New Statesman Podcast might be along the lines of what you’re looking for.
Erm, considering the rotating carousel of (usually politely spoken) anti-trans extremists that make up the-bad-NS (commissioning editor to contributors/regular columnists) - kinda taints everything they produce. Not to say that comes through on every topic but it’s certainly made it impossible for me to continue to consume anything from the-bad-NS (vs the-better-NS).
As mentioned above, Novara have podcasts plus I’ll add (at the comedy end):
in addition to the NS’s deeply embedded transphobia, their political editor George Eaton is a huge dipshit who gets things wrong constantly. Stephen Bush is probably the only person there who isn’t constantly tripping over his own ass
Sure, I’ve definitely noticed some dodgy writers at the NS, but the main presenters of the podcast are decent enough. I certainly haven’t heard anything shitty on it.
Edit: wrt to the above post, Stephen Bush is half of the podcast crew. The other presenter, Helen Lewis, seems to be generally considerate and reflective.
Considering Vice’s position as a public company even Waypoint probably has ties to fishy money.
Helen Lewis has an illustrious history of being shitty about trans people and sex workers and if she’s continues to commission people like Sarah Ditum and Julie Burchill then there’s no reason to believe that she’s changed on that front.
I don’t think anyone was questioning NS’s sources of funding, I’m quite happy to believe that their underlying ideologies came together as naturally, or at least as naturally as they can in the UK’s weird tiny media circles.
Hey, just wanted to drop in on this. The mod team would like folks to be mindful about Rule 1 (particularly the clauses around “Don’t put marginalized people in the position of having to explain or defend their marginalization. It is not their job to educate you. Do your own research.”) in regards to this discussion. The handling of trans issues by the New Statesman, particularly Lewis in her capacity as an Assistant and, later, Deputy Editor, is a topic we would encourage folks to go in and do their own research on rather than leaning on “seems to be” assertions.
We don’t want to squelch the discussion, but please be aware that we are looking at this from a Rule 1 perspective.
the trans issues mentioned alone have consisted of a many, many years long attempt at undermining any sort of capacity to discuss progress wrt to rights in the UK to the extent of outright opposition to legal reforms to improve people’s lives.
not only that but she originally came to my attention as a huge asshole when she published ads for gay cure “therapy” in her paper and went on a long tirade about how actually it was a good thing because if she didn’t do it then a more popular magazine would do it and also “why can’t the gays leave me alone”.
As “Conversion therapy” is a theme in the anti-trans concern-trolling pieces published (and strongly promoted by HLew) there, it’s not shocking that they’d also push the original variant.
Greer, Bindel, Ditum, Criado-Perez, Lewis, Glosswitch - contributors (and regularly defended “icons” in editorials when they’re not writing themselves): every single one of them espouses some extremely violent views on trans women (sometimes keeping it to social media, sometimes making it the thrust of columns).
The least damning thing* you can say about this media circle is that they often traffic in concern-trolling in their articles. The majority of their anti-trans stuff is wrapped in that Jesse Singal/Alice Dreger style “oh, I’m just reporting the contested science” stuff. “UwU I was reading it wrong and maybe we shouldn’t elevate child abusing conversion therapists as heroes of science being attacked by an evil trans cabal!”
* ie ignoring the worst of their social media output (much of which is now deleted after several purged their old posts recently) and leaked comments they’ve made in private chats that are used to initiate new “media feminist” writers into the clique and ensure everyone knows the script (yes, documentation of how new writers are radicalised or rejected by people who commission for the supposed centre-Left UK publications). Just looking at articles, published debates, and official interviews.
Duly noted, and my apologies for not being aware of these specific issues. I’ll have a wee read and be more cautious of the NS in future.
We killed ours too early and since then they’ve been incredibly canny at staying relatively in their lane. Can’t see us ever being arsed enough to get rid of them now apart from maybe Charles pissing everybody off.
She was immediately horrible in the aftermath of Genderquake as well I think. Apart from the terrible TERF politics of the New Statesman it’s worth considering how generally rubbish and Blairite the publication is. A complete waste of effort in the modern political scene.
The SSP gives a good rundown of why the whole institution is terrible.
In better UK news, one less racist in the Labour party (why he is indefinitely suspended and not kicked out years ago is still something the NEC should think about and tweak current policy so it can’t happen again, no matter who you’re a political ally of).
Hold on, I’m no Livingstone fan, but all I can dig up about him being racist is stuff he’s said about Israel. Some of it hyperbolic, sure, but none of it strikes me as antisemitic, including the stuff in the article (and I’m coming from a place where people are very eager to believe pro-Palestinian leftists are antisemites). Am I missing something? Given that a leading Blairite and a baroness are the two people cited as approving of this, I’m having strong doubts the expulsion is something to celebrate.
Stems from this (Ken will always accept a request for comment on this topic and veers well beyond pro-Palestinian rhetoric):
His body of comments (repeatedly tying Jewish identity to affluence & Rightist ideology; baiting Jewish reporters who work for (crypto-)fascists; etc) makes it hard to give anything other than a dog-whistle reading to them. With the most charitable reading, he is unserious about the Holocaust and delights in using his fame to spread that view.
Great minds etc.:
He compared a substantial group of Jewish people to Hitler, like even if he meant it in a very small ideological area, it’s still an incredibly insensitive thing to do, especially when you consider that “Zionism” can have such varied meaning to different people, from simply believing that it is important for Jewish people to have a place where they can always seek refuge, given basically the entirety of their history with oppression, up to supporting everything the current far right government their does. And when it was pointed out that it was incredibly insensitive, inaccurate, and outright antisemitic, his defence was to simply repeat it.
Anybody here listen to the Reel Politik Podcast?
Normal democracy, not at all a corporate-authoritarian alliance with a revolving door between the various engines of this austerity-forcing cabal.
Although the 2020 campaigns will involve branded, native and advertorial pages, along with public debates hosted by the Standard, the six partners have also been promised the Standard will carry “money-can’t-buy” positive news and “favourable” comment pieces that will appear to readers as routine, independently written editorial.
I hate to describe anything as British but a Tory towel folder turned Chancellor parachuting into editorship of a London newspaper selling positive news to huge companies (and likely facing no consequences) is incredibly British