Friday, February 15, 2008

I'm sure everyone's seen this by now, but still..

Guardian Online Travel Section Radically Underestimates Readers' Hatred Of Skins, Nepotism, Skinny Jeans, Self.

They seem to have closed the comments section now.



UPDATE: the best comment, as far as I can see, is from 'oniongravy':

"The real issue here, as others have pointed out, is with the travel eds. I don't think it honestly occurs to you - and when I say 'you', I mean London based journos on the nationals - just how often, how incessantly and how forcefully we are fed the stories of the lives of a small subsection of London society, how we can't open a paper or magazine without hearing their bleating, self-important voices complaining about their nannies, discussing whether it's OK to wear a mini skirt round the Portobello Road if you're over 40, and yes, just what their kids did on their gap years. It's so dispiriting and depressing to find that there is LESS of a cross section of a society represented in the acres of newsprint that there were 30 years ago. Like university education, the clock is turning back from the brave years of working class kids taking a step up. Unis are more middle class than ever and so are newspapers."


22 comments:

Oli said...

"This comment, and several other personal attacks on author, deleted by moderator"

Hee. Perhaps it was all some sort of post modern joke? No? Oh.

Matt Borg said...

I particular liked the comment;

"Plus, I noticed a problem with the site: under every post there's this: "Offensive? Unsuitable?" Then a report button. Except on the top one. You know, Max's post."

(Is reporting comments that other people have left on a blog (the guardian) on another comments section on this blog some kind of new wave web two point oh thing?)

Anonymous said...

Richard Geefe?

patroclus said...

If it was a spoof, you'd think a paper with Charlie Brooker on the payroll would have done a better job.

Anonymous said...

http://waynetype.blogspot.com/

Sarra said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sarra said...

whoops! My deletions are visible.

Having come to my senses I think it's a stroke of genius that one of the posts invited quite a deluge to travel@guardian.co.uk :)

Piers said...

What in the name of holy fuck were they thinking?

james henry said...

"Lalalala, everyone likes Skins and young people and blogs and stuff that's, oh I don't know, 'aspirational', don't they? This will be ver best blog EVER!!!!!"

God forbid someone not from North London whose dad already works in the industry gets a wholly unwarranted freebie/leg-up in the media, the consequences would be unthinkeable!

Poor Max, I genuinely feel rather sorry for him. Still, at least he's having a nice holiday, rather than having to, say, work in a factory or wipe old people's bottoms to make enough money to get away from home, so my sympathy is somewhat limited.

Boz said...

That. Is. BRILLIANT.

Woe betide the fule who asks Guardian readers for their opinion when confronted with such awfulness. I feel a bit sorry for Max though. I mean, it isn't all his fault he's been pushed forward as a sacrifice for the braying mob.

james henry said...

Actually wait, didn't the original bit say he had a restaurant job, and he'd paid for the holiday himself?

*climbs down off high horse*

I agree Boz.

nanga parbat said...

Actually, use of the phrase "at the minute" is one of my Hulk triggers so I was unable to read the rest of his post due to an outbreak of GNAAAAARGGGGGGHH!

Would I be right in thinking that the young gentleman is something of a twat?

james henry said...

Well, from the evidence presented, nah, he's just 19.

Whoever at the Guardian thought this was a good idea is a bit of a plum though.

Bowleserised said...

My guess is that at least some of the reasoning behind it is that they want blogs, but won't pay much for them.

Hang on, they still could have sourced someone more talented.

Dear Guardian, you're not supposed to do this shit! It's the Telegraph that has ruled out work experience for anyone who's not related to its staff.

Bowleserised said...

Oh dear! Did you see this?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/feb/17/internet

james henry said...

Hmm, rather missing the point of what most people were annoyed about there, which wasn't Max so much as the Guardian for employing him in the first place.

And has been pointed out elsewhere, if the news media aren't the perfect example of 'mob rule', I don't know what is.

Oli said...

I don't think the Guardian helped by describing him as "writing for Skins in his spare time".

Albert said...

"Readers presumed he was a privileged public school boy whose father had secured him the blog spot"

"'There is no nepotism. I hardly ever write for the Guardian,' said Gogarty."

Speaks for itself, really.

Bowleserised said...

The Observer also ran a piece comparing his treatment to the Cultural Revolution in China, no less.

The long and the short, he's pants. And the Observer/Guardian is supposed to be good.

Imo said...

There were several "he won't read the comments" remarks.

He's 19 - of course he's going to read all the comments. I almost feel sorry for him! But not quite.

Tim Footman said...

The legendary flame attractors on the various Guardian blogs (Mike Read's was the biggest and best) all share one characteristic - they don't go below the line.

Boz said...

I hope no one's shown this to Agent Mat ahead of his interview on here....