July 13, 2004

BOYCOTT THE GUARDIAN

The Guardian urges its creepy readers to boycott, among other things, Budweiser ("Why? Keeping orcas in captivity"), Adidas ("Mistreating kangaroos"), Bacardi ("Counter-revolutionary activities"), Lonely Planet ("Producing a travel guide to Burma"), and George W. Bush ("Kyoto, farm subsidies, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay ...").

List in comments reasons to boycott The Guardian. Bandwidth has been expanded to cope.

(Via contributor J.F. Beck, who boycotts Budweiser due to taste issues)

Posted by Tim Blair at July 13, 2004 02:34 AM
Comments

It publishes John Pilger.

Posted by: Sue at July 13, 2004 at 02:37 AM

Orcas, by the way, are bettrer known as killer whales. Not nice creatures. You know those cute, adorable little seal-pups, and whale calves? Well, Orcas EAT them. The Guardian evidently want the to eat more of them.

Posted by: Sue at July 13, 2004 at 02:43 AM

Okay I am now going out and buying some pissy bear, Bacardi, running shoes, reelect GWB products, Cocaine (I don't know why, Marxist guerellias use Cocaine to fund their wars, Guardian has lost its way boycott it all left wing people), Coca Cola, Ordering the Daily Mail and pay exorbitant fees to rent videos from Blockbuster Video

Posted by: JBB at July 13, 2004 at 02:44 AM

"The RCG's campaign, with its roots in Britain's student body, is called Rock Around the Blockade (RATB). It calls upon revellers not to drink the company's products and to mock its frontman, Vinnie Jones, whenever possible."

Can someone please find some videotape of a greasy-haired student whiner attempting to mock Vinnie Jones? I would like to see the headbutt and subsequent bloodloss.

Posted by: Rob at July 13, 2004 at 02:46 AM

"The White House says: "We'll get back to you." They didn't."

Ummmm.... this is probably a lie. I bet there was no answer.

The Guardian lied!!

Posted by: APEX at July 13, 2004 at 03:05 AM

Because Simon Baker is in it. Oh wait, you meant the newspaper.

Posted by: Caz at July 13, 2004 at 03:13 AM

egregious twerpitude.

Posted by: Bruce at July 13, 2004 at 03:16 AM

So, it's not enough to boycott CocaCola for bizarro Columbian murder allegations, The Guardian would also have its readers boycott Columbian coke. Still,

Boycotting coke is not enough, they add; you should also buy fair-trade products where possible.

Perhaps opium from Taliban resistance fighters? No thanks, think I'll just guzzle Bacardi after reading this swill.

(How about Steve ding-a-ling Bell? Isn't he reason enough not to peep at the Guardian?)

Posted by: c at July 13, 2004 at 03:18 AM

i had a principal at my high school in the late 70s who banned us from wearing adidas t-shirts because he thought it stood for "All Day I Dream About Sex", which of course we did, but we didn't need no stinkin' t-shirt to remind to do that...the ban said a lot about what he was thinking, though.

Posted by: Mr. Bingley at July 13, 2004 at 03:25 AM

They think Steve Bell is a wit and they're only half-right.

Posted by: Michael at July 13, 2004 at 03:25 AM

I can't buy the Guardian where I live, so I'm boycotting it by reason of geography anyway. But I thought egregious twerpitude was a good answer. ;)

Posted by: Rebecca at July 13, 2004 at 03:29 AM

Boycott the Guardian because of its inhuman and wasteful methods of slaughtering trees to make bird cage liners.

Posted by: perfectsense at July 13, 2004 at 03:33 AM

Good heavens. So you former colonial chaps and chappesses are the ones who keep reading that damm socialist rag and keep them in business! They've only got 12 readers apart from the staff and the unemployed fruitcakes looking for jobs as Parental Pelican Crossing Fruit Delivery Co-ordinators for Gypsy Communities at Large. Stop reading it and let it DIE! Read the British Sun. Pretty pictures...coo. Political stories? Only if she's got big boobs.

