Banana Republic?

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Banana Republic?

Plus she gets paid handsomely to tell the readers of Britain's most expensive newspaper EXACTLY what they want to hear every Saturday. Ching Ching.

Let me make a prediction. Next Saturday, the Saturday after that. And the one after that. And the one after that. And the one after that. All of the articles on each of those days will rather smugly and humorously criticise the government at every turn, whilst making no consideration of alternative opinions or attempt at understanding decisions. Readers will agree with every word, thus entrenching their own opinion that they are right and drifting further from any contemplation that they may be wrong.

Anyway, I'm sure you welcome my comments. If you just want the same 5-6 of you to fight amongst yourself about how correct you all are, you would just set up a WhatsApp group, no?

What you’re doing here is worse than anything Marina Hyde does really because all your doing is showing a degree of political dogma in that you’re giving your opinion without anything to back it up. Virtually without fail, Marina Hyde articles contain links which back up what she says and you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you say she should be suggesting solutions to the problem she is writing about - what political writer on either side of the divide does that consistently?

Rather than give us plebs yet another one of your lectures, how about answering the question asking what Ms Hyde got demonstrably untrue in that piece I posted a link to?

[JamesWales]

Re: Banana Republic?

What you’re doing here is worse than anything Marina Hyde does really because all your doing is showing a degree of political dogma in that you’re giving your opinion without anything to back it up. Virtually without fail, Marina Hyde articles contain links which back up what she says and you’re really scraping the bottom of the barrel when you say she should be suggesting solutions to the problem she is writing about - what political writer on either side of the divide does that consistently?

Rather than give us plebs yet another one of your lectures, how about answering the question asking what Ms Hyde got demonstrably untrue in that piece I posted a link to?

What I'm saying is that she writes exactly what people want to read and it's the same theme every time. There's no surprises to it. Nothing to learn from it. One will read them and only come away with their pre-held views more entrenched.

She has a nice writing style. Reading it is literally an enjoyable experience, but politically it never moves us forward.

Guardian journalist moans about Conservative government. Oh well, there's a surprise. Whatever next. Vicar praises Bible?

It's just the way that many think this is cutting edge stuff. It really isn't, it's a playbook. That's what I think anyway and it's cool to disagree.

Hard to predict the next week in politics but I should imagine whatever happens her next column will be critical of the UK govt. A failure to do so would see a reduction in shares of her article.

[lardy]

Re: Banana Republic?

Oops! You pressed send without telling us which parts of her article aren't true, you silly sausage.

[cyril evans awaydays]

Re: Banana Republic?

Man who writes same long winded post in different words thinks journalist does exactly the same without answering question asked three times on the opinion pieces' factual inaccuracies.

[JamesWales]

Re: Banana Republic?

The whole article is one long trope about how oooh the police and the politicians are all in cahoots and it's you little guys suffering! Nudge nudge wink wink! (You little guys being the readers of the UKs most expensive newspaper).

It's just a story concocted out if rumour, assumption and designed to make you angry.

She presents about a fifth of the story and presents that as the whole story. The met is investigating the govt as we speak. Numerous MPs are prosecuted and jailed. Obviously she omits Sadiq Khan from the story, focuses on WhatsApp messages instead of stabbed teenagers as that would make you feel uncomfortable and distort the narrative which is that the govt and police are in cahoots to **** you over - sounds a bit like Richard Littlejohn eh?

She'll be claiming the lizards are pulling the Met and govts strings next.

Next week. The Russia and Ukraine war. How it is the fault of Liz Truss.

[lardy]

Re: Banana Republic?

That's a list of reasons why you don't like it, but perhaps you could expand on:


"It's not fiction, but it sits in the middle ground between reality and make believe that most opinion pieces do."

[Jordi Culé]

Re: Banana Republic?

I know that saturday mornings Marina Hyde column is the highlight of the week for many, but you aren't supposed to take it entirely seriously.

She's an entertaining read and I enjoy them, but it's hardly an even handed piece of strategic analysis. It's always (obviously) one sided and designed to achieve what it does - preach to the converted and get some shares on social media.

