Rosenior Blog - The Guardian

[LlcoolJ]

Nonsense I would think a much bigger proportion of Sun readers read it for the sport and are salt of the earth, working class, white van man, hardcore football supporters whereas Guardian readers buy it to reinforce their misplaced superiority complex and could be reasonably categorised as prawn sandwich/muesli munching JCL's.

See that man with a penis sticking out of the front of his head? That's you that is.

Just using a similarly childish stereotypical insult which makes no sense. Like you.

How about all the non PC, beer drinking, hardcore football supporting, normal blokes who actually want to read facts and decent journalism rather than the utter shite spewed out by the Sun et al?

 

[catfish]

Guardian readers are interested in his tactical insight & social observations. Sun readers want to know how big his wife's tits are.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Guardian readers are interested in his tactical insight & social observations. Sun readers want to know how big his wife's tits are.

His wife is fit as **** tbf. What's wrong with appreciating both facts?

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Ooooo you're such a tease...

 

[JC Footy Genius]

See that man with a penis sticking out of the front of his head? That's you that is.

Just using a similarly childish stereotypical insult which makes no sense. Like you.

How about all the non PC, beer drinking, hardcore football supporting, normal blokes who actually want to read facts and decent journalism rather than the utter shite spewed out by the Sun et al?

Oh come along now we both know 'normal blokes' don't buy the Guardian

 

[um bongo molongo]

When I have seen the team play I can tell they are giving it their all. I hate it when we lose but I can't blame the players, they really deserve and need all the support we can give them.

Good post we'd all do well to remember IMHO. can't fault our players desire, workrate or passion at the moment and really that's all you can ask of any player. We may very well go down because we lack a bit of true premier league quality in some areas but we won't go down because this set of players don't care - of which there are many examples (just ask a Sunderland fan)

 

[Giraffe]

I'm worried about our players lack of sleep. One bad night and I'm shit at work the next day!

 

[Live by the sea]

See that man with a penis sticking out of the front of his head? That's you that is.

Just using a similarly childish stereotypical insult which makes no sense. Like you.

How about all the non PC, beer drinking, hardcore football supporting, normal blokes who actually want to read facts and decent journalism rather than the utter shite spewed out by the Sun et al?

The Guardian is only decent journalism , if you like your news and opinions heavily tainted with an extreme left wing view . It is not a moderate news source. Don't ever believe it is.

 

[The Large One]

The Guardian is only decent journalism , if you like your news and opinions heavily tainted with an extreme left wing view . It is not a moderate news source. Don't ever believe it is.

Utter rubbish. The only 'extreme left' paper in the country with a national reach is the Morning Star (I really couldn't include that silly comic 'The Socialist Worker' in that).

The Guardian's editorial policy doesn't even go along with Corbyn (they said vote LibDem at the General Election), let alone the 'extreme left'.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Having contributed to both papers, I have to say that getting the same information across in Sun style and usually in fewer words is often more of a challenge than writing for the Grauniad. And while the Guardian's website is very good, it's bankrupting them.

 

[chaileyjem]

Far more people read that other 'shitrag' as you call it.

if data is based on what people read, both print and online, rather than what they buy then the 2 papers are pretty close but The Sun is still ahead.

 

[Bozza]

Having contributed to both papers, I have to say that getting the same information across in Sun style and usually in fewer words is often more of a challenge than writing for the Grauniad. And while the Guardian's website is very good, it's bankrupting them.

It wasn’t very long ago that people like Jemima Kiss were being somewhat scornful of paywalls and how the Guardian didn’t have one, as if they’d discovered some sort of magic monetisation potion unknown to others.

At the time I thought it was very unlikely that they actually had.

 

[sahel]

Mores the pity.



The sports section in the Guardian is superb. And at least it treats its readers like adults, unlike the Sun, which only caters for dimwits.

I think the numbers who read the Sun and the Mail represent a kind of index of the state of society. I think they are both awful newspapers owned edited and written by cynical intelligent people who exploit the power and position they have.
There is no moral equivalence between the Guardian and the Sun.

 

[Two Professors]

I think the numbers who read the Sun and the Mail represent a kind of index of the state of society. I think they are both awful newspapers owned edited and written by cynical intelligent people who exploit the power and position they have.
There is no moral equivalence between the Guardian and the Sun.

'Moral equivalence'?Wtf are you on about?They are daily newspapers,not university philosophy treatises.
Wonder how many of you news snobs sneaked a peek at the really interesting Shane Duffy article in the Sun today,next to Glenn's weekly column.I can just imagine some of you putting on dark glasses and a mac to get one!Moral equivalence,my arse

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

'Moral equivalence'?Wtf are you on about?They are daily newspapers,not university philosophy treatises.
Wonder how many of you news snobs sneaked a peek at the really interesting Shane Duffy article in the Sun today,next to Glenn's weekly column.I can just imagine some of you putting on dark glasses and a mac to get one!Moral equivalence,my arse

Yes, they are nothing but Daily Newspapers.

