Mixed bags. They don't do real counterculture
though. Chomsky and Pilger - the established left of yesterday -
is as far as they take it.
Comment 02 Brian D December
10 2007, 23:14
Without comprehensive "statistical"
analysis of the contents of a newspaper over a long enough period,
one can't offer more than opinion.
In the absence of that, and with an enormous
amount of content to go through, one tends to select only the examples
that confirm one's prejudices. So I don't trust my opinions on this
I wrote a regular column for the Guardian last
year. The editor would insert little bits of text that had a style
which I loathed ("journalist cliché breezy-lite").
All the surrounding pieces had the same "breezy" style.
I think that's how you "kill" the "countercultural"
element that Danny mentioned above. (The first thing you notice
about writings in good countercultural publications is
the "otherness" of the prose - causing your brain to reframe
all over the show).
Comment 03 Mordecai December
11 2007, 10:52
I don't care about the Guardian. It's less
important in the scheme of things than people think. A lot of people
get worked up about it for some reason- Right-wingers think it's
a degenerate "liberal establishment" organ, and so do
left-wingers. If it shifted either way, to the satisfaction of the
conservative or radicals, it still wouldn't change anything. It's
Comment 04 Karl Watzlawick
December 11 2007, 14:36
The Guardian and Independent can't shake establishment
framing. Even when they publish uncompromising voices like Pilger
it's all somehow so "business as usual". Oh yes, there
goes Pilger, Monbiot etcetera) - we already know his/her opinions.
You can present the establishment view and anti-establishment views
alongside each other, but they both just reinforce the establishment
framing, because the anti-establishment writers are too busy criticising
people (that is their job, they think) to create new grids of reference.