The Politics Thread 4

[Regginator3]

Those people that interrupted Kahn the other day. Forgotten about, probably because Kahn didn't confront them, nor did one of his people punch them. Also it didn't fit the media's narrative

What are you on about? It's hardly forgotten about. It was in the media for quite a while, hit BBC News, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Evening Standard - even hit overseas news outlets like the Washington Post. Pretty sure it was top trending on Facebook on the day as well. People don't talk about it right now because it was a month ago and news interest generally has an expiry date. The incident in Bristol Uni was less than a fortnight ago and has received increased attention because the exact same thing happened the other day at Cambridge Union as well.

Nothing to do with "the media's narrative"

What are you on about? It was in the media for a day.
Top trending on Facebook

The Sun was even talking about it days later. It wasn't just a day... as was the Independent

That said, there wasn't much more to talk about. The culprits were identified at the start, and there wasn't any information to follow up on. With the Mogg situation there was the debate over "who started it", which obviously led to more media attention as well.

And yes, I'm pretty sure it was one of the top trending discussions on Facebook. It showed as such for me, anyway, I remember it pretty distinctly because that's how I found out about the topic in the first place.

[That]

Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

Is it? The Guardian is frequently very unintentionally funny, but I tend to reserve the word 'rag' for the papers that stir up FUD and hatred day-in-day-out.

The Express and The Mail are the real rags.

[Regginator3]

Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

Is it? The Guardian is frequently very unintentionally funny, but I tend to reserve the word 'rag' for the papers that stir up FUD and hatred day-in-day-out.

The Express and The Mail are the real rags.

I dunno. Anything which tries to purport a set morality "This is the right way to behave, this is the wrong one" is pretty much a rag, especially when they don't abide by it themselves. The Express and The Mail are rags too for the reasons you say.

Also the Guardian stirs up FUD on a daily basis too, mostly against Brexit. We can debate whether that's a good idea or not but that's separate to the fact the Guardian literally constantly posts negative articles that almost always turn out to be false.

[Lex-Man]

Two articles on The Guardian website today that stand out to me.

1, just the general hypocrisy of this article, "Vogue criticised for unpaid internships", which the paper decided to lead on for the pysical paper: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... nternships

Vogue has been criticised for using unpaid interns in month-long placements despite the new editor Edward Enninful’s commitment to increasing diversity at the fashion journal.

The work is unpaid, but those taking up the post are reimbursed for travel expenses of up to £80 a week.

Tanya de Grunwald of Graduate Fog, a campaigner for fair internships, said she had reported Vogue to HM Revenue and Customs, which monitors payment of the national minimum wage. She said the workplace shadowing roles may amount to the duties of a “worker”, an official employment classification. Under employment legislation, anyone who is acting as a worker must be paid at least the national minimum wage.

Meanwhile The Guardian are doing the exact same thing with unpaid internship, and in 2017 was offering unpaid ethnic minority and editorial work internships. Maybe they should lead on their own crappy practices first.

Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

2, an example of just how epically out of touch some of their readers are: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... r-mariella

Will my girlfriend stop loving me if I earn less than her?

At 34, I’ve paid off my mortgage and have a couple of years’ salary in savings. I’ve recently been promoted, but am working very long hours, don’t have much time in the evenings and spend my weekends worrying about the work. I’m not sleeping well and partly due to Crohn’s disease have lost weight. I earn £46,000, which is far more than I ever expected (or feel I deserve) to earn. My girlfriend of almost a year is 33 and the love of my life, and I hope we will have a baby in around three years’ time. I’ve been offered a public sector job with a wonderful work-life balance but reduced salary (£36,000) and had decided to take this and spend the next three or so years doing all the things I/we want to before having children, as well as improving my health. During a conversation about this potential change, my girlfriend told me that she earns £45,000. I am not in the slightest bit chauvinistic about earning more than her, but need to feel that the choice I’m making is not selfish. I worry about not contributing enough and riding on her coattails. Changing to a lower-paying job might suggest I am lacking ambition and also have a negative impact on our relationship.

'I own my own house, I have no mortgage, I'll be on £36,000 a year, I've got almost £100,000 in the bank, and we're on £81,000 a year. For God Sakes Help Me!'

I feel like this is a little unfair, though. Whilst they may be fine financially, the question as to whether it would impact their relationship is a legitimate one.

I guess everybody has problems, I could totally see why this would be a problem. That said I am a guardian reader. Although some of their stuff does go a bit too far IMO.

[Moggy]

Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

Is it? The Guardian is frequently very unintentionally funny, but I tend to reserve the word 'rag' for the papers that stir up FUD and hatred day-in-day-out.

The Express and The Mail are the real rags.

I dunno. Anything which tries to purport a set morality "This is the right way to behave, this is the wrong one" is pretty much a rag, especially when they don't abide by it themselves. The Express and The Mail are rags too for the reasons you say.

Also the Guardian stirs up FUD on a daily basis too, mostly against Brexit. We can debate whether that's a good idea or not but that's separate to the fact the Guardian literally constantly posts negative articles that almost always turn out to be false.