But I would take everything I read in either the Sun or the Daily Mail with a hefty pinch of salt. The Daily Mail in particular makes up stuff.

I wouldn't bother about reading Glenn Murray's article or an article about Shane Duffy in the Sun because, if they are printed in that particular (news?)paper, they are probably not going to be particularly interesting or good. Liam Rosenior's stuff in the Guardian is thoughtful and insightful, words that the Sun would probably not take very seriously.

And if I did want to read them, I would not feel the need for the mac and dark glasses ploy.

To each his own.

 

[Two Professors]

Yes, they are nothing but Daily Newspapers.

But I would take everything I read in either the Sun or the Daily Mail with a hefty pinch of salt. The Daily Mail in particular makes up stuff.

I wouldn't bother about reading Glenn Murray's article or an article about Shane Duffy in the Sun because, if they are printed in that particular (news?)paper, they are probably not going to be particularly interesting or good. Liam Rosenior's stuff in the Guardian is thoughtful and insightful, words that the Sun would probably not take very seriously.

And if I did want to read them, I would not feel the need for the mac and dark glasses ploy.

To each his own.

I daresay the Guardian would have included an interview with the surgeon who sorted Shane out after his accident,and probably found an Afghan blood donor who selflessly donated 6 pints of blood.Possibly they might include a poll to find out if the readership believe in angels hovering over a deathbed and whether it was a fascist plot,but the facts are still the same-it just takes longer to read.Love the bit about the Daily Mail making stuff up.What a clever newspaper it must be,making up stories on its own.

 

[McTavish]

if data is based on what people read, both print and online, rather than what they buy then the 2 papers are pretty close but The Sun is still ahead.

View attachment 89620

Those are only UK figures. As I have already said, the Guardian has many readers globally than the Sun - 42 million at the last count. Whether anyone in Boise or Woolloomooloo is i nterested in LR's thoughts is another question entirely...

 

[sahel]

'Moral equivalence'?Wtf are you on about?They are daily newspapers,not university philosophy treatises.
Wonder how many of you news snobs sneaked a peek at the really interesting Shane Duffy article in the Sun today,next to Glenn's weekly column.I can just imagine some of you putting on dark glasses and a mac to get one!Moral equivalence,my arse

Whether you like it or not organisations take moral and sometimes political stances. For example some treat their employees well , others dont. That represents a moral choice. The Mail the Sun and the Guardian all have a political agenda and claim moral positions on issues.I think the Guardian appeals to peoples sense of reason based on evidence and an obvious moral starting point. You can obviously disagree with its conclusions but still respect the process of reaching them. Do you think the Sun and Mail do the same? I think they try and exploit fears and prejudices and pruriance in pursuit of profit and political objectives?That is immoral and deceitful

 

[el punal]

'Moral equivalence'?Wtf are you on about?They are daily newspapers,not university philosophy treatises.
Wonder how many of you news snobs sneaked a peek at the really interesting Shane Duffy article in the Sun today,next to Glenn's weekly column.I can just imagine some of you putting on dark glasses and a mac to get one!Moral equivalence,my arse

Maybe a reverse of the trend that was prevalent on commuter trains in the 1970s (and 50s/60s/80s/90s!!) - when a respectable City gent or equivalent would have his Times or FT open for all the world to see but secreted inside the pages he would be "reading" a top notch porn mag.

Fast forward to today, and of course the porn mag would be on the OUTSIDE while the disgusting, filthy Sun would be inside. I just don't know what the world is coming to.

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Yes, they are nothing but Daily Newspapers.

But I would take everything I read in either the Sun or the Daily Mail with a hefty pinch of salt. The Daily Mail in particular makes up stuff.

I wouldn't bother about reading Glenn Murray's article or an article about Shane Duffy in the Sun because, if they are printed in that particular (news?)paper, they are probably not going to be particularly interesting or good. Liam Rosenior's stuff in the Guardian is thoughtful and insightful, words that the Sun would probably not take very seriously.

And if I did want to read them, I would not feel the need for the mac and dark glasses ploy.

To each his own.

So Liam's Guardian column is thoughtful and insightful but his Sun column last season was not?

You tar the Sun and Mail sports pages with the same brush as their front ends but in my experience, writers usually have trouble deciding what to leave out without having to make stuff up. Interestingly, the only sports writer I positively know made up a story now writes for The Guardian.