Who needs the press - we've got Timbo! (Even if he does live on the other (and more sane) side of the world)

Posted by: Dave T at July 13, 2004 at 03:37 AM

Boycott The Guardian before even reading it because of its socialistic, paternalistic, condescending and creepy "Big Brother is Watching You" name.

Posted by: too guarded at July 13, 2004 at 03:39 AM

At first I thought this was a spoof, but then I realized that this must be what Guardian Ombudsman Ian Mayes meant when he wrote, "there will be a close examination of the paper's journalism ... with the purpose of reinforcing and expressing more clearly and reliably the paper's established liberal values."

With all the ridiculous boycotts, the Guardian is simply providing a scorecard.

Posted by: Bruce Rheinstein at July 13, 2004 at 03:55 AM

Bacardi is accused of "Counter-revolutionary activities"? Never have i seen a better reason to buy the stuff. Sorry dad, but you're getting a bottle for Christmas.

Posted by: madne0 at July 13, 2004 at 04:01 AM

I would turn away from the Guardian but, a morbid fascination with the horror forces me to look.

Posted by: Smitty at July 13, 2004 at 04:02 AM

Er, not to rain on your parade or anything, but that article wasn't urging its readers to boycott any of these things, it was reporting on the vast range of boycotts out there, being run by one group of nutters or another. I thought the piece was actually slanted to show off the silliness of the cited boycotts to maximum advantage, conveying the message that people who boycott things are all nutters, and should be ignored except to laugh at them.


Not that that makes a Grauniad boycott any less praiseworthy, of course!

Posted by: Zev Sero at July 13, 2004 at 04:04 AM

"I hope you choke on your Bicardi and coke!"

Robbie Williams; 'Karma Killer.'

Posted by: James A. Wolf at July 13, 2004 at 04:08 AM

How can this not be a spoof? I hate to think of a newspaper that prints, in a serious article, "No representatives of the cocaine trade were available for comment."

Posted by: jeremy at July 13, 2004 at 04:09 AM

Reasons to boycott it: Moonbat, Seumas Milne, Gary Younge etc. ad infinitum.

My reason: Alan Rusbridger went to the same school as me and by all accounts he was a dick.

Posted by: David Gillies at July 13, 2004 at 04:13 AM

I boycott the Guardian because it is not nearly as soft as its chief competitor, Andrex.

Posted by: Ross at July 13, 2004 at 04:45 AM

What the hell is this obsession with Burma? Don't these people know that the government of Burma is no more repressive than that of many of their favourite holiday destinations such as Vietnam, Laos and China?

Now, the Burmese government are a bunch of evil fucks. But the only reason we know they're a bunch of evil fucks is that there's an opposition leader who tells the world how damn evil they are.

In Laos, Cambodia or China, on the other hand, the very idea of an opposition leader who is actually _still alive_ to tell the world how evil the regime is, is laughable. The Burmese government thus gets minor points for being not quite so evil as the others.

Posted by: Jorge at July 13, 2004 at 05:01 AM

Wow, just to spite the Guardian I now have to drink Budweiser? That is really going too far. They are beyond the pale this time.

And, BTW, Zev Sero - nice try! I believed you for a nanosecond! As if this rag wasn't encouraging us to stop drinking an anti-Castro product! Barkeep! Two cuba libres, por favor! To the death of Fidel!

Posted by: Tommy Shanks at July 13, 2004 at 05:14 AM

And my take on Burma - having traveled there a couple of years ago I think my tourist dollar generally went into the pocket of some pretty good people. If Rough Guide can't put a guide out on the country then screw them - they must be more lefty than Lonely Planet (which is bad enough).

Posted by: Tommy Shanks at July 13, 2004 at 05:17 AM

Five reasons to boycott the Guardian:
Kyoto, farm subsidies, Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay (in reverse).

Posted by: chris at July 13, 2004 at 05:18 AM

No more Julie Burchill

Posted by: jeff at July 13, 2004 at 05:19 AM

Boycott The Guardian because the UK supported Bush's wars. (Hey, guilt by trumped up and really remote association is a Guardian trademark tool.)