Which newspapers are good in your eyes?

[That]

I dunno. Anything which tries to purport a set morality "This is the right way to behave, this is the wrong one" is pretty much a rag, especially when they don't abide by it themselves. The Express and The Mail are rags too for the reasons you say.

Also the Guardian stirs up FUD on a daily basis too, mostly against Brexit. We can debate whether that's a good idea or not but that's separate to the fact the Guardian literally constantly posts negative articles that almost always turn out to be false.

I can't say that your view isn't logically consistent, it's just that for me overt encouragement of racism and xenophobia - and the constant kicking of vulnerable easy targets like immigrants or the very poor ("scroungers!!!"), and so on - is a lot worse than economics alarmism or a moralistic comment piece about veganism (and I hate vegans! mostly-kidding...).

[Rocsteady]

Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

Is it? The Guardian is frequently very unintentionally funny, but I tend to reserve the word 'rag' for the papers that stir up FUD and hatred day-in-day-out.

The Express and The Mail are the real rags.

I dunno. Anything which tries to purport a set morality "This is the right way to behave, this is the wrong one" is pretty much a rag, especially when they don't abide by it themselves. The Express and The Mail are rags too for the reasons you say.

Also the Guardian stirs up FUD on a daily basis too, mostly against Brexit. We can debate whether that's a good idea or not but that's separate to the fact the Guardian literally constantly posts negative articles that almost always turn out to be false.

On your first criteria that would suggest every single paper is 'pretty much a rag.' Having worked in newsrooms every paper pushes an agenda, even if it's just through story choice and prominence.

[Regginator3]

On your first criteria that would suggest every single paper is 'pretty much a rag.' Having worked in newsrooms every paper pushes an agenda, even if it's just through story choice and prominence.

Yeah I agree to an extent, but then there's the additional hypocrisy. For example, as KK pointed out, running a story about how terrible it is Vogue have unpaid internships yet they do it themselves. That's a whooole other level.

Which newspapers are good in your eyes?

For me personally? I don't tend to read newspapers much. If I do, I don't mind reading the Times or the FT though. Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.

[Vermilion]

Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.

It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

[Regginator3]

Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.

It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

I haven't paid much attention to the site, to be honest.

[Vermilion]

Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.

It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

I haven't paid much attention to the site, to be honest.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/11/the-peopl ... d-7303780/

One of their latest headlines.

[Hypes]

That article's not even hypocritical.

[KK]

Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.

It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

I haven't paid much attention to the site, to be honest.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/11/the-peopl ... d-7303780/

One of their latest headlines.

The reason is it’s extremely cheap to produce, can be written by practically anybody (either in-house or farmed out) and under 34s love reading it. In other ways, it helps fund proper journalism...though not really, as Buzzfeed have shown with their latest cuts/debts. But that’s the mindset.

[Lex-Man]

Metro in the mornings occasionally because it's free on the bus and it isn't particularly terrible.

It's certainly better than their online content, i can barely believe they allow their site to be used as a platform for some of the rubbish masquerading as journalism there.

I haven't paid much attention to the site, to be honest.

http://metro.co.uk/2018/02/11/the-peopl ... d-7303780/

One of their latest headlines.

Hard hitting journalism.

[Regginator3]

That article's not even hypocritical.

It's posted by someone called Martine - how can a woman claim someone else needs to grow a beard when she doesn't grow one herself? The nerve.

[Hypes]

gooseberry fool Momentum are still a thing then

twitter.com/ActivateBritain/status/962601400944513024

[OrangeRKN]

Yeah I agree to an extent, but then there's the additional hypocrisy. For example, as KK pointed out, running a story about how terrible it is Vogue have unpaid internships yet they do it themselves. That's a whooole other level.

The appeal to hypocrisy is a fallacy. You can criticise the Guardian for having unpaid internships, but that doesn't itself discredit any argument they make against the practice.

You should level the same criticism at the Guardian for how they use internships whether they run that article or not.

[Squinty]

That article's not even hypocritical.

It's posted by someone called Martine - how can a woman claim someone else needs to grow a beard when she doesn't grow one herself? The nerve.

She might be one of those bearded women you see in a bizarre show. We just don't have enough information.

[Regginator3]

Yeah I agree to an extent, but then there's the additional hypocrisy. For example, as KK pointed out, running a story about how terrible it is Vogue have unpaid internships yet they do it themselves. That's a whooole other level.

The appeal to hypocrisy is a fallacy. You can criticise the Guardian for having unpaid internships, but that doesn't itself discredit any argument they make against the practice.

You should level the same criticism at the Guardian for how they use internships whether they run that article or not.

You know what are also fallacies? Straw man arguments. I didn't say it discredited their argument against Vogue - in fact I didn't even comment on Vogue - all I said is that they are hypocrites and it's a rag for purporting a morality it doesn't follow.

Nice try though OR

[Vermilion]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43031441

It was bad enough when Labour decided to use a dodgy PC ticket pricing strategy a while back.