President Biden

[Dr Gloom 19736]

The Guardian underwent a change in management a couple of years ago and their chief editor is now an American. They're also struggling financially.

 

They have definitely changed since Rusbridger left. As you would expect of course, but I think it's worth noting.

 

it is still a quality publication, as is the new york times, the ft, the economist etc etc. these are all part of the much maligned mainstream media, and by definition apparently all part of the same conspiracy to preserve the neo-liberal status quo. this is patently bollocks.

[Rayvin 4949]

Thought Viner was English....

 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katharine_Viner

 

Ah apologies, I assumed she was American because she was the former head of the Guardian in the US. I only raised it because the Guardian has become much more US centric since.

[Rayvin 4949]

it is still a quality publication, as is the new york times, the ft, the economist etc etc. these are all part of the much maligned mainstream media, and by definition apparently all part of the same conspiracy to preserve the neo-liberal status quo. this is patently bollocks.

 

Agree on the first part, they're good publications. Disagree on the last part - they're all entirely about preserving the neoliberal status quo. Come on man, the Economist and the FT. Think about what Neoliberalism is - it's the philosophical basis for our current economic system. So unless you think the Economist and the FT are economic deviants, then you have to accept that they are Neoliberals. In simple terms:

 

Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Rayvin

[ChezGiven 0]

 

This feels like normal politics to me, didnt hear anything out of the ordinary. 

 

I imagine people who dont know how the world works getting a bit fidgety as it sounds like the US it pushing for a political outcomes and has a strategy. Its called the Foreign Office and every country has one doing the same things. What matters is they act within the bounds of the law. 

 

Certainly doesnt change anything or prove that ridiculous article you then post that was obvioulsy written back when the line 'fascist led coup' didnt sound so stupid. Thats what you are posting about by the way, not that the US were involved or not, you are posting articles from people who want you to believe that the fascists took over Ukraine in 2014. 

 

Did they?  

[Park Life 70]

it is still a quality publication, as is the new york times, the ft, the economist etc etc. these are all part of the much maligned mainstream media, and by definition apparently all part of the same conspiracy to preserve the neo-liberal status quo. this is patently bollocks.

You're just pretending we're saying the all are. They clearly all aren't. I stick up for the Guardian as and when needed. There are vast swathes of the MSM that are part of setting the agenda for the corporate and establishment mural...But by no means all. Along with the Indi the Guardian is least vulnerable to the prevailing 'story'....That everything is cool in Mu Mu land. As is the BBC/Telegraph and F.T. on good days.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Park Life

[ChezGiven 0]

Oh and by the way, here we are: deep in the murky details where the Russian propagandists want you to be so that the cry of 'it's the MSM' or similar can pull us out of the narrative / counter-narrative warren hole and lead us into the brave new post truth world. 

 

You're being mugged Parky. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by ChezGiven

[Park Life 70]

This feels like normal politics to me, didnt hear anything out of the ordinary. 

 

I imagine people who dont know how the world works getting a bit fidgety as it sounds like the US it pushing for a political outcomes and has a strategy. Its called the Foreign Office and every country has one doing the same things. What matters is they act within the bounds of the law. 

 

Certainly doesnt change anything or prove that ridiculous article you then post that was obvioulsy written back when the line 'fascist led coup' didnt sound so stupid. Thats what you are posting about by the way, not that the US were involved or not, you are posting articles from people who want you to believe that the fascists took over Ukraine in 2014. 

 

Did they?

U.S. foreign policy is to encircle and destabilize Russia. Even China sees this and hence they now have a mutual defence agreement. China realising it's next.

[Park Life 70]

Oh and by the way, here we are: deep in the murky details where the Russian propagandists want you to be so that the cry of 'it's the MSM' or similar can pull us out of the narrative / counter-narrative warren hole and lead us into the brave new post truth world. 

 

You're being mugged Parky. 

Your lot started the post truth we finished it.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Park Life

[Rayvin 4949]

U.S. foreign policy is to encircle and destabilize Russia. Even China sees this and hence they now have a mutual defence agreement. China realising it's next.