People think this is cutting edge analysis, but it really isn't. It's not fiction, but it sits in the middle ground between reality and make believe that most opinion pieces do. It's just polemic every Saturday morning to give you want you want to read. And it gets lapped up.

How is it different, in it's taste if not ingredients, to Richard Littlejohn? It isn't. It's a journalist guaranteeing a contract extension by giving you what you want to read. And it works a treat.

I guarantee next weeks column will be almost entirely the same in tone. And I guarantee guardian readers will lap it up (challenging them risks the shares and ad revenue) and it won't change your opinions one bit whilst entrenching the belief that everything is awful.

Granted Hyde and Littlejohn can be categorised as political columnists and obviously have their target audiences but you're comparing the two in regards to research, detail and content?

Your nuance radar is blipping again buddy.

[Dorcus]

Re: Banana Republic?

"us little people' FFS. I dOffS mE cAp

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Banana Republic?

The whole article is one long trope about how oooh the police and the politicians are all in cahoots and it's you little guys suffering! Nudge nudge wink wink! (You little guys being the readers of the UKs most expensive newspaper).

It's just a story concocted out if rumour, assumption and designed to make you angry.

She presents about a fifth of the story and presents that as the whole story. The met is investigating the govt as we speak. Numerous MPs are prosecuted and jailed. Obviously she omits Sadiq Khan from the story, focuses on WhatsApp messages instead of stabbed teenagers as that would make you feel uncomfortable and distort the narrative which is that the govt and police are in cahoots to **** you over - sounds a bit like Richard Littlejohn eh?

She'll be claiming the lizards are pulling the Met and govts strings next.

Next week. The Russia and Ukraine war. How it is the fault of Liz Truss.

Remind me, you are that bloke who is always telling us how even handed he is aren’t you or am I confusing you with someone else?

You have this superiority complex whereby you talk to people with different views to yours as if they’re too thick to have considered or recognised what you say for themselves, yet your attempt to answer the question you were asked a few times yesterday just comes over as a rant really doesn’t it.

[JamesWales]

Re: Banana Republic?

Remind me, you are that bloke who is always telling us how even handed he is aren’t you or am I confusing you with someone else?

You have this superiority complex whereby you talk to people with different views to yours as if they’re too thick to have considered or recognised what you say for themselves, yet your attempt to answer the question you were asked a few times yesterday just comes over as a rant really doesn’t it.

Hmm, that’s a bit unfair! That’s AZ City’s role, and I wouldn’t want to tread on his toes!

Believe me, I don’t think I’m superior at all, I assure you of that. However, I am passionately opposed to an almost religious like adherence to politics that presents things as good and evil. Some kind of Disney film with the evil blue side and the good red side, or the evil brexiteers and remainer goodies, or indeed vice-versa. This article is part of that. Whatever the story, the baddy in every Marina Hyde column with be the UK government. It’s always the same. It’s like something from 1984 – a weekly column to keep everyone thinking along that simple line. Read. Believe. Share. Repeat.

But it just isn’t so. The UK isn’t a ‘banana republic’ as this thread suggests. It’s a country of 70m people, with an inevitability of scandals that occur in every country to greater or lesser extents. Every issue isn’t caused or exacerbated by the UK government, and yet that is always the defining feature of what columnists like Marina Hyde will imply. To be honest, part of what frustrates me is that it lets other decision makers off the hook – same when any NHS scandal is lazily blamed on the government, when almost certainly there will be a host of very well paid managers who actually made the decisions in question.

But this ‘disneyfication of politics just isn’t so. It may be fun, but it’s not reality. It’s not the truth.

For what it’s worth, The Sunday Times yesterday had a column on this very topic by Stephen Bush, who is the editor of the New Stateman (one of the things I like about the Sunday Times is that you get a genuine diversity of opinion in it) It was far more balanced and accurate in my opinion It’s behind a paywall, but you can get a months free trial. Stephen Bush on Twitter: "In today’s Sunday Times, I’ve written about Cressida Dick, the Met and low expectations: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status...10472042676232

I’m sorry, I took a day off yesterday and I should do that more often – I just feel the need to push back against the almost relentless tide of one-side articles that portray politics as something different to what it actually is. I would mind less, but people are being abused and defriended for this kind of thing, and the political rhetoric really needs dialling down sometimes, including, I acknowledge, by myself sometimes. I'm genuinely sorry if you took it the wrong way.

[Elwood Blues]

Re: Banana Republic?

Hmm, that’s a bit unfair! That’s AZ City’s role, and I wouldn’t want to tread on his toes!

Believe me, I don’t think I’m superior at all, I assure you of that. However, I am passionately opposed to an almost religious like adherence to politics that presents things as good and evil. Some kind of Disney film with the evil blue side and the good red side, or the evil brexiteers and remainer goodies, or indeed vice-versa. This article is part of that. Whatever the story, the baddy in every Marina Hyde column with be the UK government. It’s always the same. It’s like something from 1984 – a weekly column to keep everyone thinking along that simple line. Read. Believe. Share. Repeat.

But it just isn’t so. The UK isn’t a ‘banana republic’ as this thread suggests. It’s a country of 70m people, with an inevitability of scandals that occur in every country to greater or lesser extents. Every issue isn’t caused or exacerbated by the UK government, and yet that is always the defining feature of what columnists like Marina Hyde will imply. To be honest, part of what frustrates me is that it lets other decision makers off the hook – same when any NHS scandal is lazily blamed on the government, when almost certainly there will be a host of very well paid managers who actually made the decisions in question.

But this ‘disneyfication of politics just isn’t so. It may be fun, but it’s not reality. It’s not the truth.

For what it’s worth, The Sunday Times yesterday had a column on this very topic by Stephen Bush, who is the editor of the New Stateman (one of the things I like about the Sunday Times is that you get a genuine diversity of opinion in it) It was far more balanced and accurate in my opinion It’s behind a paywall, but you can get a months free trial. Stephen Bush on Twitter: "In today’s Sunday Times, I’ve written about Cressida Dick, the Met and low expectations: https://twitter.com/stephenkb/status...10472042676232

I’m sorry, I took a day off yesterday and I should do that more often – I just feel the need to push back against the almost relentless tide of one-side articles that portray politics as something different to what it actually is. I would mind less, but people are being abused and defriended for this kind of thing, and the political rhetoric really needs dialling down sometimes, including, I acknowledge, by myself sometimes. I'm genuinely sorry if you took it the wrong way.

Steve Bush is a good fair minded journalist in my view. Often has different views to me but I respect his opinion.

I usually quite enjoy Marina Hyde's column athough I don't read it every week, but I don't find her as balanced as Bush (to be fair I don't think it is her job to be) and she certainly isn't some all seeing oracle as some on here seem to think.

I agree that whilst we are having problems in British politics at the moment, to compare the UK to a Banana Republic is several bridges too far.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Banana Republic?

The question mark I put in the title of this thread gave the clue as to the use of the term “Banana Republic” was aimed at starting a discussion, it’s not what I believe. That said, I’d would say this country, with it’s Prime Minister being a serial liar who believes rules are for everyone else, a Government that awards contracts at a time of national emergency to mates in a manner which has been found to be unlawful (just as its attempts to close Parliament was) and a police force that is frequently shown as being not fit for purpose, is as close to being a Banana Republic as it’s been in my lifetime.

James Wales has repeatedly been asked to show us where Marina Hyde was wrong factually in that report I posted a link to and it seems to me that he has resorted to playing the woman rather than the ball because he can’t. I accept that Ms Hyde puts a particular slant on the facts, but she wouldn’t be able to do that if the basic ingredients so to speak had not been provided for her by others.

People like James Wales has a problem with trying to label the group on here who criticise this Government as pro red and anti blue. From my own point of view, anti blue certainly, but, like others, I’m often critical of Labour - truth is, the “red” faction tend to be far more critical of their own side than the blue one is.

