by ideology - except the belief that the Tories are bad news and not having them in power would be good news.
posted by Devonian at 2:44 PM on June 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
it's not driven by ideology - except the belief that the Tories are bad news and not having them in power would be good news.
This act like Tories-lite so Tory voters will vote for you is absolutely an ideology, and it gave us the Iraq invasion. I like Corbyn's thing better, and I think he should keep doing it because saying what you mean in politics is one of those so-crazy-it-appears-to-be-working hail Mary that is worth trying once a generation or so.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:09 PM on June 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
This act like Tories-lite so Tory voters will vote for you is absolutely an ideology, and it gave us the Iraq invasion. I like Corbyn's thing better, and I think he should keep doing it because saying what you mean in politics is one of those so-crazy-it-appears-to-be-working hail Mary that is worth trying once a generation or so.
posted by Space Coyote at 3:09 PM on June 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
That's fine. But still doesn't answer the question - how does it get the right number of votes in the right places? The Guardian has ideological positions, but it's also concerned with the actual mechanics of politics.
If Corbyn had exactly the same positions as he does now and could show how this would result in actual power, then you'd have seen much more enthusiasm from the paper. It's not a love affair with crypto-rightist policies that fuels its reservations.
posted by Devonian at 4:05 PM on June 22, 2017
If Corbyn had exactly the same positions as he does now and could show how this would result in actual power, then you'd have seen much more enthusiasm from the paper. It's not a love affair with crypto-rightist policies that fuels its reservations.
posted by Devonian at 4:05 PM on June 22, 2017
That's all true, but please point me to which major party candidate in November 2016 was addressing this issue, because there wasn't one.
Without re-litigating the primary, I suggest you review the actual text of Clinton's speeches and read her policy proposals.
You know what would help start to address those issues that affect real, non-white-guy-in-car-factory workers? Strong labour laws so you can't be fired indiscriminately. Unionization. Universal healthcare so trying to keep your job under an abusive and discriminatory employer doesn't involve a trade off with your actual life.
Yes, white socialists have been arguing this for ages. Yet POC notice two things: these policies became dramatically less popular when these things because available to non-white people, and when these policies were enacted POC got the short end of the stick.
So you can keep repeating that same rhetoric, but the reason so many POC get behind so-called "identity politics" is because in their experience their lives will not improve unless the racism is addressed first. If you talk with many Black political analysts, historians, and activists, they'll tell you the history of White socialists in America is the history of people promising economic equality to Black people and then forgetting about racism once they got the votes. They'll also tell you it's the history of being thrown under the bus.
For example--you'll very rarely see Black voters doing the "I can't vote for the lesser evil" business because in their experience ensuring the less racist candidate wins is literally a matter of life-and-death. There are a lot of POC who feel extremely bitter towards White socialists and leftists after this election. From their perspective, Trump was an obvious, present danger and it was crucial to keep him out of office--but the same White leftists who insisted they cared about POC and weren't racist ignored their ideas and undermined their efforts. From their perspective, the White leftists who refused to vote Clinton at all costs, who spent all their time criticizing her, and who encouraged everyone everywhere to vote third party were part of the reason Trump got elected because they took votes from Clinton and demoralized potential voters. Fronm their perspective, White leftists talked a lot about equality and respect, but when it came down to the wire they ignored the pleas of POC and tossed them under the bus. There is a reason 94% of Black women voted Clinton, and it's not because 94% of Black women agree with 100% of her policies.
If you want the interest of POC, then don't try to convince me. Convince them. Convince them with your words and actions that your policies truly address racism, that you listen to what they say and incorporate them into your leadership, and that you will back them up were it truly counts. Not just in marches or hip anti-fa riots, but in the voting booth. Because right now, there's no White political group that's done that and there's no reason for them to believe your White words over anyone else's.
posted by Anonymous at 4:46 PM on June 22, 2017
Without re-litigating the primary, I suggest you review the actual text of Clinton's speeches and read her policy proposals.
You know what would help start to address those issues that affect real, non-white-guy-in-car-factory workers? Strong labour laws so you can't be fired indiscriminately. Unionization. Universal healthcare so trying to keep your job under an abusive and discriminatory employer doesn't involve a trade off with your actual life.
Yes, white socialists have been arguing this for ages. Yet POC notice two things: these policies became dramatically less popular when these things because available to non-white people, and when these policies were enacted POC got the short end of the stick.
So you can keep repeating that same rhetoric, but the reason so many POC get behind so-called "identity politics" is because in their experience their lives will not improve unless the racism is addressed first. If you talk with many Black political analysts, historians, and activists, they'll tell you the history of White socialists in America is the history of people promising economic equality to Black people and then forgetting about racism once they got the votes. They'll also tell you it's the history of being thrown under the bus.
For example--you'll very rarely see Black voters doing the "I can't vote for the lesser evil" business because in their experience ensuring the less racist candidate wins is literally a matter of life-and-death. There are a lot of POC who feel extremely bitter towards White socialists and leftists after this election. From their perspective, Trump was an obvious, present danger and it was crucial to keep him out of office--but the same White leftists who insisted they cared about POC and weren't racist ignored their ideas and undermined their efforts. From their perspective, the White leftists who refused to vote Clinton at all costs, who spent all their time criticizing her, and who encouraged everyone everywhere to vote third party were part of the reason Trump got elected because they took votes from Clinton and demoralized potential voters. Fronm their perspective, White leftists talked a lot about equality and respect, but when it came down to the wire they ignored the pleas of POC and tossed them under the bus. There is a reason 94% of Black women voted Clinton, and it's not because 94% of Black women agree with 100% of her policies.
