43 1 min 9 yrs

A great piece by Pat Condell on the Graniard, the vile left wing rag which acts as the print version of the BBC.

;

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

43 thoughts on “THE UGLIEST NEWSPAPER IN BRITAIN

  1. Petr,

    How very clever, you proved Pat’s point in two short sentences.

    He doesn’t even know you, and yet he sums you up perfectly.

  2. He’s spot on about The Guardian and it’s readership. Fortunately the group is losing money so fast it’ll have to shut down before long.

  3. “Some fossilised old lefty who’s still wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt”

    Do ya know what, old Ernest, that bit did remind me of someone in fairness! 🙂

  4. Wow, that is one frustrated and bitter chap.
    And imagine someone putting up a post on this site accusing some other publication of being “obsessed with Israel”!
    Might just work of course if only people didn’t glance at the post on Israel above or the 1000 below.
    The probable don’t even see the irony of it.

    The Guardian will continue to write about the Israeli occupation as long as one European religious national group, set up in the ME by Europeans in reaction to a European disaster, continues to oppress, drive out, rob and kill the people who live there, and until that time too Palestinians will – wonders never cease – continue to resist with whatever means they have.

    So this “sanctimonious mouthpiece” had better get used to it.

  5. Thank you, Mr Condell, for your unerringly accurate description of those 200,000+ ovine readers of the Guardian. I confess I’ve been labouring for years under the illusion that each and every one of them was an individual—like me in fact.

    (Memo to self: Your thinking is far too nuanced, Richard. Buy a bucket of tar and a single, large brush.)

    (Memo to Pat Condell: A hissy-fit won’t land you that columnist job at the Guardian you believe you richly deserve. I spoke to Alan on your behalf but he still thinks you’re a c**t.)

  6. Wow, that is one frustrated and bitter chap

    Precisely Noel.

    Who is Pat Condell? What are his credentials in political analysis? Is he particularly qualified to speak about the situation in the ME or does he just use Youtube as a cyber soapbox to rant? What gives this Condell man, (or anyone else for that matter), the right to class someone like Norman Finkelstein as a “self – loathing Jew”?

    I’ve dealt before with actors etc getting a hard time on ATW for holding and articulating political views, (invariably ‘lefty’ political views), and I often find it a source of acerbic amusement on ATW that people like Tim Robbins are ridiculed for having a political opinion as if by being in the public eye as a famous actor they are not allowed to have such opinions or that have less values than other views yet people like this Condell man with his supreme arrogance are lauded.

  7. A case of Condell – an arch-Zionist mouthpiece – being reasonably correct about the multi-cultists who rule the BBC and The Guardian but failing utterly to grasp who is creating the multi-culti hellhole of Europe which he himself claims to oppose:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlKcH4dWFQc&feature=player_embedded

    I think there’s a resurgence of antisemitism because at this point in time Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural, and I think we’re gonne be part of the throes of that transformation, which must take place. Europe has not yet learned how to be multicultural. Europe is not going to be the monolithic societies that they once were in the last century. Jews are going to be at the center of that. It’s a huge transformation for Europe to make. They are now going into a multicultural mode, and Jews will be resented because of our leading role. But without that leading role, and without that transformation, Europe will not survive.

    —Barbara Lerner Spectre, IBA-News, 2010

    Thank you for that clarification, Mrs Spectre.

  8. Normally I agree with Condell, but this piece is based on the false premise that all Guardian readers are anti-semitic, because if they weren’t they wouldn’t buy the paper.

    He doesn’t seem to understand that it is possible to read a newspaper without agreeing with 100% of its political views 100% of the time. Or maybe he does get that, but doesn’t want it to get in the way of his self-righteous, moral-high-ground rant.

  9. Peter,
    “Normally I agree with Condell, but this piece is based on the false premise that all Guardian readers are anti-semitic,”

    I didn’t hear it like that. I heard him saying that supporting Palestinian aspirations and their oft repeated calls for the destruction of Israel (and that is true, is it not -whether for media consumption or not, that’s what they inevitably want)
    is tantamount to being anti Israei/Jewish.

    I had family visiting last weekend. Both had been Probation Officers, one is now a counsellor. Both read the Guardian. Both tend to do what Mr Condell mentions, namely champion the cause of minorities, believe in free speech and freedom of cultural expression- providing it meets with their approval. But they don’t SAY that. It’s just that as soon as you present your viewpoint a look of horror or contempt or condescension or censure appears on their faces.
    Why?
    So how did I manage to upset a part of my Guardian reading family?
    I expressed my opposition to Gay marriage, and belief that civil partnerships were as far as we should go, until the Church is separated from the State.