As for the “Disneyfication” of politics, can I ask who is more responsible for that, the “blue leader” with the trademark name that is never used by family or friends, the man who s never averse to cheap PR stunts in front of the TV cameras, the man who gets votes because he’s seen to be fun, the man who it seems has to give an inane slogan or title to any Government project, plan or self preservation campaign or the red leader who is frequently criticised for lacking personality and being too serious?

[JamesWales]

Re: Banana Republic?

I think you are falling into your own trap here Bob.

I am saying we shouldn’t make this red v blue etc. I’m sick of that kind of politics, but you then go down just that route.

I’m purple myself. I voted Tory last time primarily because I didn’t like Corbyn, but I’ll probably split my vote in the forthcoming council elections and am more than happy to compliment Keir Starmer – in fact, have I ever not? That’s my point – all politicians, political ideas, economic theories and ideologies have pro’s and con’s, and it frustrates me that certain journalists and in turn certain political people just don’t recognise or engage in that kind of thinking.

For example, I accept your characterisation of Boris Johnson as a bit of a Disney character. I agree, he does fit into what I would call the Disneyfication of politics, although I refer mainly to the ‘goodies and baddies’ narrative, and I don’t think it is he himself who presents himself as the perennial baddy. But yeah, I take your point. However, he also stuck to his guns and stood firm on honouring the Brexit referendum which took guts. He is at heart a social liberal, he is generally pretty good on the economy, I do sense he cares what normal people think and he is approachable. We talk about honour and to me the single most dishonourable thing I have ever witnessed in politics (I’m only 40, so give me time..) was politicians, the media and voters trying to overturn the EU referendum. That genuinely shocked and appalled me, and speaking to several friends who had that opinion since, I think many now recognise that was wrong so we need to recognise he was instrumental in that.

In terms of the factual accuracy of her piece -this is open to debate. If someone writes a crime article every week and in it they only write about muslim crimes, it doesn’t mean each instance isn’t factually reported. So too if someone has a political column and it they only feed their readers a critique of one side, it isn’t that it’s inaccurate per se, it means it’s not giving the full picture, or it’s disingenuous. It’s like only doing a match report for games Cardiff City lose. A good example here is the complete absence of mentioning Sadiq Khan (the Stephen Bush article did mention him) and yet just two days later the Police Federation declares it has ‘no faith’ in him. So clearly, there is something more happening here for them to issue such a statement, yet the views of the body representing 31,000 police officers are ignored. See how this works? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60375845

That said, to answer the question, I think a few assertions are questionable;

1 - “Dick seemed more angered by poor policing on TV than in real life”
Really? Is this true? Or is this a false equivalence using two nuggets of information from totally different times – Hyde is saying the head of the Met is more concerns by a TV programme than real crime? Really?

2 - “the above is a fairly stark summary of the state we’re in.”
No it isn’t. It’s not a good summary of it at all. It doesn’t mention the myriad of police issues ongoing, the low rate of solving crimes, the balance of policing covid restrictions, the extent of knife crime etc.

3 - "trust in the police and in politicians is demonstrably nosediving".
Is it? I’ve looked this morning. There is evidence of a slow decline, but no ‘nosediving’ trust is also far lower in journalists than the police.

4 - "politicians claiming it doesn’t matter at all if the prime minister breaks the law"
Has any politician said it doesn’t matter at all?

Moreover, I stick to my point. This is a journalist who just feeds people what they want to read, and not what is reality. There are loads of journalists like that, and loads not like it. She is talented, she is humorous and has a nice writing style, but we don’t learn much from it. This Saturdays column will, I predict criticise the UK government again. Let’s see what happens.

What really frustrates me is that people don’t see it. They lap it up, and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum. I much favour stuff that looks at pro’s and con’s and comes to a fair conclusion, as opposed to starting the column with a predetermined position and just cherry picking things to fit that position.

[the other bob wilson]

Re: Banana Republic?

Two articles from Marina Hyde this week, the first one was about the wronged Post Office workers and the second one begins with a nod to Oliver Dowden’s attack on “woke” culture in America, but is really about Prince Andrew, I should have bet you about your claim she’d write about the Government this week, but truth is I agreed with you.

