Another reason to like Andrew Neil
Discussion
Jim the Sunderer said:
That'll teach them, perhaps. What was the now deleted Tweet?
Teach them what? To ignore the democratic wishes of their membership? The whole thing's just another manufactured culture-war farce. The Co-op members voted for a policy which would stop the organisation placing advertising in publications which the membership felt went against its values, which includes The Spectator. A Co-op ad gets put in The Speccie by mistake (as part of a package deal with either the publisher or the advertising agency). This is pointed out by Stop Funding Hate, and SFH's message gets retweeted by a trans person. The Co-op replies to both parties saying they will correct the mistake. Andrew Neil pulls the "You can't fire me, I quit!" move and - somehow - accuses The Co-op of trying to influence the mag's editorial stance by making the free (democratic, in fact) choice on how to spend its money and where to put its adverts. I'd have thought that Neil, of all people, would be all for people using the power of the free market to uphold their moral values by voting with their wallets, but apparently not.
Now it's being spun "the loony hyper-woke Co-op pull their ads from Britain's Oldest Magazine because one LGBT person complained on twitter!!!!!"
It's also amusing to see so much of the twitter brigade getting their noses out of joint about The Co-op "getting all political" and they should "just stick to being a convenience store", as if the whole organisation's purpose isn't to be a political project.
Bonkers.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Friday 4th September 20:51
2xChevrons said:
Jim the Sunderer said:
That'll teach them, perhaps. What was the now deleted Tweet?
Teach them what? To ignore the democratic wishes of their membership? The whole thing's just another manufactured culture-war farce. The Co-op members voted for a policy which would stop the organisation placing advertising in publications which the membership felt went against its values, which includes The Spectator. A Co-op ad gets put in The Speccie by mistake (as part of a package deal with either the publisher or the advertising agency). This is pointed out by Stop Funding Hate, and SFH's message gets retweeted by a trans person. The Co-op replies to both parties saying they will correct the mistake. Andrew Neil pulls the "You can't fire me, I quit!" move and - somehow - accuses The Co-op of trying to influence the mag's editorial stance by making the free (democratic, in fact) choice on how to spend its money and where to put its adverts. I'd have thought that Neil, of all people, would be all for people using the power of the free market to uphold their moral values by voting with their wallets, but apparently not.
It's also amusing to see so much of the twitter brigade getting their noses out of joint about The Co-op "getting all political" and they should "just stick to being a convenience store", as if the whole organisation's purpose isn't to be a political project.
Bonkers.
2xChevrons said:
Teach them what? To ignore the democratic wishes of their membership?
The whole thing's just another manufactured culture-war farce. The Co-op members voted for a policy which would stop the organisation placing advertising in publications which the membership felt went against its values, which includes The Spectator. A Co-op ad gets put in The Speccie by mistake (as part of a package deal with either the publisher or the advertising agency). This is pointed out by Stop Funding Hate, and SFH's message gets retweeted by a trans person. The Co-op replies to both parties saying they will correct the mistake. Andrew Neil pulls the "You can't fire me, I quit!" move and - somehow - accuses The Co-op of trying to influence the mag's editorial stance by making the free (democratic, in fact) choice on how to spend its money and where to put its adverts. I'd have thought that Neil, of all people, would be all for people using the power of the free market to uphold their moral values by voting with their wallets, but apparently not.
Now it's being spun "the loony hyper-woke Co-op pull their ads from Britain's Oldest Magazine because one LGBT person complained on twitter!!!!!"
It's also amusing to see so much of the twitter brigade getting their noses out of joint about The Co-op "getting all political" and they should "just stick to being a convenience store", as if the whole organisation's purpose isn't to be a political project.
Bonkers.
A good take on it! But over most people’s heads.The whole thing's just another manufactured culture-war farce. The Co-op members voted for a policy which would stop the organisation placing advertising in publications which the membership felt went against its values, which includes The Spectator. A Co-op ad gets put in The Speccie by mistake (as part of a package deal with either the publisher or the advertising agency). This is pointed out by Stop Funding Hate, and SFH's message gets retweeted by a trans person. The Co-op replies to both parties saying they will correct the mistake. Andrew Neil pulls the "You can't fire me, I quit!" move and - somehow - accuses The Co-op of trying to influence the mag's editorial stance by making the free (democratic, in fact) choice on how to spend its money and where to put its adverts. I'd have thought that Neil, of all people, would be all for people using the power of the free market to uphold their moral values by voting with their wallets, but apparently not.
Now it's being spun "the loony hyper-woke Co-op pull their ads from Britain's Oldest Magazine because one LGBT person complained on twitter!!!!!"
It's also amusing to see so much of the twitter brigade getting their noses out of joint about The Co-op "getting all political" and they should "just stick to being a convenience store", as if the whole organisation's purpose isn't to be a political project.
Bonkers.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Friday 4th September 20:51
vdn said:
2xChevrons said:
Teach them what? To ignore the democratic wishes of their membership?
The whole thing's just another manufactured culture-war farce. The Co-op members voted for a policy which would stop the organisation placing advertising in publications which the membership felt went against its values, which includes The Spectator. A Co-op ad gets put in The Speccie by mistake (as part of a package deal with either the publisher or the advertising agency). This is pointed out by Stop Funding Hate, and SFH's message gets retweeted by a trans person. The Co-op replies to both parties saying they will correct the mistake. Andrew Neil pulls the "You can't fire me, I quit!" move and - somehow - accuses The Co-op of trying to influence the mag's editorial stance by making the free (democratic, in fact) choice on how to spend its money and where to put its adverts. I'd have thought that Neil, of all people, would be all for people using the power of the free market to uphold their moral values by voting with their wallets, but apparently not.
