Rayvin
-
Posts
21494 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Everything posted by Rayvin
-
Because their centre left candidate just did so well, of course. I can see your concern but the left needs to be forced to give a fuck about people again and apparently the only way for this to happen is for them to be given a collective kicking.
-
Yep, pretty sure I said I'd take Clinton over Trump. Doesn't make her a good candidate though. Nice to see even the Democrats have noticed this now, and appear to be undergoing their Corbyn moment.
-
I don't read the Indie much so won't comment on them. Is the leader like a statement of a newspapers beliefs? If so I probably should read that. It wasn't character assassinations with Sanders, it was the fact that they endorsed Hillary. Anyway look, I respect your views on this and will continue questioning my outlook until I'm satisfied with it.
-
True. Although I don't think Corbyn has all the answers either.
-
I have mixed feelings on Jones. He has some good ideas but is a proponent of identity politics and therefore, in my view, hasn't fully grasped the wider issues at play here.
-
Yep, true that Miliband should have been countering it. But papers interpret political realities at the end of the day, and I see plenty of articles now that challenge austerity after the fact. Maybe I expect too much from them in terms of their ability to see this stuff coming. You're right about the commentators. It's just that there should be an opposing view, and their frequently isn't. This bothers me, but maybe the issue is simply that most journalists think the same way... If I did a piece of research and found that the Guardian, in its US election coverage from back when Sanders and Clinton were vying for nomination, had a pro-Clinton bias in terms of articles of 75:25 (I'm not claiming this is the case, I'm just talking hypothetically), would you consider that they had an agenda? Or that they had a preferred candidate? And if so, would it be fair to assume that this candidate was chosen because their views aligned with that of the newspaper? Or would you argue that this is coincidence and simply reflective of the submissions they receive (which I'm prepared to accept as a feasible argument even if I disagree with it).
-
I wanna caveat all of this, Gloom, and say that I still believe they're capable of quality reporting. I just don't think they're doing the job we need them to do any more (if they ever were).
-
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.
-
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.
-
After my post though...
-
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.
-
Wait wait wait, the US have NEVER interfered in the elections of another country in such a way. Only Russia is that nefarious. FFS.
-
Neoliberalism issue neatly ducked.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
We should be. You'd fucking love my facebook posts.
-
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.
-
Fwiw mate, I don't share any news sources besides the Guardian on here. The thing is though, I work in academic publishing; I can easily fact check a lot of what they publish in academic journals. Perhaps I should start doing that on here - the problem is that most of them are paywalled though. Anyway, I'm not getting counter information from other news sources, I'm getting it from research. I'm also able to witness observable effects of the impact of their editorial line - and it has split the left. Which actually, is my main fucking peeve with it. I don't criticise the FT because I don't read it often enough to make a judgment. I agree that they're a quality paper otherwise though.
-
-
Do they?
-
The Guardian is a tad more high brow but when looking at their op ed sections I'd say yes. You and I know where that line of argument will get us though, and I remember your points from last time. Might be worth considering though that even if the Op Ed sections are not the same as the paper's actual view, plenty of people are interpreting it that way. That's surely a failure on behalf of the Guardian.
-
Manned bases on the moons of Jupiter...?
-
Those on the left have seemingly irreparably split the left itself. Granted it's not as bad as a surge in nationalism in the direction of Nazism, but it has annihilated any chance of standing up to that should the right choose to go there. There are now two branches of the left. The "Progressives" and the Liberals. The MSM is partially responsible for the development of the "Progressives" so shoulder some of the blame for the splitting of the left.
-
Well said.