 

Very hard to argue that this isn't the case, and I in no way subscribe to all of Parky's beliefs. The US has Russia entirely surrounded with military bases. And they're impoverishing them with sanctions.

[PaddockLad 14527]

not much. he hasn't filed for them for a few years, i don't think. i don't think that automatically means the guardian, and all other legacy media, are somehow complicit establishment stooges though. i keep reading people suggest otherwise and it's really getting on my tits.

Of course that's true,but what I think is more indicative of where they're coming from is their unwavering editorial support for Blair and Hilary. They allow a myriad of other opinions, that's fair, but ffs youve Owen basically plotting to tear the works to bits but most of the other content being completely centrist with a smidgeof 6th form leftism.

 

There was an article at the weekend asking people to stop criticising folk in the north for voting for Brexit, there are valid reasons they did so and they shouldn't be patronised with this "thick northerner" bullshit. They then basically insult their readership with how great Hilary is/was and how Trump was unthinkable. They're both establishment, they're both owned by a myriad of vested interests, so why the support for just more of the fuckin same shit when people quite clearly want change? They're not being given much of a choice but ffs an editorial telling them the truth once in a while wouldn't go amiss.

 

The best I could say about it is that their message is hopelessly one sided. Not as much as the mail? Does that really matter?

[Happy Face 29]

If the guardian is so determined to prop up the neoliberal establishment why did it break the Snowden story? 

 

Because Snowden approached Glenn Greenwald directly based on his years of writing and at that point Greenwald happened to be on a short stint at the Guardian.

 

It was extremely fortuitous for them that the story landed in their lap.  Greenwald left soon after.

 

Of course, the fact that the Guardian hired Greenwald in the first place says a great deal about how they encourage anti-establishment writers, so your point stands.

[Dr Gloom 19736]

You're just pretending we're saying the all are. They clearly all aren't. I stick up for the Guardian as and when needed. There are vast swathes of the MSM that are part of setting the agenda for the corporate and establishment mural...But by no means all. Along with the Indi the Guardian is least vulnerable to the prevailing 'story'....That everything is cool in Mu Mu land. As is the BBC/Telegraph and F.T. on good days.

 

i've lost count of the posts on this which i've responded to. i'm going to retreat on this for now, waiting in the shadows to pounce next time i read some bullshit generalisation from one of the usual suspects. 

[Happy Face 29]

 

"THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND ALL THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP BORIS YELTSIN WIN"

 

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

 

[Rayvin 4949]

i've lost count of the posts on this which i've responded to. i'm going to retreat on this for now, waiting in the shadows to pounce next time i read some bullshit generalisation from one of the usual suspects. 

 

 

Neoliberalism issue neatly ducked.

[Rayvin 4949]

 

"THE SECRET STORY OF HOW FOUR U.S. ADVISERS USED POLLS, FOCUS GROUPS, NEGATIVE ADS AND ALL THE OTHER TECHNIQUES OF AMERICAN CAMPAIGNING TO HELP BORIS YELTSIN WIN"

 

http://content.time.com/time/covers/0,16641,19960715,00.html

 

 

Wait wait wait, the US have NEVER interfered in the elections of another country in such a way. Only Russia is that nefarious.

 

FFS.

[Dr Gloom 19736]

Agree on the first part, they're good publications. Disagree on the last part - they're all entirely about preserving the neoliberal status quo. Come on man, the Economist and the FT. Think about what Neoliberalism is - it's the philosophical basis for our current economic system. So unless you think the Economist and the FT are economic deviants, then you have to accept that they are Neoliberals. In simple terms:

 

Neoliberalism is a policy model of social studies and economics that transfers control of economic factors to the private sector from the public sector.

right, if we're getting into semantics then the guardian certainly doesn't fit into the narrative that has been punted around on here. they favour a strong public sector and social justice.

 

the FT and the Economist editorial lines both advocate free market economics. that does not make either publication establishment stooges. their reporting is well sourced, verified and authoritative and they both operate under complete editorial independence. both publications will also break stories in the public interest that don't always fit their own editorial agenda. they're quality news sources in other words - not part of some grand media conspiracy to prop up whoever goldman sachs or whoever wants in power.