Posted by: c at July 13, 2004 at 05:49 AM

"You know those cute, adorable little seal-pups, and whale calves? Well, Orcas EAT them."

lol- best nature footage i've seen is of that huge blue(?) whale on the run from 5 or 6 shy little orcas that have surrounded it, massive dorsals carving up around the whale in a coordinated take-down.
they take it in turns shooting in taking chunk after chunk out of it.
imagine what they could do to a fiske.

Posted by: max power at July 13, 2004 at 06:10 AM

Because it is The Guardian...

...is that not reason enough?

Posted by: Keith at July 13, 2004 at 06:42 AM

Boycott Bacardi -- because Myers, Lemon Hart, and Bundy all taste better.

Posted by: superboot at July 13, 2004 at 06:45 AM

Another reason the Guardian might like its readers to boycott Blockbuster:
http://guardian.movietrak.co.uk/default.asp

(note that sophisticated Guardian film buffs only manage to put one foreign effort in their top twenty, some way below Finding Nemo)


Those with regular exposure to the Guardian will be well aware of its continuing interest in the environment destroying airline industry:

http://travel.guardian.co.uk/booknow/
.

Posted by: PJF at July 13, 2004 at 07:42 AM

What the hell is this obsession with Burma?

"Why'd you say 'Burma'?"
"I panicked!"

Posted by: Penguin on the Telly at July 13, 2004 at 09:53 AM

The people who work there are bitter old skinny horse-faced clown-footed sneering lefty Brits with big ugly stained teeth. You know the type I'm taking about.

Posted by: Mark at July 13, 2004 at 09:54 AM

No representatives of the cocaine trade were available for comment.

Y'know, I don't think the Grauniad is taking this seriously enough. Boycott them!

Posted by: Pixy Misa at July 13, 2004 at 10:45 AM

I like this little gem: "Bacardi shares the responsibility for the suffering imposed on Cuba over the last 40 years by those who refuse to accept the socialist path chosen by the Cuban people," reads the RATB website.

Yes. By not succeeding in overthrowing Castro and putting his head on a pike, they have contributed to the suffering of the Cuban people.

Posted by: Flakbait at July 13, 2004 at 10:53 AM

To paraphrase Nelson Muntz, "Gotta boycott sumthin'."

Posted by: Sean M. at July 13, 2004 at 11:33 AM

Blockbuster is closing all its stores in Hong Kong because it can't compete.

Posted by: Hanyu at July 13, 2004 at 11:47 AM

A recent survey revealed that more and more of us are boycotting companies that trade unethically

This is the sort of precision we get all the time from the ABC.

How much is "more and more"? It has risen from 3 to 5? Or 3,000 to 3,000,000?

Posted by: peggy sue at July 13, 2004 at 11:49 AM

Quick, where can I get a ticket to Zanzibar?

Posted by: Freddyboy at July 13, 2004 at 11:52 AM

Fair trade cocaine. I think I've found an untouched market.

Posted by: drscroogemcduck at July 13, 2004 at 12:29 PM

For filing made-up news:
'But what a shame Sir Paul didn't throw in a rendition of Her Majesty at the jubilee bash - "I want to tell her that I love her a lot but I gotta get a bellyful of wine/ Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl / Some day I'm gonna make her mine".

Perhaps he didn't want to lose his knighthood.'
The Guardian (June 4, 2002)

Macca *did* perform that number, as the G lamely conceded later (if anyone got the sack over it, I didn't hear about it).

For plagiarising Helen Garner (now that really is
pathetic):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,881162,00.html

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/01/24/1042911554422.html

Posted by: Peter Hayes at July 13, 2004 at 12:29 PM

I'm going to boycott boycotts, especially this Boycott, who also appears in the Guardian; syncronicity or what?

Posted by: Habib at July 13, 2004 at 12:35 PM

footnote to the plagiarism urls above:
the smh article appeared a day *after* the guardian piece, but was syndicated from an
Age obituary which had appeared a week and a half earlier.

