The New Guardian

March 12, 2007

I have always found it stunning how The Guardian pretends to be this huge critic of the New Labour government while at the same time, when it really matters, like near elections, it always knows where to stand (and stands there unashamedly): with New Labour. You can also consistently find this tendency in articles that attack the Tory, like last week’s piece (by Jackie Ashley) on family values. I was surprised (but really reassured) to find Ashley falling wholeheartedly for the kind of New Labour rhetoric and propaganda from which The Guardian would, and should, supposedly, pride itself to be immune:

The real problem is a small proportion of deeply disadvantaged, poor, unambitious, badly educated people whose lives are falling apart before they have even begun.

Now what’s really surprising about this is not even that Ashley is blaming the poor for being poor; but that she buys into the idea that this is a “small proportion” of the population. Sure enough, Blair‘s legacy has largely depended on having enlisted lots of people to the ranks of the middle classes; but that maneuver depended on isolating, possibly even for good, a part of society, that Ashley seems to think it’s “small”. Not even the B. man himself would dare to say that. But I guess Ashley never sees them, the “small” people. And that’s the other truth about The Guardian and socialists in general: you can try to stand for folk to which you don’t belong, but it won’t last – and, more importantly, it will always end up in tears; ask History.

So one goes through thousands of annoying, badly argued, bias, unsurprising Guardian‘s articles, to find, in the end, that they can’t come up with anything better than New Labour‘s own vision for Britain – and at least Blair‘s speech-writers can sugar-cover it quite nicely.

p.s. thanks to Dave On Fire for the funky quotation tip.

Advertisements

2 Responses to “The New Guardian”

  1. Dave On Fire Says:

    Yeah.

    The Guardian and their we’re-middle-class-but-please-don’t-hate-us-for-it kind of leftism is arguably no better than the rightwing bullshitrags that make up the rest of the British press. By showing an almost identical mainstream narrative as an “alternative”, they only make it all seem more legitimate.

    If the Times, the Telegraph and the Mail are the Spice Girls, Westlife and Madonna of the British press, then the Guardian and the Independent are Busted and McFly. To find the Blurs and Oasises of the media, you have to look online.

  2. yucca Says:

    Hi Dave,

    I don’t really like Blur and Oasis either: what does that mean?

    Also, it seems to me that The Guardian is basically new labour, as i say, on home policies; but it is definitely not new labour on foreign policy: what does that mean?

    Is the coherence between new labour home policy and new labour foreign policy, or between new labour home policy and guardian foreign policy?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: