@MichaelWhite: So unlike GMG eh?

MichaelWhite
News Corp still lying. Closing the NoW will allow them to streamline the operation, save cash and launch the seven day Sunday Sun

Completely and totally different to GMG\’s recent attempts to close down the Observer and run a seven day and Sunday Guardian, isn\’t it?

23 thoughts on “@MichaelWhite: So unlike GMG eh?”

  1. Sacking 200 innocent staff overnight because endemic corruption may spoil a chance to increase its media stranglehold and protect a vile management isn’t quite the same as the Observer’s lack of revenue, is it? Buffoon.

  2. It’s funny how Graun Boys are totally bewildered about recent turn of events concerning the NOTW, as though revealing decade old dirty laundry wouldn’t have affected it even if Brooks got sacked days ago.

  3. “Sacking 200 innocent staff overnight …”

    Can we at least get some consistency? One minute they’re ‘vile bloodsucking hacks’ and the next they’re innocent sweet baa-lambs..

  4. I don’t agree with the ‘200 innocent staff’ bollocks – when you choose to make a deal with the devil, you know exactly where your soul’s going to end up.

    But @MichaelWhite is perfectly correct. NI is lying that this is a principled move, rather than an opportunity to cut costs (in a way that it had already stated it was considering). If GMG were to react to some Observer-related scandal by closing it down, switching to a 7-day Guardian, and pretending that was an ethical decision, it’d deserve exactly the same pillorying that NI is getting.

  5. yes john b

    But that’s not what worstall is saying.

    JuliaM
    There are only three staff still at NOTW that were there when the Dowling hacking was happening. So in that regard, yes they are innocent.

    Protecting Murdoch is shameful. You probably like his opinions though, being an extremist.

  6. “Protecting Murdoch is shameful. ”

    Formidable though JuliaM is, I am fairly sure that Murdoch does not need her to protect him.

    Be definition, an extremist holds views that the large majority of the population do not hold. If they did, they would of course not be extreme views.

    JuliaM’s views (as expressed here and on her blog) are hardly held my only a tiny minority of the population so are not extreme.

    Then again it is quite clear that words mean what you want them to mean.

  7. “…. are hardly held my only a tiny ….”

    If you can’t get your point across coherently, don’t bother.

    Views can be extreme and majority held. Did I really need to type that?

    Views that undermine democracy, that express a vision where the majority poor are more directly negatively affected, that show a contempt for social scientific evidence, are extreme.

    I would argue that the ‘large majority’ have much opinion on these views, given that the ‘large majority’ don’t care about anything more than sex and consumption. The short term effect.

  8. “Views that undermine democracy, that express a vision where the majority poor are more directly negatively affected, that show a contempt for social scientific evidence, are extreme.”

    1) about 80% of the views you express in the comments section on this blog show a complete contempt for scientific evidence

    2) wtf do you mean by SOCIAL scientific evidence? Does this mean that you get to decide what scientific evidence that we should listen to

    3) that definition of extreme is probably not shared by many people

  9. “Views can be extreme and majority held. Did I really need to type that?”

    More to the point, did you read it?

    The logical endpoint of that argument is that if you hold one pont of view & the rest of the planet share another you’re the middle ground & they’re extremists……

    Oh, yes……I see where you’re coming from. Sorry I spoke.

    [Charlie Manson’s not been released into the community has he, anyone?]

  10. BiS: if the craziest fears of the Dhimmification brigade were to come true, and the EU were to become a single majority-Muslim Caliphate ruled by a Taliban-style government with plurality support, your logic says that the government in question wouldn’t be extremist. I’d take issue with that.

  11. Aha, I see what you did there. You equated my typo with your illiterate screed. Very clever. Typos don’t render text incoherent. Not being able to string a sentance together does.

    No, views cannot be extreme and majority held you fuckwit. By definition they are not extreme if they are majority held (or even held by a large minority). Nor indeed are exreme views in themselves a bad thing. There was a time where the idea that no human should be a slave was an extreme view. In parts of the world, the majority are happy to see homosexuals and other minorites persecuted – so much for democracy. Where democracy and freedom conflict, freedom should prevail.

    “Social scientific evidence”. WTF is that!

  12. John B/ The government in question under those unlikely circumstances indeed would NOT be extreme. (It would of course be unpleasent in the extreme!). Extremist does not mean good or bad, it simply means not many people within a given grouping hold a particular view.

    In some countries the idea that gays should be executed is not extreme. In this countries, thankfully it is. To try and invalidate an idea simply by declaring it extreme is lazy and the sign of a weak mind, no surprise that Arnald thinks this invalidates and idea. An idea stands or falls on its own merits, not on how many or few people agree with it.

  13. ChrisM: I’d disagree – I think it’s reasonable to define “extremist” as views that differ significantly from those of the educated and informed population, rather than the population overall (for example, elites with any knowledge of science accepted the world was spherical hundreds of years before this was a majority-population view). But your definition is also defensible when used consistently – if you’re happy to apply it to the hypothetical Caliphate, then fair play.

    “social scientific evidence” = “evidence drawn from the social sciences”. I don’t know what work “social” is doing there other than making the phrase more confusing, but convoluted semi-coherence is hardly uncommon in Arnald’s writing style.

  14. JohnB. I can certainly see merit in your definition, however, I think it may in practice turn out to be somewhat subjective. The temptation would be there to define “educated and informed” as “agreeing with me”.

    “elites with any knowledge of science accepted the world was spherical hundreds of years before this was a majority-population view”

    Quite so, which is why I don’t think that calling a view extremist in anyway invalidates it.

    (I do realise that views on facts, and views on ethics are not the same thing, but in this regard they are similar. In neither case does being in the minority make one wrong).

  15. I think it’s reasonable to define “extremist” as views that differ substantially (I won’t say “significantly” since it’s rather a pompous blowhard sort of a word) from mine.

  16. So there is no merit in qualifying the social interaction within society and relating them to the wider economic and political frameworks? As it goes, it is an academic field, so by mocking it you mock the whole shebang. More progress is being made out of understanding the way individuals act within a social construct based on observable reality and adherence to simple correlations, than has ever been made by imposing doctrinal ideology. This is where progressive politics comes into play. The policies have to come from a position of understanding the wider dynamic. The nudge theory and its ilk pretend to show this, but they always tied to individualism and greed. The studying of societies shows that the individual forms a part of the whole and is not independent to those other individuals around him, nor the apparatus of living that are created by society. One simply does not advance without the other.
    So yeah, WTF yourselves silly, but you are demodé.

    ChrisM
    “Typos don’t render text incoherent. Not being able to string a sentance together does.”

    fail.

    Emil

    “1) about 80% of the views you express in the comments section on this blog show a complete contempt for scientific evidence”

    What scientific evidence? Prove it. Everything you write on this blog shows a complete contempt for reality. You live in a dreamworld of failed ideological memes and unprovable maths. And hatred of people.

  17. Arnald.
    Nice switch you did there, slipping in the notion that objective analysis of social interaction equals progressive politics. Now would you care to offer us the definitive explanation of ‘progressive’ ? If you could refrain from calling me an idiot in the process I’d be very obliged.

  18. More progress is being made out of understanding the way individuals act within a social construct based on observable reality and adherence to simple correlations, than has ever been made by imposing doctrinal ideology.

    Kinda funny to be writing that on here, though. Pretty much half of what Tim W. writes is based on observing how individuals act within a social construct. For example, the term “revealed preferences” comes up here often.

  19. “fail.”

    Just when it appears you cannot be any more of a dickhead, you go and prove that you can.

    “So there is no merit in qualifying the social interaction within society and relating them to the wider economic and political frameworks…
    …simply does not advance without the other.”

    You don’t half talk a load of shite. Or rather whoever you coped and pasted that load of wank from does.

  20. This discussion is above my pay grade but this statement:

    [i]”So there is no merit in qualifying the social interaction within society and relating them to the wider economic and political frameworks? As it goes, it is an academic field, so by mocking it you mock the whole shebang. More progress is being made out of understanding the way individuals act within a social construct based on observable reality and adherence to simple correlations, than has ever been made by imposing doctrinal ideology. This is where progressive politics comes into play. The policies have to come from a position of understanding the wider dynamic. The nudge theory and its ilk pretend to show this, but they always tied to individualism and greed. The studying of societies shows that the individual forms a part of the whole and is not independent to those other individuals around him, nor the apparatus of living that are created by society. One simply does not advance without the other.”[/i]

    does not appear to be written by the same mind as this one:

    [i]”So yeah, WTF yourselves silly, but you are demodé.”[/i]

  21. “More progress is being made out of understanding the way individuals act within a social construct based on observable reality and adherence to simple correlations”

    Excellent Arnald. The invisible hand of the market. Supply & demand. You’ll fit right in around here.

  22. john b @ 14

    You’ve tried to use “elites with any knowledge of science accepted the world was spherical hundreds of years before this was a majority-population view” to suggest that a majority view may be extreme whilst a minority view less so.

    OK, let’s look at the ‘flat earth’ hypothesis & who actually supported it.

    The majority of people in pre-scientific times worked with some version of a curved surface world quite happily because that’s what their experience told them. Anyone who’d taken a boat a short distance from land or watched one do so from the shore would have a good idea of the distance to the horizon & the phenomenon of objects disappearing over it. Likewise anyone living in the vicinity of pronounced geographical features would be aware that they’re actually a lot closer than their apparent height would suggest. If they didn’t model the entire sphere they didn’t need to. They could model the portion they were living on well enough to colonise far flung Pacific Islands.
    So where does the flat earth hypothosis come from? From an intellectual elite trying to hammer reality to fit their half baked theories. Turtles & all. Ordinary folk just ignored the theories & got on with sailing their boats from one port to another.

    So who’re the extremists here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *