24 April 2005

The Gruardian

Whoo hoo! I went off on one in my post yesterday (I am the first to admit that political blogs are one huge yawn), completely avoided blogsurfing or otherwise picking up 'hits', yet I still garnered two comments.

And the first one was from MsMac!!!! I mean wow. Ten years younger than me, ten times funnier and more energetic - I imagine she would, in real life, be one of those women who is bubbly, funny, cheeky, likeable, and only has to stand near you to make you feel grey, droopy and menopausal by comparison. She also has great taste and I have to agree with her that Jeremy Paxman has a certain je ne sais quois.

At the moment she is - Tana!!! winner of Whatevasista's Blog of the month. He's one funny sarcastic son of an Englishman so worth a visit too.

Ms Mac is ALSO basing current posts on comments from others. I haven't felt clever enough yet to try and join the queue, but it might be very advantageous to leave her a nice comment.

Right, comment number two was from Tavis Pitt - LOVE the piccy in your profile, Tavis, although the black and white makes it look a little retro and makes me wonder if its a currrent representation. He gave me THIS LINK which lists a few (unchecked and therefore possibly fictitious) alternatives to the website I used in my last post.

The thing is - oh dear, Tavis - you read the Guardian?

The Gruardian / Gurdian is reportedly infamous for three things:
  1. It is allegedly constantly full of spelling mistakes
  2. It is the paper of choice for British school teachers and none of them notice the spelling mistakes.
  3. BIAS!!!!!!!!
If you ever get hold of a Guardian newspaper, first read a catchy headline, then read all but the last paragraph of the article. You will find a balanced, unbiased commentary on a given situation that in NO WAY relates to the inference given by the 'shock tactics' used in the headline. Then read the last paragraph, where traditionally it's favoured reporters make a final, personal summary of the information they have so delicately reported, that involves complete and utter personal bias, almost a backstabbing. The funny part is that you may easily read the main body of the text and come to a completely different conclusion to the evil little byword tacked on at the end by an accomplished reporter who suddenly instead looks like a nasty, small minded bigot. Allegedly.

Still maybe the online version is better, but if ever you looked at the majority of British schoolteachers and saw them as bored, repetitive, disinterested, self involved and overpaid whingers (particularly secondary school ones who see their job as holding a discussion with a white board by copying out the same class notes they used for the last five years whilst a procession of silent unnoticed little faces file in and out of the background (and God help the kid who actually needs to be noticed)) then a good read of the Guardian only underlines that view. IMHO.

Have a nice day, now!


Ms Mac said...

"I imagine she would, in real life, be one of those women who is bubbly, funny, cheeky, likeable, and only has to stand near you to make you feel grey, droopy and menopausal by comparison."

Honest, I'm not! But, way to give me a big head!

mrsmogul said...

I know Ms. Mac. I used to buy Guardian but just for the TV section! I poked fun of the BBC in Sat post, maybe it will make you laugh?

Jon said...

Awwww bless you! I've never known if my blog is sarcastic or ironic!

What's the difference anyway!