Posted by margo on May 4, 2019, 7:32 pm, in reply to "Re: To Jackie"
Hi Tman I'm sure you know I know you were arguing from a different corner to W and WV, but nevertheless, from my corner, the three of you ( a trio, for want of any other word) seemed to loom as one. So yes, I lumped you together, rather than take time to differentiate the arguments, which makes me a bad journalist. Perhaps that's why you think I should easily find employment at one of the UK's fine media establishments ;>
"Lived experience" is a phrase I use ironically and deliberately because the note to Jackie was personal and veered into my own biased experience. I wanted to explain how it felt as a woman when I embroiled myself in threads about womanly and gender issues with the board's best-informed gender posters who had statistics and bell hooks quotes on tap: why did I end up feeling frustrated and wrung through a wringer?
You understand what I mean about the Guardian's skewed focus. As far as "pushing pernicious sexual and social ideologies" which are "not[your] idea of 'strong' and 'informative." ... well, that's your differing opinion. From my side, I see some some informative coverage in the Guardian on factual issues like gender pay inequalities, rape, etc. There are examples of good data journalism and it's no use pretending the Guardian isn't good at that. The Guardian journalists demonstrate they're quite capable of analysing text on safe and approved subjects: these areas of strength really show up Guardian journalists' dereliction in other areas.
My note to Jackie: she's posted here for years and is someone I value, so I wanted (to try) to explain my position to her.