UKH

Some good points made on 'professionally cancelled pundits' in the US.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/15/bari-weiss-new-york-t...

In reply to Offwidth:

I got as far as: 'Usually, but not exclusively white millennials or Gen X writers' but stopped there. If the author is relying on sweeping generalisations then the aurguement is likely to be poor.
 

Swap out 'white millennials' for 'black young person' and there would rightly be outrage. Commentators can't have it both ways.

In reply to cp123:

Usual Guardian drivel I'm afraid. I'm sure it used to be a much better paper. 

In reply to Siward:

Not really any difference between Guardian and N.Y.T. Good article in The Times this morning about N.Y.T.

In reply to Siward:

It seems to just moan and complain about everything, like a leftish Daily Mail, I like the "I" now, particularly at the weekend, seems a balance of views and a very reasonable price.

In reply to J1234:

Often with no foundation in reality, most particularly Polly Toynbee who wouldn't know reality if it walked up and smacked her round the head with an iron bar.

Some of it's good though.

In reply to cp123:

The references to people being 'professional contrarians' puts the article more in line with the communist party announcements we seen damning Hong Kong protestors: trouble-makers and unruly elements causing harm who only have themselves to blame for trying to headbut the batons of peaceful patriotic riot police. Weiss alludes to a workplace culture where bullying is tolerated if you have the 'wrong' viewpoints. I wouldn't view an article defending that as making 'some good points'.

In reply to J1234:

The article seems to be 'moaning and complaing' about commentators moaning and complaing about people moaning and complaining about their moaning and complaining articles...

And you seem to be moaning and complaining about that.

Whereas I, of course, am just making an astute observation. No moaning and complaining here, oh no.

In reply to captain paranoia:

Quite. I think it's pretty pertinent that if dismissals of people claiming to be victims of left wing woke bias, were a direct result of deliberatly setting themselves up for that; especially when they go immediately to a better paid job pedalling the same controversial opinions to generate more click bait income, from both sides of an argument, for a new employer.

In reply to captain paranoia:

I'm looking forward to people moaning and complaining that I can't spell 'complaining'...

In reply to captain paranoia:

Yes, some people can appear to have figured out 'the way things lie' to do with how to have talks postponed and how to be controversial, and go about saying things which create the circumstances they then complain about. 

That said, I sometimes think students could be better off giving some of the controversial people a really good ear chewing with decent questions which challenge their arguments, rather than cancelling them because they're objectionable. 

It might undermine the narrative of the professionally cancelled that they're warriors in the cause of freedom of speech, so that they need to something else to do. I think Katie Hopkins goes on about freedom of speech a lot while saying things she knows can't really be true.

In reply to Siward:

And yet, for some quite inexplicable reason The Guardian goes from strength to strength and is by far and away the most trusted newspaper in the world. How easily deceived we all are!

In reply to Timmd:

students are no longer that clever or bothered

In reply to Neil Williams:

I can forgive The Guardian a great deal. What were those other papers doing while The G was exposing Windrush?

In reply to Rog Wilko:

True.  To be fair I do read it (online) alongside the Beeb, and trust it more than most.  I just wish some of the opinion piece writers would be a bit more realistic at times (Toynbee in particular).

In reply to Neil Williams: I just don't read her pieces .  Nick Timothy is similar to he in many ways ... used to be associated with government, now a random rambler

On the other hand the likes of Philip Johnston , Charles Moore and   Allison Pearson never fail to delight

In reply to Rog Wilko:

It's free! Never assume the consumer is the best judge of anything.

To be fair, it has it's place and I do read it but it is genuinely full of a lot of drivel, whining and precious little analysis or insight. What there is is often laughable.

In reply to Rog Wilko:

Exactly. The Guardian is far from perfect, and many of its opinion piece in particular are dross, but they do some of the best investigative journalism of the larger newspapers.

In reply to captain paranoia:

But we know you can, you are mis-spelling it deliberately just to be contrarian and generate clicks and controversy.

In reply to Siward:

An aside:

It is free but it's having to make huge cuts because its revenue has shriveled as a result of coronavirus. I'm thinking of a donation despite only reading the odd article.

I'd like to see something like Move GB but for online newspaper access: A paid subscription that allows you access to X number of publications. The paying for the same single paper every day model is not sustainable.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

People have got out of the habit if attributing any value to newspapers. Back in the day buying a paper was a pretty common activity. 

The trouble with the free model is the proliferation of clickbait rubbish, which is perhaps part of the Guardian's decline, the need for clicks. 

In reply to Ian W:

Stop camploonung you.