Tags
(not satire – it’s the UK press)
In an extraordinary article today – the Guardian’s so-called ‘reader editor’ Stephen Pritchard admits the newspaper will delete any readers’ comments which “persistently” criticise its journalists.
Pritchard rounds off his extremely defensive piece with this extraordinary sentence:
“….while we acknowledge criticism of the articles we publish, we will not allow persistent misrepresentation of our journalists.”
In other words, for “persistent misrepresentation” read “criticism“‘
Which at least explains why for several years now I have been banned (not pre-moderated – banned) from commenting on the Guardian website and my polite enquiries as to why I have been banned have been consistently ignored:
So now I know.
Because while I don’t use degrading, sexist or racist language, I do take a pretty persistent line in criticism of journalists from all mainstream newspapers- including the Guardian:
Guardian claims Lib Dem MPs opposed the bedroom tax when they supported it
Oops! Guardian accidentally gets a headline wrong about the Lib Dems. Again.
Why is the Observer employing a Mail journalist to smear Ed Miliband?
Daily Mail story about sunrises being shown on big screens in Beijing was made up
Daily Mail fail – newspaper uses false photo in Kenya shopping centre article
Meet the Telegraph journalist on a one woman campaign to smear the NHS
etc etc etc
In fact in my experience – for people who like to dish it out regularly to everyone else – mainstream media journalists have extremely thin skins.
Just dare to question many mainstream media hacks and they are the most likely to jump up and down threatening libel at the drop of a hat.
By far the most threats of libel and attacks I have had have been not from politicians – who in my experience on the whole tend to take criticism with a pinch of salt – but from journalists:
Mail hack threatens to sue me for asking how she traced Twitter users’ personal information
A Daily Mail journalist is trolling my friends
On-line trolling is being tamed – but the Tabloid Trolls are still rampant
.
It seems hacks like to dish it out – but can’t take it back.
.
Please feel free to share. And comment.
.
The Coalition Government Colouring and Activity Book is now available for download as a PDF and in print:
nearlydead said:
Reblogged this on nearlydead.
LikeLike
gingerblokeblog said:
Reblogged this on gingerblokeblog.
LikeLike
Pam Smith said:
Yes, the only exchange I have ever had with top journalist Dan Hodges was when he asked me in an injured tone why I followed him if I didn’t like him. This because I had critiqued something he wrote, which, as HE didn’t follow ME, I assume he found through searching for his name. Then he blocked me.
But journalists in general (with some exceptions) don’t seem to get Twitter at all – the recently completely clueless article in the Telegraph about David Cameron being bullied by a hashtag being most recent example I’ve come across.
LikeLike
Giles Wynne said:
Me Too – The Guardian but No Angel
LikeLike
Pension60 said:
Ah, so my banning off The Guardian is deemed a criticism of the journalist who wrote the article, instead of the content of the article that has been sourced from elsewhere. Well that explains why, because The Guardian never answered why I had been banned.
And this is why I was banned.
The flat rate pension is the biggest con in UK history as it will leave huge numbers of women born from 1953 and men born from 1951
with NIL STATE PENSION FOR LIFE
with three quarters of the rest of far less state pension that already
lowest level of all rich nations bar poor Mexico.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
The Guardian began a socialist party, Left Unity Party, and then said not one word about it in any articles.
You cannot talk about the life saving new unique policies of The Greens in their 2015 manifesto pledge, with supplements for the disabled:
universal – automatic – Citizen Income
non-withdrawable
to the level of basic tax allowance
– Full State Penson to all citizens, irregardless of National Insurance contributions / credit history, as get no state pension if less than 10 years, and many women and poorest workers also get nothing for life for food and fuel money.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jahilliya said:
Simple solution to this problem: never buy/read The Guardian!
LikeLiked by 1 person
sdbast said:
Reblogged this on sdbast.
LikeLike
oldpob said:
Just as the whole of mainstream politics is being pulled by the far Right so too is journalism.
Contrary to claims that the media simply reflect the opinions of Society, elements of what we (risibly) refer to as our ‘free press’ (wholly owned by the same wealthy elites who benefit from divide and conquer politics) actively lead many of the debates that currently split our country. Xenophobic headlines (that would not have been out of place when one of them openly supported Hitler) run regularly on the front pages of the worst offenders, would put normal citizens at risk of trial for incitement to racial hatred. Their success in quashing any aspiration to implement the findings of Leveson (remember him?) despite widespread popular support, have left them free to vilify anyone from Polish plumbers to the unemployed, to ignore traditions of objectivity, and to constantly blur the boundaries between fact and opinion. The Daily Star feels at liberty to publish ‘up-skirt’ photographs of female celebrities genitals, usually accompanied with the word ‘shock’. It is difficult to see how anyone could ever describe such fodder as journalism.
