The whole flaw in the piece he’s satirising is that it conjured into existence a ludicrous straw man and condescended to it. So obviously it’s justified to do the same in response - it’s kinda how it works as satire??
The whole flaw in the piece he’s satirising is that it conjured into existence a ludicrous straw man and condescended to it. So obviously it’s justified to do the same in response - it’s kinda how it works as satire??
Plus the writer of the original had absolutely no insight into the reading habits of, say, David Aaronovitch. He just seems to dislike him for some reason? The overall thesis of the NS piece is reducible to “I’m cleverer than you” - nothing more tbh
Just seems like you liked the original so dislike this satire of it. That’s fine. But no reason to go to all these lengths to criticise a swiftly written piss take of an astonishingly condescending + pompous piece in the NS who is probably quite well remunerated for the “ideas” he supplies us with. “Ideas Editor” - I mean come on man!
Why are you preempting my reaction? That’s just weird. You can have a problem with The Times being owned by Murdoch which is totally valid - I don’t like it either. But the idea that David Aaronovitch is in any way a supporter of Boris Johnson or Donald Trump suggests you’ve never read anything he’s written. He has vociferously attacked both numerous times. Conflating Murdoch with anybody who writes for the publications he owns is frankly risible...
It’s a pretty speedily written - given the NS piece came out yesterday - takedown of an incredibly pompous piece in a well respected magazine. The original author obviously had much more time to write his piece. I just don’t get your criticism, it’s pedantic. Especially as this is just meant as a humorous retort (I assume). And it works for me!
The whole flaw in the piece he’s satirising is that it conjured into existence a ludicrous straw man and condescended to it. So obviously it’s justified to do the same in response - it’s kinda how it works as satire??
Plus the writer of the original had absolutely no insight into the reading habits of, say, David Aaronovitch. He just seems to dislike him for some reason? The overall thesis of the NS piece is reducible to “I’m cleverer than you” - nothing more tbh
Sorry you consider David Aaronovitch “right wing”???
Just seems like you liked the original so dislike this satire of it. That’s fine. But no reason to go to all these lengths to criticise a swiftly written piss take of an astonishingly condescending + pompous piece in the NS who is probably quite well remunerated for the “ideas” he supplies us with. “Ideas Editor” - I mean come on man!
Why are you preempting my reaction? That’s just weird. You can have a problem with The Times being owned by Murdoch which is totally valid - I don’t like it either. But the idea that David Aaronovitch is in any way a supporter of Boris Johnson or Donald Trump suggests you’ve never read anything he’s written. He has vociferously attacked both numerous times. Conflating Murdoch with anybody who writes for the publications he owns is frankly risible...
It’s a pretty speedily written - given the NS piece came out yesterday - takedown of an incredibly pompous piece in a well respected magazine. The original author obviously had much more time to write his piece. I just don’t get your criticism, it’s pedantic. Especially as this is just meant as a humorous retort (I assume). And it works for me!