Yes, it’s another exciting round of Easy Answers To Simple Questions


do you think it just slightly possible that [Polly Toynbee’s] attitude, and that of her fellow [Guardian] commentators, might possibly have led to [advertisers] feeling—during these turbulent times, when costs need to be cut—that GMG, whose employees constantly attack said companies, can just fucking whistle for their business?

No. I would happily stake my life on the fact that absolutely none of the companies withdrawing advertising from GMG’s local papers have done so on the basis of the Guardian’s left-wing editorial stance. For one, that would obviously be insane; for two, the DMGT and Johnstone local titles are doing just as badly as GMG’s.

10 thoughts on “Yes, it’s another exciting round of Easy Answers To Simple Questions

  1. (Of course any similarity between the chinless libertarian twats and the chinless trotskyite twats is entirely coincedental)

  2. It was not entirely a serious question. Besides, it's not GMG's editorial stance: it's their anti-business stance.

    Oh, and Neil: I have a rather splendid chin actually. Do you find it distressing that your lower lip blends straight into your neck?


  3. And there was I thinking the Guardian only accepted ads from the public sector for five-a-day lesbian CCTV advisors? What, you mean DK and Timmeh Worst All were lying to me?

  4. Besides, it’s not GMG’s editorial stance: it’s their anti-business stance.

    I can't even work out what this is supposed to mean.

  5. I don't know, either. But for some reason I have Larry Grayson in mind, back slightly arched back, hands on hips, glancing over his spectacles at Alan Sugar with a slight pursed-lipped scowl.

  6. If it wasn't intended as a serious question, isn't it a little unwise to prefix it with

    "Now, I know that Polly is not tremendously au fait with the oh-so-complicated concept of cause and effect, but…"


    I mean, if you're going to have a go at someone for basic logical failure, you might want not to talk total nonsense in the same sentence.

  7. "Those who advertise with us are also written about by us, sometimes in terms that are perhaps… less than complimentary. Many of you here will have had moments of – shall we say – ambivalence towards the press.

    "But what I have always been struck by, especially during those years I spent running the commercial side of the Guardian, was the extreme rarity of businesses and other organisations responding to bad coverage by pulling advertising or in other ways seeking to influence the editorial agenda."

    Why "struck", if it is so obviously insane?

    There are voices from the other side, too – suggesting the Guardian should withdraw from the relationship with companies it disagrees with instead. But "A lone voice is manageable; the Guardian would have a serious problem if several journalists on the paper began criticising major advertisers, who might well decide to switch to more supportive media platforms. This is a grave threat when advertising provides around 75 per cent of the Guardian’s revenue."

    It might well be wrong, but is it obviously insane? And is it not a very minor point to take so literally in what was so obviously rhetorical?

  8. Also note that despite it being a non-serious question, a good dozen or so of the usual nodding-dog suspects popped into the comments to say "yeah, yeah, you have a rilly good point there DK – care if I blow some more smoke up your arse while I'm here?"

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.