If you want the interest of POC, then don't try to convince me. Convince them. Convince them with your words and actions that your policies truly address racism, that you listen to what they say and incorporate them into your leadership, and that you will back them up were it truly counts. Not just in marches or hip anti-fa riots, but in the voting booth. Because right now, there's no White political group that's done that and there's no reason for them to believe your White words over anyone else's.
posted by Anonymous at 4:46 PM on June 22, 2017
Also, another frustration I've heard from a lot of POC is that it can be more difficult to talk to liberal/lefty/socialist White people about politics because liberal/lefty/socialist White people are more likely to think that knowing what a microaggression is means they're not racist. So they'll get into a discussion about ways to address racism or something, and the White person will assume any disagreements arise from ignorance on the POC's part, not unexamined privilege on the White person's part.
Now I'm getting way off-topic--but the reason you see extremely leftist POC start forming their own groups and actively disavow terms like "socialism" is the same reason you'll see many WOC disavow "feminism" as a term despite having views that fit into the definition. Their experience with the large, primarily White-run groups and with White people who define themselves by those terms is the experience of being condescended to by White people. So if you're a POC radical that wants to discuss radical ideas then it's easier to form your own group rather than deal with White bullshit on top of the normal political arguments.
posted by Anonymous at 4:56 PM on June 22, 2017
Now I'm getting way off-topic--but the reason you see extremely leftist POC start forming their own groups and actively disavow terms like "socialism" is the same reason you'll see many WOC disavow "feminism" as a term despite having views that fit into the definition. Their experience with the large, primarily White-run groups and with White people who define themselves by those terms is the experience of being condescended to by White people. So if you're a POC radical that wants to discuss radical ideas then it's easier to form your own group rather than deal with White bullshit on top of the normal political arguments.
posted by Anonymous at 4:56 PM on June 22, 2017
This made me laugh:
The irony of a delayed union contract has not been lost on employees, since the Guardian has historically been a staunch labor rights advocate.
Actually the Guardian has a large portion of its staff on contract and they are generally treated like shit. It's been like this for many years. If you're on permanent staff you can't be sacked, but everyone else is expendable.
posted by 8k at 2:38 PM on June 23, 2017
The irony of a delayed union contract has not been lost on employees, since the Guardian has historically been a staunch labor rights advocate.
Actually the Guardian has a large portion of its staff on contract and they are generally treated like shit. It's been like this for many years. If you're on permanent staff you can't be sacked, but everyone else is expendable.
posted by 8k at 2:38 PM on June 23, 2017
You may disagree with that stance or think it unhelpful (or disregard it because who cares what the Guardian thinks). I'm just pointing out that there is reasoning involved, and it's not driven by ideology - except the belief that the Tories are bad news and not having them in power would be good news.
Apologies, worked dragged me away - I certainly don't disagree with the impasse of numbers that prevents a Corbyn of an absolute majority, the country seems almost surreally split 50/50, and ever thus - but I feel that to assume that the Guardian's stance is somehow based purely on the probability of electoral success is naïve. Suggesting that pandering to a Tory ideology purely to secure votes is, by definition, cynical, something you believe the Guardian is not guilty of. The Guardian should be embracing its Manchester Guardian heritage, fully embracing Corbyn's social conscience, backing to the hilt everything this movement stands for. The fact Corbyn is at Labour's helm is remarkable enough: the reality that the Guardian have seen fit to mock his principles - the principles they were founded on - is for me something of a disgrace.
posted by specialbrew at 3:41 PM on June 23, 2017 [3 favorites]
Apologies, worked dragged me away - I certainly don't disagree with the impasse of numbers that prevents a Corbyn of an absolute majority, the country seems almost surreally split 50/50, and ever thus - but I feel that to assume that the Guardian's stance is somehow based purely on the probability of electoral success is naïve. Suggesting that pandering to a Tory ideology purely to secure votes is, by definition, cynical, something you believe the Guardian is not guilty of. The Guardian should be embracing its Manchester Guardian heritage, fully embracing Corbyn's social conscience, backing to the hilt everything this movement stands for. The fact Corbyn is at Labour's helm is remarkable enough: the reality that the Guardian have seen fit to mock his principles - the principles they were founded on - is for me something of a disgrace.
posted by specialbrew at 3:41 PM on June 23, 2017 [3 favorites]
If you want the interest of POC, then don't try to convince me. Convince them.
I remember the person in a mefi thread not too long ago, who said "black people should be patronized" when confronted with PoC who were voting the "wrong" way. That person probably still considers themselves the best ally a black prison could ever have
posted by happyroach at 4:13 PM on June 23, 2017
I remember the person in a mefi thread not too long ago, who said "black people should be patronized" when confronted with PoC who were voting the "wrong" way. That person probably still considers themselves the best ally a black prison could ever have
posted by happyroach at 4:13 PM on June 23, 2017
That person probably still considers themselves the best ally a black prison could ever have
a disturbingly appropriate Freudian slip
posted by Anonymous at 8:51 PM on June 23, 2017
a disturbingly appropriate Freudian slip
posted by Anonymous at 8:51 PM on June 23, 2017
Greenwald is good; Sanders is good; the Guardian, supposedly the subject of this FPP, is often disappointingly center-left despite its historical ties to farther-left-wing politics in the UK and the urgency of today's political crises. Buzzfeed sucks.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:09 AM on June 24, 2017
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 4:09 AM on June 24, 2017
« Older It wasn’t about what we thought. It was about the... | Eight days a week 🐙 🦑 Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
It does seem like a paper that's had a hard time meeting its potential lately.
posted by enn at 7:39 AM on June 21, 2017 [12 favorites]