 

publishing opinion pieces that call trump for what he is does not suggest otherwise.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Dr Gloom 19736]

 

Neoliberalism issue neatly ducked.

 

i just responded to it, dipshit 

[Rayvin 4949]

right, if we're getting into semantics then the guardian certainly doesn't fit into this the narrative that has been punted around on here. they favour a strong public sector and social justice. 

 

the FT and the Economist editorial lines both advocate free market economics. that does not make either publication establishment stooges. their reporting is well sourced, verified and authoritative and they both operate under complete editorial independence. both publications will also break stories in the public interest that don't always fit their own editorial agenda. they're quality news sources in other words - not part of some grand media conspiracy to prop up whoever goldman sachs or whoever wants in power. 

 

publishing opinion piece that call trump for what he is does not suggest otherwise. 

 

Never said the Guardian was Neoliberal, I said they (were strongly supportive of the faction that) split the left and in so doing enabled the Neolibs.

 

Never said Neoliberalism was a conspiracy. It's the prevailing philosophy of the West and needs to be challenged though.

 

Other than that, would be interested in examples (as they come up) of articles in the FT or Economist that support public sector ownership, actually. That's not the be all and end all of Neoliberalism but it'd be eye opening to see that point.

Edited December 12, 2016 by Rayvin

[Rayvin 4949]

i just responded to it, dipshit 

 

After my post though...

[Happy Face 29]

Wait wait wait, the US have NEVER interfered in the elections of another country in such a way. Only Russia is that nefarious.

 

FFS.

 

Most people know they do.  Most think it's only in the tinpot countries that get trampled in the machinations of the major powers though.  I think it's rare that major powers are shown to have meddled in each others elections successfully.  That's why the CIA accusation is such big news right now and why the question of what was done requires evidence to calibrate exactly how far it extended beyond traditional norms.

[Dr Gloom 19736]

Never said the Guardian was Neoliberal, I said they (were strongly supportive of the faction that) split the left and in so doing enabled the Neolibs.

 

Never said Neoliberalism was a conspiracy. It's the prevailing philosophy of the West and needs to be challenged though.

 

Other than that, would be interested in examples (as they come up) of articles in the FT or Economist that support public sector ownership, actually. That's not the be all and end all of Neoliberalism but it'd be eye opening to see that point.

 

i can't be arsed to trawl through all the posts on this to see who said what exactly, but i know you have talked about the "MSM" in very broad terms, as if every publication is the same. you have also fail to understand that a newspaper can provide authoritative, balanced reporting, which can often be at odds with its editorial line. this is what quality broadsheets do - they're not all the daily mail. i think it was PL who linked the Gruaniad to supporting the neoliberlai status quo. 

 

someone else on here recently talked of manipulation by the MSM. parky has frequently made baseless accusations about a mass MSM conspiracy. we all know he's off his tits, but the fact that this kind of language is becoming more mainstream, at a time where a lot of people are sucking up fake news and propaganda on social media, is troubling. 

[Rayvin 4949]

i can't be arsed to trawl through all the posts on this to see who said what exactly, but i know you have talked about the "MSM" in very broad terms, as if every publication is the same. you have also fail to understand that a newspaper can provide authoritative, balanced reporting, which can often be at odds with its editorial line. this is what quality broadsheets do - they're not all the daily mail. i think it was PL who linked the Gruaniad to supporting the neoliberlai status quo. 

 

someone else on here recently talked of manipulation by the MSM. parky has frequently made baseless accusations about a mass MSM conspiracy. we all know he's off his tits, but the fact that this kind of language is becoming more mainstream, at a time where a lot of people are sucking up fake news and propaganda on social media, is troubling. 

 

I see the MSM as largely passive actors who have been left behind by the tide of populism that was evident in its forming to anyone who looks beyond the MSM for their world view (or in my case, anyone who decided, following the referendum, that the MSM didn't have a fucking clue what was going on anymore - as was proven again in the US). They're passive actors but they're still dangerous as they allow those in power to believe that the status quo remains acceptable.