Now it's being spun "the loony hyper-woke Co-op pull their ads from Britain's Oldest Magazine because one LGBT person complained on twitter!!!!!"
It's also amusing to see so much of the twitter brigade getting their noses out of joint about The Co-op "getting all political" and they should "just stick to being a convenience store", as if the whole organisation's purpose isn't to be a political project.
Bonkers.
A good take on it! But over most people’s heads.The whole thing's just another manufactured culture-war farce. The Co-op members voted for a policy which would stop the organisation placing advertising in publications which the membership felt went against its values, which includes The Spectator. A Co-op ad gets put in The Speccie by mistake (as part of a package deal with either the publisher or the advertising agency). This is pointed out by Stop Funding Hate, and SFH's message gets retweeted by a trans person. The Co-op replies to both parties saying they will correct the mistake. Andrew Neil pulls the "You can't fire me, I quit!" move and - somehow - accuses The Co-op of trying to influence the mag's editorial stance by making the free (democratic, in fact) choice on how to spend its money and where to put its adverts. I'd have thought that Neil, of all people, would be all for people using the power of the free market to uphold their moral values by voting with their wallets, but apparently not.
Now it's being spun "the loony hyper-woke Co-op pull their ads from Britain's Oldest Magazine because one LGBT person complained on twitter!!!!!"
It's also amusing to see so much of the twitter brigade getting their noses out of joint about The Co-op "getting all political" and they should "just stick to being a convenience store", as if the whole organisation's purpose isn't to be a political project.
Bonkers.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Friday 4th September 20:51
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/09/...
edited for gender... Alice could be any of the many genders...
Edited by Vanden Saab on Friday 4th September 21:36
Vanden Saab said:
Spot on apart from the fact that the Coop have released a statement saying the tweet was wrong, that the Spectator is not on a banned list and they wished to continue advertising in the 'Speccie'.
Thta makes Andrew Neil's petulant knee jerk response even more embarrassing 
Edited by mx5nut on Friday 4th September 21:46
The spectator is right-leaning, but the magazine often covers both sides of the house. Ite probably the most balanced, impartial read you can get these days.
Its only "crime" is that it doesnt pander to the woke politics, and is willing to question everything.
That is enough for some to want it cancelled. For the intelligent, sane amongst us if makes ig invaluable. Read it- ig might just change your opinion
Its only "crime" is that it doesnt pander to the woke politics, and is willing to question everything.
That is enough for some to want it cancelled. For the intelligent, sane amongst us if makes ig invaluable. Read it- ig might just change your opinion
Vanden Saab said:
Spot on apart from the fact that the Coop have released a statement saying the tweet was wrong, that the Spectator is not on a banned list and they wished to continue advertising in the 'Speccie'. It seems the only bit you got right was that it was just one young loony woke Coop twitter writer who did not check with their boss before pressing send...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/09/...
Mea culpa - I hadn't caught up with the story since mid-afternoon, and was half-remembering the original 'ethical advertising' proposal from 3 or 4 years ago. I'll say (as a Co-op member) that I'm disappointed they haven't supported their media staff (or apparently trained them properly in the first place...) even if they haven't quite done a full U-turn. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/09/...
It still doesn't diminish the sheer t
ttery of Neil's response though. He was clearly trying to blow it up into a 'free speech' fight and another skirmish in the culture war that's gathering pace in the UK these days. The real comedy is in the publisher of a magazine thinking that a business opting to pull advertising from that mag is attempting to alter the publication's editorial stance. Unless the Co-op's ad spending is single-handly keeping The Spectator afloat, which I really doubt. As I said before, people, organisations and businesses voting with their wallet to express their opinion of other people, organisations and businesses should be exactly what Neil and his other 'marketplace of ideas' disciples want. But apprently it's beyond the pale if democratic socialist mutual organisations do it to right-leaning magazines. williamp said:
The spectator is right-leaning, but the magazine often covers both sides of the house. Ite probably the most balanced, impartial read you can get these days.
Its only "crime" is that it doesnt pander to the woke politics, and is willing to question everything.
That is enough for some to want it cancelled. For the intelligent, sane amongst us if makes ig invaluable. Read it- ig might just change your opinion
Its only "crime" is that it doesnt pander to the woke politics, and is willing to question everything.
That is enough for some to want it cancelled. For the intelligent, sane amongst us if makes ig invaluable. Read it- ig might just change your opinion
I used to be a regular reader (and sometime subscriber) to The Spectator up to about 10 years ago. It was a good-quality read, but let's not kid ourselves that it covered 'both sides of the house'. The political spectrum expressed in it ranged from One Nation Conservatism (thus being well to the left of the UK's current political centre) to awful reactionary faith/flag/family stuff. Occasionally it might pine for the days of Blairism. But it never offered up, or even properly examined or explained, anything from the leftward bits of the spectrum.
Edited by 2xChevrons on Friday 4th September 22:27
Vanden Saab said:
Spot on apart from the fact that the Coop have released a statement saying the tweet was wrong, that the Spectator is not on a banned list and they wished to continue advertising in the 'Speccie'. It seems the only bit you got right was that it was just one young loony woke Coop twitter writer who did not check with their boss before pressing send...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/09/...
edited for gender... Alice could be any of the many genders...
But that just makes Neil look even more daft ... https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamiewareham/2020/09/...
edited for gender... Alice could be any of the many genders...
Edited by Vanden Saab on Friday 4th September 21:36
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff