Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Wednesday, 13 April 2016

Guest Post - the Guardian's Lowe Duggs

The Guardian's Lowe Duggs explains the paper's policy in closing the print edition and turning the online edition into a private consumers' club with special offers. 

Some of you may have noticed that we are making changes to our online site to get the Web that we want. We want to continue to engage with readers, but the way in which we do so needs to evolve. In particular, we need to eliminate the many posts made by people who don't agree with our editorial position; we want the online Guardian to be a Safe Space in which like minded people can converse without having their views challenged. 

We've just spent half a million with a prestigious Canadian consultancy who have analysed our online articles and the adverse comments they received. They found that;
  • Writers demonstrating a high degree of stupidity got the worst responses
  • Poorly literate or language-challenged writers were heavily criticised
  • Bigoted, racially-biased, BLT and Transwillied content was laughed at by some readers
  • Intelligent, Liberal analysis attracted the lowest levels of opprobrium  
Our own tax-dodging, overseas and offshored finance, fake charitable status and dire financial management also attracted some reader criticism. Articles from the previous year were also ranked according to how destructively our readers responded:-

Highest levels of adverse comments
Olo Akowesi - Advocating that all UK schoolchildren should drink their own Urine
Jumjum Bajandra - Ghana should receive all the credit for inventing the Internet
Mina Haram - Why Sharia courts should take over the UK justice system
Scumbly Medlar - Tearing down our borders will make us free

Lowest levels of adverse comments
Simon Jenkins - Why planning should not be left to politicians
Susanne Moore - No Ismamist has a right to blow me up
Oliver Wainright - Why London's Garden Bridge is a huge con
Hugo Rifkind - Why Cameron has failed

Clearly, this is the work of a biased minority who must be excluded from the online paper. Plus, in future, sadly we will no longer be able to afford Simon, Suzanne, Oliver or Hugo (how white those names are!) and the online edition will be written by Olo, Jumjum, Mina, Scumbly and all our other regular freelances. 

Please visit our online consultation site at where you will be prevented from joining the debate


Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Brilliant! And so true...

Apparently said...

I couldn't make out whether the page that you sent me to, was a spoof Guardian or what...?

I took the quiz anyway and answered "allow" to every scenario... I reckon that whatever a publication's political stance, it should be "man" enough to stand by its content and graciously accept all comments, be they abusive, profane or anything else.

The piece is typical lefty shite...

I am not much of a biblical scholar, but I always thought that "You hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of your own eye; and then shall you see clearly to cast out the speck out of your brother's eye.", had a certain resonance.

mikebravo said...

Lowe Duggs is "hideously white"!

Dadad said...

Is this April 1st again ?

formertory said...

.......and what, exactly, does the gravitationally-challenged Ms Duggs have against Bacon, Lettuce and Tomato? Some nice fresh wholemeal bread, butter and a generous filling of BLT - all washed down with a pint of well-kept Abbot - sounds to me like paradise.

No - not the hell-on-earth paradise the muzzers are always screaming about. A warm, soothing, English kind of paradise built round a sunny spring day and some birdsong. And not a copy of the Guardian to be found.

Dr Evil said...

This is precisely how they would like it to be.

rapscallion said...

Nice one Radders. You had me there until I got to "Bigoted, racially-biased, BLT and Transwillied content was laughed at by some readers"

Then I knew it had to be a spoof. Not even the Grauniad would come out with that sh1t.

Isn't sad that I fully accepted that the Grauniad would go for the "In particular, we need to eliminate the many posts made by people who don't agree with our editorial position; we want the online Guardian to be a Safe Space in which like minded people can converse without having their views challenged"

It's the sort of thing I'd fully expect them to do.

Anonymous said...

The Guardian is such target rich environment for piss-taking - editorial sclerosis is a sad condition. Meanwhile back in the real world, where leftism is actually destroying nations from within:

Council of European Canadians


Geoff O said...

I stopped reading when I got to "we want the online Guardian to be a Safe Space". FFS. Ci(not)F.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

This made the bbc afternoon news yesterday.

Some brainless female labour MP came on, saying what a shame it was that there was no system of regulation for online communication, how the internet should be available for everybody and no-one should be silenced by "abuse". Except, of course, those who disagree with her.

The lack of self-awareness is quite astonishing.

FrankS said...

I expect the Groaniad to be taking up your sensible, sensitive suggestions in the near future. Meanwhile, you could update your 'Comments no longer permitted' sidebar to include The Telegraph, which no longer allows the rabble to answer back at all.

Budgie said...

I took the quiz, and answered "allow" for all. I considered carefully rather than just being anti-Guardian. Some comments appeared rude, crude and nasty, and I disagreed strongly with some of them, but they still were making a valid point.

I have seen a lot worse, some of which I would (if I were running the site) consider deleting. Abuse without making a point, or repetitive comments that attempt to exclude others by dominating the thread, are two categories I would monitor closely. Even so I would allow a whole lot more than the Guardian does.

It does not seem that long ago that the Guardian extolled the virtues of shocking the conventional. Now it is inventing its own "conventional". So the revolutionaries oppose further revolution by the expedient of labeling it counter-revolutionary in self justification.

Anonymous said...

Does 'Lowe Duggs' mean 'Saggy Tits'?

How apt.

G. Tingey said...

Unfortunately, they are all at it.
Turning themselves into walled-gardens where dissenting voices are not allowed to be heard.
NOT just the Grauniad, as you so delightfully spoof.
Not a good omen