It is difficult to distinguish, though, which is the most dangerous. On one hand the tabloid press, by weight of numbers, has the most direct influence on the attitudes of the masses (and Politicians, given that the perceived wisdom in the Westminster bubble is that the Daily Mail is the best indicator of the zeitgeist amongst ‘the great unwashed’). On the other hand the once-reputable broadsheets condition the views of the powerful (in electoral terms) middle classes. The total lack of plurality in the voices of what were once bastions of intelligent journalism has resulted in an ever more insular, North London, Red Brick graduate world view that ignores all but its own concerns. What makes this more dangerous is the perception of those organs as being ‘honest brokers’. There remain within their pages the odd dissenting voice, but even those are reduced to the status of ‘novelty acts’. (It is interesting to reflect on how the (Manchester) Guardian might report the ‘Peterloo massacre’ now)
Traducing the poor, the defenceless, the ‘other’ was once the preserve of the scurrilous gutter press. But at least the gutter press never pretended to be anything more. When Broadsheet editors and hacks joined in the chorus of disapproval against increased Press regulation they ignored a very old adage.
‘With great freedom comes great responsibility ‘
LikeLiked by 5 people
Pingback: Guardian admits it will not allow readers to criticise its journalists | From the Trenches World Report
Mary Lloyd said:
I used to buy Saturday paper every week for many years but have given up on it. Now subscribe to New Statesman.
LikeLike
Truculent Sheep (@TruculentSheep) said:
The Guardian is more than willing to let some very nasty, racist, mysoginist and frankly unhinged people post on its site. The way Guardian.co.uk let itself get astro-turfed by Putinbots during the Ukranian crisis is another case in point. All to keep the precious hit rate up.
Meanwhile, anyone who argues the toss or calls out the failings of the site get banned. It’s a curious double standard.
LikeLike
bobchewie said:
Tom, you remember that jokey piece you wrote about Pudsey the bear running the historic child sex abuse enquiry ?
well truth stranger than fiction or whatever its called as Harvey Proctor worked for a video company in Barnes called Jo and Co
The Jo in question was a Joanne Lesley i believe (she has
website) well it seems this Joanne person was reponsible for creating.. Pudsey the Bear no less, now aint that weird ?
and it being the mascot for ” children in need ” too, go figure
LikeLiked by 1 person
bobchewie said:
Re: Guardian.
What I can tell you is this,
The guardian app is rubbish as it loads up an annoying advert for app games and it takes ages to get out of it to get to the content ,
Next for some strange reason when i try to post it says i have no internet connection ??
now then a short while ago i posted a question on the guardian about cyber security
I posted asking questions about a covert govt dept which was all about email inteception
I got a reply from the author of the article which suggested he knew of this dept
Ok minutes later i went to post on another item and found i was unable to post anything at all, and its been like that ever since, hmmm
LikeLiked by 2 people
nedhamson said:
Reblogged this on Ned Hamson Second Line View of the News and commented:
“It seems hacks like to dish it out – but can’t take it back.” They are saving the world with their words, so how could they be wrong or criticized? – Reason that non-traditional news keeps growing. Problems of too little fact checking and too much spin – invades all.
LikeLike
beastrabban said:
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
The Guardian has become one of the most exploitative British newspapers, despite its Liberal political stance. Private Eye has repeatedly criticised the Groaniad for its extensive use of interns to provide cheap labour in filling its columns. Furthermore, its Liberal stance has not prevented it from running puff pieces promoting extremely autocratic and repressive governments, such as that of Indonesia. Nor did it have any qualms about running similar pieces advertising the virtues of big, multinational companies responsible for wrecking the environment and brutalising indigenous populations.