As for Johnson sticking to his guns over Brexit, was this when he was waxing lyrical before the last election about the ready made deal he’d got us. or when he decided that it wasn’t fit for purpose?

[Swiss Peter]

Re: Banana Republic?

I think you are falling into your own trap here Bob.

I am saying we shouldn’t make this red v blue etc. I’m sick of that kind of politics, but you then go down just that route.

I’m purple myself. I voted Tory last time primarily because I didn’t like Corbyn, but I’ll probably split my vote in the forthcoming council elections and am more than happy to compliment Keir Starmer – in fact, have I ever not? That’s my point – all politicians, political ideas, economic theories and ideologies have pro’s and con’s, and it frustrates me that certain journalists and in turn certain political people just don’t recognise or engage in that kind of thinking.

For example, I accept your characterisation of Boris Johnson as a bit of a Disney character. I agree, he does fit into what I would call the Disneyfication of politics, although I refer mainly to the ‘goodies and baddies’ narrative, and I don’t think it is he himself who presents himself as the perennial baddy. But yeah, I take your point. However, he also stuck to his guns and stood firm on honouring the Brexit referendum which took guts. He is at heart a social liberal, he is generally pretty good on the economy, I do sense he cares what normal people think and he is approachable. We talk about honour and to me the single most dishonourable thing I have ever witnessed in politics (I’m only 40, so give me time..) was politicians, the media and voters trying to overturn the EU referendum. That genuinely shocked and appalled me, and speaking to several friends who had that opinion since, I think many now recognise that was wrong so we need to recognise he was instrumental in that.

In terms of the factual accuracy of her piece -this is open to debate. If someone writes a crime article every week and in it they only write about muslim crimes, it doesn’t mean each instance isn’t factually reported. So too if someone has a political column and it they only feed their readers a critique of one side, it isn’t that it’s inaccurate per se, it means it’s not giving the full picture, or it’s disingenuous. It’s like only doing a match report for games Cardiff City lose. A good example here is the complete absence of mentioning Sadiq Khan (the Stephen Bush article did mention him) and yet just two days later the Police Federation declares it has ‘no faith’ in him. So clearly, there is something more happening here for them to issue such a statement, yet the views of the body representing 31,000 police officers are ignored. See how this works? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-60375845

That said, to answer the question, I think a few assertions are questionable;

1 - “Dick seemed more angered by poor policing on TV than in real life”
Really? Is this true? Or is this a false equivalence using two nuggets of information from totally different times – Hyde is saying the head of the Met is more concerns by a TV programme than real crime? Really?

2 - “the above is a fairly stark summary of the state we’re in.”
No it isn’t. It’s not a good summary of it at all. It doesn’t mention the myriad of police issues ongoing, the low rate of solving crimes, the balance of policing covid restrictions, the extent of knife crime etc.

3 - "trust in the police and in politicians is demonstrably nosediving".
Is it? I’ve looked this morning. There is evidence of a slow decline, but no ‘nosediving’ trust is also far lower in journalists than the police.

4 - "politicians claiming it doesn’t matter at all if the prime minister breaks the law"
Has any politician said it doesn’t matter at all?

Moreover, I stick to my point. This is a journalist who just feeds people what they want to read, and not what is reality. There are loads of journalists like that, and loads not like it. She is talented, she is humorous and has a nice writing style, but we don’t learn much from it. This Saturdays column will, I predict criticise the UK government again. Let’s see what happens.

What really frustrates me is that people don’t see it. They lap it up, and that goes for both sides of the political spectrum. I much favour stuff that looks at pro’s and con’s and comes to a fair conclusion, as opposed to starting the column with a predetermined position and just cherry picking things to fit that position.

This has been done to death, but....

I see this horror at 'over-turning the people's will' as complete disingenuous nonsense. We have periodic votes because circumstances change. Many saw another vote as the opportunity for people to express their views again once it had become clearer what Brexit might actually mean.

However I had this argument many times 2 years ago and I know we'll never agree.