6 ms·

What about the recent editorial condemning Taylor Swift: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-tr

What about the recent editorial condemning Taylor Swift: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-guardian-view-on-taylor-swift-an-envoy-for-trumps-values https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/24/the-gu...

scandox 9y ago
See my problem here is not the analytical over-reach - it's an editorial that mentions Taylor Swift...
- calcifer 9y ago
  I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.
  - Chris2048 9y ago
    > since the status quo is Trump Why would a British newspaper think that?
    - calcifer 9y ago
      It's an international newspaper, which has significantly invested in their US presence [1] in the past decade. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US
      - Chris2048 9y ago
        Not in print though, and the linked article is from the UK version, so statements about the status-quo in the UK edition are still relevant.
        calcifer 9y ago
        Unfortunately, the opinions of a sitting US president on any given issue has relevance not just for the US, but for the world as well. As long as that remains true, status-quo being Trump is a concern for everyone.
  - scandox 9y ago
    Yeah I get that. It’s not crazy. It’s just a world away from the kind of thing I can engage with. If that means I’m on my way out in terms of relevance I’d accept that. I’m not cross about it...I just can’t take it seriously.
    - calcifer 9y ago
      Celebrity drama - political or otherwise - seems daft and boring to me as well, but I think people who think so are on their way out (in terms of age, if nothing else). So if the idea is to reach a younger audience in a language they'd understand / in a way they find appealing, I'm all for it.
  - stfu 9y ago
    > They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo No, they are assuming that everyone must have an opinion. It seems outside of their reality to accept that people don't care about the things they care about. Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. I just have other things in life going on.
    - calcifer 9y ago
      > Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. Sure, you may not be a fan of it, but you don't find it a big enough problem to complain to the city. For the editorial in question, the subject is Trump and their opinion is that finding Trump not big enough a problem to complain about is not an acceptable position for someone of such wide social reach. You may not agree with that assesment, but I think it's a fairly normal position for an editorial board to take.
      - m00g00 9y ago
        Please link me to any other article from The Guardian complaining about one of the scores of other popular music artists who have also said nothing about Trump.
      - stfu 9y ago
        What they are doing is advancing the politicizing of everything and driving an agenda of divisiveness. Why is an artist is not allowed to be an artist anymore but needs to be an political activist? Even worse, because TS doesn't follow the Guardian's absurd logic, they are trying to shame her with their imaginative interpretation. That's not journalism, that is a 6-year old's fantasy world, who dreams up stories about celebrities and why they are their imaginary friends/enemies.
        mitjak 9y ago
        But everything is already political? They're saying that _this_ specific person should have a more explicitly political stance, and not taking one is a political stance still.
  - m00g00 9y ago
    The status quo is actually hating on Trump and attempting to shove politics down every last crevice of the universe. I think in fact The Guardian and most other "journalistic" outlets are a tad bit jealous of Taylor Swift, as she is one of the very few public people/entities these days who seems to be able to garner attention, and importantly rake it shit tons of money, without resorting to daily Trump outrage spam and culture war nonsense. I guarantee you rags like The Guardian are shaking in their boots at the eventual prospect of Trump being out of office. They might want to take a lesson from Ms. Swift and learn to create actual quality content to prepare for that coming day of reckoning.
  - mitchty 9y ago
    Its a stupid stance, and rather easy to refute. Good reasons for Taylor not to say anything: she doesn't want to. Nobody complains about my stance of not talking about unicorns as being pro unicorn. Complaining about Taylor Swift not taking a stance on trump as being pro trump is a failure in logic at the most basic level. How about we stop caring so much what celebrities think instead?
stfu 9y ago
Wow, I haven't seen that before! Just stunning how distorted the Guardian's editorial board has become. Their hatefulness must have become so deep seeded that they are unable to tolerate anyone out there who does not wanted to get instrumentalized by their 'either you are with us or you are our enemy' crusade.
- jopsen 9y ago
  I rarely read the opinion pieces... they seems to be deliberately designed to provoke a discussion. And occasionally, just plain clickbait. But they are clearly labelled "Opinion" and then I don't have a problem ignoring and being very critical when I do happen to read such an article.
m00g00 9y ago
Notice also, no byline, and no comments allowed. The Guardian often panders to culture war outrage bait then hides behind taking responsibility or criticism with tricks like this, and the fact that an occasional decent article exists. Why again does this failing rag deserve support, and why is this obvious propaganda upvoted to the top of HN?
- gsnedders 9y ago
  Comments are only allowed on the blog-like "comment is free" posts, which presumably they don't consider editorials part of despite them now obviously being part of the same platform technically (hence the /commentisfree/ URLs). This isn't something specific to this editorial; it is the general rule the website works by. (As an aside, I'd much rather Comment is Free just died, because so much of what the Guardian gets lambasted over is content posted there—and its explicit point is less editorial control over the contents. If people don't want what gets posted with less direct editorial control over content, just don't give it to them.)
  - m00g00 9y ago
    No idea what their arbitrary rules are, but I noticed a review by The Guardian of Swift's new album linked at the top of this article did have comments enabled. Both of these are obviously opinions, so I'm not sure what the difference is, besides the fact that one article (GP) was way more likely to receive backlash in the comments than the other.
    - gsnedders 9y ago
      Weird. It certainly used to be the case no "newspaper" article had comments enabled, but that definitely does. So yeah, OK, I don't understand when commenting is enabled any more. I mean, at least the old "newspaper" platform v. "blog" platform distinction made sense—there were many more differences (editorial control being a major one) than just commenting.
      - Nursie 9y ago
lin_lin 9y ago
What utter rubbish. Just when you think it's already reached "Peak Guardian", they come out with that.

