Give up The Guardian
 | By MatthewHarris
June 8, 2012 | Share |
A nascent Facebook page that might amuse JC readers: http://m.facebook.com/pages/Give-up-The-Guardian/302780923149109?id=3027... More on this on Charlotte Henry's blog at: http://digitalpolitico.net/2012/06/08/giving-up-the-guardian/ Not a ban, not a boycott per se, just liberals saying: No thanks. We don't want you any more. We ain't buying. If being a Guardian Reader is a club, then we wish to resign. Actually, I quit years ago and don't miss it any more.
COMMENTS
Tue, 06/12/2012 - 17:49 Rate this: 0 points | Thanks, you make some very good points. My "giving up The Guardian" was more an ironic expression of exasperation than anything else. |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 09:20 Rate this: 1 point |
you mean your blogspot blog of 9th june entitled "giving up The Guardian"? and saying …
?? matthew, you've set up a facebook campaign page jointly with a younger liberal democrat colleague, charlotte henry (26), the only reasoning referred to on the page is yours, and there's nothing whatever on the page itself to suggest that it's not serious you can't make a deliberate allegation (that the guardian is "a leading platform for cant and hypocrisy") and then, when challenged, expect to get away with saying that you were just being funny! making false accusations isn't funny making accusations and saying they're not false, but i can't be bothered to defend them, isn't funny there's a website (i won't link to it) which some bloggers here like referring to, which is deliberately run with the sole purpose of publishing lies and half-truths to disparage another jc blogger when i challenged one page on that site as a complete invention, after at first robustly defending it, they felt forced to claim that it was "a spoof" first them, now you? is this the new liberal democrat attitude to truth … speak first, and later claim it wasn't to be taken seriously? hmm matthew, i wasn't asking a rhetorical question, i was expecting an answer, to …
|
i don't see anything ironic about that
… and is it also the new liberal democrat attitude to promises … speak first, and later claim it wasn't to be taken seriously? 
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 11:07 Rate this: 0 points | Thanks, the piece on my blog is an explanation of why I do not wish to be considered a Guardian Reader; I say there that this is not a ban or a boycott - merely an expression of dismay about the current state of The Guardian. |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 12:11 Rate this: 0 points | Happy, I may not be very old. And I may not be as wise as you (koff). But I am old enough and wise enough to have learned this.... Once someone has stuck their head in the sand, all the devils in hell won't get them to pull it out again. |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 12:24 Rate this: 0 points | Are you talking about Happygoldfish or Matthew Harris? |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 12:49 Rate this: 0 points | Zaheer....behave. |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 13:58 Rate this: 0 points | Happygoldfish accuses people of publishing a farrago of lies. That is easy to do. Yet there is no indication of, or identification of, these lies. She further strenuously attempts to do what she can to prevent people from accessing the material and judging for themselves. It seems that she doesn't have much confidence in her assertions. Otherwise would she not want the whole world to see this farrago of lies for what it is ? Or does she think that mere mortals would not be able to spot the lies and therefore should be required just to take her word for it ? Just what is it that sets happy apart from mere mortals ? |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 16:38 Rate this: 0 points | "....... with the sole purpose of publishing lies and half-truths to disparage another jc blogger" What do you mean by this ? Is it just words thrown together ? Or just cant and hypocracy ? If you can't seriously justify it then withdraw it. Thank you in advance. |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 17:16 Rate this: 0 points | This comment by Chris Tucker has been moderated |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 17:21 Rate this: 0 points | You have to wonder about someone that wastes so much time and energy stomping on poor, harmless, ineffectual Matthew. |
Wed, 06/13/2012 - 17:52 Rate this: 0 points | come off it matthew, your blog of 9th june is there to draw attention to the facebook campaign page created on 8th june by you (and another) and the only reasoning on the facebook page is the reference to your blog (also 9th june) and anyway, that's not true …
… it's not an explanation, it's a serious accusation (that the guardian is "a leading platform for cant and hypocrisy" ) without an explanation … for the third time, what do you mean by this? is it just words randomly thrown together?
|
Fri, 06/15/2012 - 09:50 Rate this: 0 points | Comments for this page are now closed. |
MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR
LATEST COMMENTS
happygoldfish
Mon, 06/11/2012 - 11:31
Rate this:
matthew, when you say the guardian is "a leading platform for cant and hypocrisy", do you mean generally, or only in relation to israel?
if generally, will you give us any examples (or at least, subjects)?
if only in relation to israel, what is the problem? the non-israeli articles, you can read in comfort
and is it not better to read the cant and hypocrisy about israel, so that you know what is being said, rather than to ignore it?
how can we counter cant and hypocrisy, if we don't know what is being said?
are you aware, for example, that …
are you aware of the guardian's 12-hour "Gaza live blog" (yesterday, at http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2012/jun/08/gaza-live-blog), about 25 page-equivalents, plus videos, of information and propaganda?
the guardian's intention in publishing this may be deplorable, but the effect (unsurprisingly) is to reveal a lot of truth, particularly about hamas's intentions and maladministration, for example "But in February, a row between Hamas and the Egyptian government sparked the worst fuel shortages yet. … The result was a stalemate that caused Gaza to grind to a halt."
are liberal democrats better off not knowing this?