 

I don't think they're driving the Neoliberalist narrative knowingly (Parky would disagree) but their adherence to the demonstrably collapsing centre left order of the world, their support of austerity, and their refusal to look reality in the eye (at least up until Trump - as I've noted, things are improving now) has lost them the faith of millions. They're the mouthpiece of the establishment, not the check on it. They've become this unwittingly, I grant you, but there it is.

 

And yes, they have different agendas so this takes different forms for each newspaper. Just to take the Guardian on its own, it went out of its way to destroy Corbyn - a populist figure on the left (regardless of what you think of him) and so lost the faith of people on that side. It went out of its way to criticise Sanders. Another populist leftist figure. And now they've got a populist right figure. Fucking idiots. They've totally lost the plot on what they're supposed to be representing. Hint - it isn't the comfortable middle classes.

[ChezGiven 0]

Wait wait wait, the US have NEVER interfered in the elections of another country in such a way. Only Russia is that nefarious.

 

FFS.

 

Thats not the point! FFS 

[Dr Gloom 19736]

I see the MSM as largely passive actors who have been left behind by the tide of populism that was evident in its forming to anyone who looks beyond the MSM for their world view (or in my case, anyone who decided, following the referendum, that the MSM didn't have a fucking clue what was going on anymore - as was proven again in the US). They're passive actors but they're still dangerous as they allow those in power to believe that the status quo remains acceptable.

 

I don't think they're driving the Neoliberalist narrative knowingly (Parky would disagree) but their adherence to the demonstrably collapsing centre left order of the world, their support of austerity, and their refusal to look reality in the eye (at least up until Trump - as I've noted, things are improving now) has lost them the faith of millions. They're the mouthpiece of the establishment, not the check on it. They've become this unwittingly, I grant you, but there it is.

 

And yes, they have different agendas so this takes different forms for each newspaper. Just to take the Guardian on its own, it went out of its way to destroy Corbyn - a populist figure on the left (regardless of what you think of him) and so lost the faith of people on that side. It went out of its way to criticise Sanders. Another populist leftist figure. And now they've got a populist right figure. Fucking idiots. They've totally lost the plot on what they're supposed to be representing. Hint - it isn't the comfortable middle classes.

 

you're saying the guardian, and all other MSM outlets, supported austerity? have a word with yourself man. you're doing it again. you're speaking in broad terms about a wide mix of news sources as if they're all the same. 

 

corbyn has been rightly criticised for a lot of stuff. i don't think the guardian have gone out of their way to destroy him. corbyn is the one hitting self destruct more often than not.

 

quality newspapers - and there are many still out there - hold the establishment to account, they're not its mouthpiece. freedom of the press is one of the great things about western civilisation. that does mean there is a lot of shit out there but there is also a lot of great news organisations. this is not the case in putin's russia. 

Edited December 12, 2016 by Dr Gloom

[Rayvin 4949]

you're saying the guardian, and all other MSM outlets, supported austerity? have a word with yourself man. you're doing it again. 

 

corbyn has been rightly criticised for a lot of stuff. i don't think the guardian have gone out of their way to destroy him. corbyn is the one hitting self destruct more often than not. 

 

I don't think the Guardian challenged the austerity narrative as much as it should have done, no. One of the key causes of this entire fucking mess can be traced back to everyone just accepting that the Tories were right about the economy, I don't think anyone in the entire fucking world was loud enough about how detrimental that whole shambles could be. But I do expect the Guardian will have been more in line with my views on this. I'm struggling to think if any others would have even been likely to challenge austerity, let alone if they actually did so.

 

As for Corbyn, they were railing against him all last year. I know they were, I saw it - they didn't succeed of course, because no one is listening to them anymore, but they tried. With Sanders, I remember fucking Freedland wrote that article saying how we on the left should 'compromise' because 'bigger' (read: Neoliberal) issues were at stake. All compromising with people in the centre gets us at the moment, apparently, is the fucking far right. Because people in the centre are generally affluent and removed from the widespread malcontent. And I fully, fully, include myself in that. Up until the referendum.

 

Anyway, I stand by my previous post.