scandox 9y ago

See my problem here is not the analytical over-reach - it's an editorial that mentions Taylor Swift...

calcifer 9y ago
I think they explain why a high profile celebrity's position - or lack thereof - on modern day issues is a concern. They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo and, since the status quo is Trump, they find it wrong for the "worlds biggest pop star" to take that stance.
- Chris2048 9y ago
  > since the status quo is Trump Why would a British newspaper think that?
  - calcifer 9y ago
    It's an international newspaper, which has significantly invested in their US presence [1] in the past decade. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_US
    - Chris2048 9y ago
      Not in print though, and the linked article is from the UK version, so statements about the status-quo in the UK edition are still relevant.
      - calcifer 9y ago
        Unfortunately, the opinions of a sitting US president on any given issue has relevance not just for the US, but for the world as well. As long as that remains true, status-quo being Trump is a concern for everyone.
- scandox 9y ago
  Yeah I get that. It’s not crazy. It’s just a world away from the kind of thing I can engage with. If that means I’m on my way out in terms of relevance I’d accept that. I’m not cross about it...I just can’t take it seriously.
  - calcifer 9y ago
    Celebrity drama - political or otherwise - seems daft and boring to me as well, but I think people who think so are on their way out (in terms of age, if nothing else). So if the idea is to reach a younger audience in a language they'd understand / in a way they find appealing, I'm all for it.
- stfu 9y ago
  > They are arguing that not having a public position on issues means you are siding with the status quo No, they are assuming that everyone must have an opinion. It seems outside of their reality to accept that people don't care about the things they care about. Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. I just have other things in life going on.
  - calcifer 9y ago
    > Just because I don't voice my opinion on which days I prefer the garbage collection truck to arrive doesn't mean I am a big fan of them arriving on Monday. Sure, you may not be a fan of it, but you don't find it a big enough problem to complain to the city. For the editorial in question, the subject is Trump and their opinion is that finding Trump not big enough a problem to complain about is not an acceptable position for someone of such wide social reach. You may not agree with that assesment, but I think it's a fairly normal position for an editorial board to take.
    - m00g00 9y ago
      Please link me to any other article from The Guardian complaining about one of the scores of other popular music artists who have also said nothing about Trump.
    - stfu 9y ago
      What they are doing is advancing the politicizing of everything and driving an agenda of divisiveness. Why is an artist is not allowed to be an artist anymore but needs to be an political activist? Even worse, because TS doesn't follow the Guardian's absurd logic, they are trying to shame her with their imaginative interpretation. That's not journalism, that is a 6-year old's fantasy world, who dreams up stories about celebrities and why they are their imaginary friends/enemies.
      - mitjak 9y ago
        But everything is already political? They're saying that _this_ specific person should have a more explicitly political stance, and not taking one is a political stance still.
- m00g00 9y ago
  The status quo is actually hating on Trump and attempting to shove politics down every last crevice of the universe. I think in fact The Guardian and most other "journalistic" outlets are a tad bit jealous of Taylor Swift, as she is one of the very few public people/entities these days who seems to be able to garner attention, and importantly rake it shit tons of money, without resorting to daily Trump outrage spam and culture war nonsense. I guarantee you rags like The Guardian are shaking in their boots at the eventual prospect of Trump being out of office. They might want to take a lesson from Ms. Swift and learn to create actual quality content to prepare for that coming day of reckoning.
- mitchty 9y ago
  Its a stupid stance, and rather easy to refute. Good reasons for Taylor not to say anything: she doesn't want to. Nobody complains about my stance of not talking about unicorns as being pro unicorn. Complaining about Taylor Swift not taking a stance on trump as being pro trump is a failure in logic at the most basic level. How about we stop caring so much what celebrities think instead?

stfu 9y ago

Wow, I haven't seen that before! Just stunning how distorted the Guardian's editorial board has become. Their hatefulness must have become so deep seeded that they are unable to tolerate anyone out there who does not wanted to get instrumentalized by their 'either you are with us or you are our enemy' crusade.

jopsen 9y ago
I rarely read the opinion pieces... they seems to be deliberately designed to provoke a discussion. And occasionally, just plain clickbait. But they are clearly labelled "Opinion" and then I don't have a problem ignoring and being very critical when I do happen to read such an article.

m00g00 9y ago

Notice also, no byline, and no comments allowed. The Guardian often panders to culture war outrage bait then hides behind taking responsibility or criticism with tricks like this, and the fact that an occasional decent article exists. Why again does this failing rag deserve support, and why is this obvious propaganda upvoted to the top of HN?

gsnedders 9y ago
Comments are only allowed on the blog-like "comment is free" posts, which presumably they don't consider editorials part of despite them now obviously being part of the same platform technically (hence the /commentisfree/ URLs). This isn't something specific to this editorial; it is the general rule the website works by. (As an aside, I'd much rather Comment is Free just died, because so much of what the Guardian gets lambasted over is content posted there—and its explicit point is less editorial control over the contents. If people don't want what gets posted with less direct editorial control over content, just don't give it to them.)
- m00g00 9y ago
  No idea what their arbitrary rules are, but I noticed a review by The Guardian of Swift's new album linked at the top of this article did have comments enabled. Both of these are obviously opinions, so I'm not sure what the difference is, besides the fact that one article (GP) was way more likely to receive backlash in the comments than the other.
  - gsnedders 9y ago
    Weird. It certainly used to be the case no "newspaper" article had comments enabled, but that definitely does. So yeah, OK, I don't understand when commenting is enabled any more. I mean, at least the old "newspaper" platform v. "blog" platform distinction made sense—there were many more differences (editorial control being a major one) than just commenting.
    - Nursie 9y ago

lin_lin 9y ago

What utter rubbish. Just when you think it's already reached "Peak Guardian", they come out with that.