    I affirmed my belief that the well meaning State is responsible for creating a growing number of people dependent on taxpayer funded Benefits and unable/unwilling to hold down a job.
    Whilst at the same time importing people to do the work ours can’t/won’t.

    That by continuing to interfere in the running of the economy the Government is growing bigger and making things worse not better.
    I asked how far a person of any religion could deny the basic tenets of their faith and still claim to be an adherent.

    I asked why if they believe in live and let live, they felt the need to condemn me and my old fashioned viewpoints.

    And I have to say, that Pat Condells description ~sans the anti semitic bit~ describes my family members to a “G”. 😉

  10. A8

    I’m a regular Guardian reader (Friday and Saturday) but the views you express above are in no way anathema to me, in fact I share most of them.

    Condell was very clear that if you read the Guardian you must be anti-semitic. That is an absurd position, if not an outright smear. It’s the classic Zionist argument: anyone critical of Isralel is by definition an anti-semite.

  11. Peter,
    http://www.thecommentator.com/article/624/the_guardian_acknowledges_a_degree_of_anti_semitism.
    I include this because it is a Guardian admission.
    Let me just say that I have tried reading the Guardian, but frankly found it boring. Now Frank O’Dwyer might say that is because I prefer certainties and absolutes, and that I fail to look at arguments “in the round”.
    But I don’t think that would be a fair analysis. (were that Frank’s position)
    What I react to is not another point of view opposed to mine, but the manner and attitude in which it is stated.

    For example, my family acknowledge my “hands on approach” to what I believe in; be it democracy -served as a town councillor; people with learning difficulties -many years of working with them; fostering children; done that, old people -ditto.

    Voluntary unpaid work both in the UK and abroad -18 years of that.
    So they admire me, but reject my values, my motivation for doing those things.

    In another context they would argue,
    “Why should you do that? You’re not getting paid, you are losing out on pension rights and health care.”
    But when they look at me, they can’t argue with what I have done, only with my motivation.

    It is not anti semitic to disagree with Israeli foreign or domestic policy: it is the feelings behind your disagreement and criticism which define the bias.

  12. Agit8ed,

    Now do you realise that the biggest bigots around are those same liberals who not only read the Guardian, but who also have such delusions of intellectual superiority.

    Have you ever met one who has actually got their hands dirty, doing what they so enthusiastically encourage the rest of us to do? They just don’t exist, – as we used to say;- ‘they are all wind and ‘hiss’!’

  13. Now do you realise that the biggest bigots around are those same liberals who not only read the Guardian, but who also have such delusions of intellectual superiority

    The feckless and stupid are never referred to as feckless and stupid they’re called disadvantaged and vulnerable.

    Yeah, intellectual superiority

  14. Pauly,
    I come from a disadvantaged vulnerable background. By modern practice my brothers and sister would have been taken into care.
    It is my faith which has taught me that all people have value, that all people must be understood by their backgrounds and beliefs, and I have no right to judge them.
    Any more than I would wish others to judge me by my actions instead of my intentions.

  15. To call the Guardian the ugliest newspaper in Britain or a vile rag is the mark of a narrow minded intolerance that wants to just live in a bubble of right wing approved media reading matter. A very broad spectrum of all political shades within the newspaper industry is healthy and good and stimulating and to wish for a newspapers’ demise as Pete does just because it fails to sgare your viewpoint is pathetic.

  16. Of course, The Guardian has as much right to exist in a free marketplace as does any other newspaper. I have no problem with that.

    – But does the Guardian really exist as a product of the free market, to the same extent as, say, the Mail? (excellent Dan & Dan clip above, btw)

    A newspaper’s revenue comes from two sources: the cover price (paid for freely by those who buy it), and from its advertisers, who pay their money to the newspaper out of their own freely earned profits, in exchange for advertising space.

    (I don’t know for sure, but I suspect that ad revenue makes up far and away the larger part of most newspapers’ income).

    -But, hold on a second. Compare the Mail’s adverts with the Guardian’s, and you’ll see that a large proportion of the G’s advertising revenue comes from (a) the public sector in general, and (b) the BBC in particular. In other words, a large part of their advertising revenue is sourced from taxes. So, when you pay your TV licence and income tax, you are subsidising the Guardian. That is hardly the definition of a newspaper operating in a free market.