According to this fortnight’s Private Eye (28th November – 11th December 2014), the newspaper’s editor, Ian Rusbridger, has also decided to cut the ‘Society’ section from its website. ‘Society’ was one of the few pieces of the newspaper still bringing in advertising revenue from adverts for public sector jobs. ‘Society’ was, of course, the section that dealt with the problems, as the Eye points out, of ‘old, poor or disabled people’. The Eye’s piece on the removal of that section concludes with the paragraph
‘Removal of the web version of Society means the Guardian’s freeloading global audience will have to search long and hard to find anything about real life in the UK, as distinct from breaking news from hipster cafes in Shoreditch. As for the council, NHS and charity workers who make up the core of those still buying the paper out of some sense of tribal loyalty, the message is clear.’
All, or most of the newspapers, promote their star journalists. Looking at the posters for the Cheltenham literary festival back in the first weeks of October, I was struck by those from the Times, which sponsors the festival. These featured their star columnists, like Caitlin Moran. Now with paid staff being savagely cut by the newspapers to save money, and their places filled with interns, who are frankly exploited, I wonder who the unsung, uncredited ‘little’ people are, who work so hard to make the big columnists look good.
LikeLiked by 1 person
oldpob said:
Further proof, were that needed, of the degree to which the Guardian has unquestioningly embraced the neo-liberal, austerity rhetoric can be seen in an article today ‘Osborne under fire over £2bn NHS pledge’.
Reporting on criticism of the Chancellor’s spending announcement Andrew Sparrow comments that ‘…the controversy generated by Sunday’s announcement illustrates how difficult it will be for the next Government to increase health spending in real terms so substantially ‘ as though the health service and the £120bn tax gap exist in separate universes
In my own experience only stupid people and the dishonest refuse to open their reasoning up to debate. The apparently increasing reticence on the part of the Guardian to do just that begs the question as to which category their editorial staff now fall into…
LikeLike
esboella said:
Yes I have an had a pseudonym banned too. No reason given as to why.
Kind of ironic that the so called ‘liberals’ are far from liberal when it comes to
freedom of speech.
Maybe I will be able to take refuge in the Ecuadorian embassy and create a new account from there to have my voice heard, with no doubt a couple of Guardian henchmen waiting to snatch me should I put a foot outside.
LikeLike
esboella said:
Truculent Sheep, I don’t think the Guardian “is more than willing to let some very nasty, racist, mysoginist (sic lol) and frankly unhinged people post on its site.” I think I got banned for being a “misogynist”, by misogynist I mean someone who disagree with rampant loony feminism.
So I don’t think that is true and I disagree with your veiled suggestion such people should be banned.
LikeLike
esboella said:
Perhaps the most ironic thing is how much the Daily Mail allows people to criticise the newspaper, it’s readers and it’s journalists. Often when I am writing a comment I think they will never print this, yet they so. Such comments would get me lifetime ban at the Guardian. A ban without trial or even knowing the charges against you, the Guardian would be up in arms if the government as ‘imprisoning’ people similarly.
LikeLike
esboella said:
I also note the Guardian has a separate even more secure commentating system for it’s environment section to stop people critising it’s loony environmental beliefs.
LikeLike
esboella said:
Perhaps one reason the Guardian gets a lot of hit but few comments is because people read the rubbish they write and just leave. Or, more likely they have banned half the population and are just down to the people who have nothing say apart form incomprehensible artistic waffle ( I note some post here too, mentioning no names).
LikeLike
jeffmowatt said:
I’m reassured to learn that I’m not alone. It was this kind of censorship in mainstream meda which kept a story of children starving to death in insititutions quiet for 5 years. Our work to place them in family homes, was hijacked by a corporate vanity project of which The British Council were part, They are sponsors of a Guardian Hub on international social innovation, where you’ll not find us.
LikeLike
Kevin James said:
Hmm.Guardian and my dealings with them. When on Sellect Committee review of WCA in May 2011 I was asked to attend a Guardian venue on Benefits at some museum. I did, the knowledge was banal and awful. for age 12 sociology class.
When I told them of the WCA and research and stats disabled were doing, The Guardian social editor told me they had far better people than disabled to do research and far more qualfiied. They did not want to know the migration to WCA and Atos problems.
After Guardian attendees and journalists said disabled need to be grateful for Guardian supporting them, they could make us or break us.
Also said that the problem with disabled is they need to learn to smile more and find what is positive about being disabled, in pain and possibly dying.
When I objected. Guardian social editor poo poohed
I did blow as angry and frustrated and also my strokes and PTSD had held out all day.
When I got home, my website manager said he had had a phonecall from Social Editor who said “Keep Your Disabled Bitch on a Leash”
Social EDitor of Guardian 2011.
Bloody dreadful.
LikeLike