Words Dept.: entry

Has anyone else noticed that the Guardian has published some absolute garbage recently? A couple of weeks ago they had that stupid piece that implied comedian Richard Herring was some kind of a Nazi-worshipping racist and today there’s a piece on the website called “Women watch men strip for fun. Men watch women for darker reasons”, which makes a series of simple-minded and generalistic observations that’d put even the Daily Express to shame.

It’s about how writer Tanya Gold has been to see some male strippers put on a show for a crowd of women in a “hall” in Edinburgh. She then performs a comparison exercise by going to a club where women strip for men. Turns out the “avuncular and gracious” Chippendales make Gold feel “joyous” and she feels inclined to join in the cheering. The performances at “subterranean and windowless” Spearmint Rhino, on the other hand, ooze “melancholy” and the patrons resemble “Count Dracula”.

I’m not saying any of this is necessarily untrue. It’s just completely pointless in its stupefying one-dimensionality. It’s a bit like a piece pointing out that Britain’s Got Talent contestant Susan Boyle shouldn’t be judged on the basis of her looks but instead should be judged on how well she can sing. Which, naturally, Tanya filed for the Guardian in April.

The strippers article has attracted more than 550 comments and a further 500 doesn’t seem out of the question, such is the tendency of the Guardian reader to clap like a seal when someone throws them a dead fish.

I can’t help thinking that this “dead fish” effect is steadily becoming pretty much the entire point of all journalism. Whereas once Guardian writers, and I suppose journalists in general, sought to be illuminating and truthful, now they simply seek to reach the top of the “most read” or “most commented” sidebar box by whatever means necessary.