  17. It’ll be a great day for British liberty when The Guardian closes.

    Pete Moore

    That is a fascist comment. Just because you object to its politics. For shame.

  18. Was thinking the same thing, Peter, but didn’t bother posting. I think Pete might be a bot.

  19. So, when you pay your TV licence and income tax, you are subsidising the Guardian.

    And with your taxes you are also subsidising the defence industry and its vast corruption both at home and abroad. And the police and its vast inefficiency and revolving-door cosy relations with (ahem) certain right wing press barons. And of course the so-called “war on drugs” which has been a total waste of billions of taxpayer pounds over decades, most of which has effectively subsidised the drug barons by putting a risk premium on their products.

  20. Absolutely, agreed. All of those things are just as bad as subsidising the Guardian. I’m glad we agree that taxes are an evil extortion of our money, most of which is squandered on bad things.

  21. Peter (10:25pm) –
    No, not because of its politics, but because of the way in which it is surreptitiously funded via taxation and licence fees. THAT is why the Guardian ought not to sit there on the news-stands, purporting to be just another viewpoint. If the Guardian’s politics are so widely endorsed, then let it compete in the free market via sales and advertising revenue from private companies. As it is, most of its ad revenue comes from the public sector, ie, taxation. Therefore it is, de facto, a State publication, along the same lines as the BBC.

  22. Peter –

    Don’t be daft. It would be a fascistic of me to, you know, ape the Left and call for the censorship of those publications I disagree with.

    In fact the fascism lies in The Guardian’s very existence. Tom Tyler is bang on when he points out how the parasitic paper feeds on our looted money. Without the BBC and government keeping it afloat via advertising income it would have gone bust years ago.

  23. Agi, I suggest that you take your disadvantaged vulnerable background up with Pat Condell. My second quote at 5.26 is taken directly from his diatribe. He’s the person that thinks the disadvantaged and vulnerable are feckless and stupid.

    Tom, surely in a free market The Guardian should accept advertising revenue from whatever source it wishes and, (if I understand your point correctly), the problem lies with the source as opposed to the messenger?

  24. Pete and Tom should be honest and admit that their probem lies with the Guardians left of centre culture. Nothing to do with their revenue sources.

  25. Colm –

    Stop pretending to be thick.

    No-one in here would defend The Guardian’s right to print what it wants to more than I would. Don’t argue, that’s a plain statement of fact.

    Next Wednesday, when you pass Patel’s newsagent, nip in and get a copy. Check out the hundreds of government jobs advertised. It’s a deliberate subsidy of the Left’s main paper via tax violence.

  26. Pete

    Stop pretending to be a libertarian. You relish the closure of a newspaper because you don’t like it’s left leaning stance. That is a plain statement of fact. I relish the closure or failure of no newspapers regardless of my attitudes towards their politics.

  27. Pete Moore and Tom

    Of course you will be well aware that the Guardian’s website is an order of magnitude more popular than its right-wing rivals, and has been so for years. Now would that be because:

    (a) It is a brilliant website, or
    (b) Because it is subsidised by taxes extorted at the point of a gun from the lumpen proletariat unsuspecting Tory-supporting masses? As your beloved Fox would say, YOU decide!

  28. Colm –

    Yes, I have a problem with The Guardian’s editorial line, but I in no way would restrict its right to that line. Yes, I would absolutely stop its looted income in the morning. If it cannot compete in the free market, let it die.

  29. Peter –

    “Of course you will be well aware that the Guardian’s website is an order of magnitude more popular than its right-wing rivals, and has been so for years.”

    Not true:

    The world’s most popular online newspaper is not the New York Times, USA Today, or the Wall Street Journal. You may not have ever visited it on purpose. If you’re American, you may not have even heard of it. It’s the Daily Mail.

  30. Pete

    My point though was about your relishing of it’s closure. It is one thing to believe it is unfairly subsidised, but very different to be happy about it folding.

  31. Pete Moore

    If you are seriously contending that the online “celeb” magazine known as the Daily Mail website is a rival to the news-dominated websites of the Guardian or the Telegraph, then you are even more confused than I thought you were. This is like comparing the circulation of The Sun to The Times, both Murdoch-owned of course.

Comments are closed.