Posted by: Peter Hayes at July 13, 2004 at 12:40 PM

I'll have another go.

For filing made-up news:
'But what a shame Sir Paul didn't throw in a rendition of Her Majesty at the jubilee bash - "I want to tell her that I love her a lot but I gotta get a bellyful of wine/ Her Majesty's a pretty nice girl / Some day I'm gonna make her mine".

Perhaps he didn't want to lose his knighthood.'
The Guardian (June 4, 2002)

Macca *did* perform that number, as the G lamely conceded later (if anyone got the sack over it, I didn't hear about it).

For plagiarising an article by Helen Garner (now that really is pathetic).

nb: the smh link is to a syndicated version of an article that appeared in The Age ten days ealier (15/01/03)

Posted by: Peter Hayes at July 13, 2004 at 01:06 PM

I'm not a big Baccardi fan, but now I know what the cause of my next hangover's going to be.

Posted by: Patrick Banks at July 13, 2004 at 01:14 PM

For being terminally unfunny?

Posted by: Wonderduck at July 13, 2004 at 01:58 PM

The only good thing about The Guardian was the daily crossword for which they started charging almost a year ago. Haven't been back since.

Posted by: ilibcc at July 13, 2004 at 02:16 PM

Misleadingly omits hammer and sickle from logo.

Posted by: DrZin at July 13, 2004 at 03:04 PM

Not exercising sufficient (any) guardianship of the pillars of Western civilization, upon which its very foundation and existence are dependent.

Posted by: DrZin at July 13, 2004 at 03:17 PM

Now, what does a Gaurdian reader like, so that I can boycott it?
Chardonnay, latte, tofu, Salon, Ben Elton, Sting, Belgian beer, Germaine Greer, bean shoots, Pilger, 90 per cent of Hollywood, Fisk, any of the Redgraves, Polly Toynbee, George Galloway, Michael Moore, Tracey Emin, warm salads, millionaire soccer tossers . . . shit, I already avoid all those.

Posted by: slatts at July 13, 2004 at 03:21 PM

They compulsively use the word 'really' with an grave intonation for extra impact as in 'really worried about where Tony Blair is taking us'; 'really good film'; 'we feel really, really sorry for the Iraqis suffering at the hands of the US invasion'; 'really great risotto'; 'really awful American companies'; 'really interesting art installation'.

Posted by: ilibcc at July 13, 2004 at 04:44 PM

Boycott cocaine? Do the numbskulls who write for the Guardian have any IDEA how many millions of people cocaine provides employment for?

Posted by: Liz at July 13, 2004 at 05:59 PM

"The Guardian urges its creepy readers to boycott..."

Excuse me? Where exactly in this article is the 'urging'? It seems to me that the author was discussing the issue of consumer boycotts and giving the targets of the boycott a chance to respond - in fact, giving them the last word in each case. If it's propaganda it's a pretty lousy attempt.

Moreover, the reference to the cocaine trade might have tipped off the more perceptive reader that the author had tongue firmly planted in cheek. I would have thought that Tim B, who seems to style himself as an acerbic quayside luminary - a poor man's P J O'Rourke - might have picked up on this. Possibly he thinks that genuine urine-extraction is the sole preserve of the right.

Posted by: tim g at July 13, 2004 at 07:05 PM

"Possibly he thinks that genuine urine-extraction is the sole preserve of the right."

Well, since you've provided a nice example of this, I guess he was wrong.

Posted by: Andrea Harris at July 13, 2004 at 08:25 PM

Yeah, but who could logically argue against boycotting Budweiser? As they in the classics, drinking Bud' is like making love in a canoe ...

Posted by: Paul Pottinger at July 13, 2004 at 10:15 PM

I boycott Budweiser because I can get water out of my tap.

Posted by: Steven H. at July 13, 2004 at 10:24 PM

I smell the prescient hand of a PR dept afoot (ahand?) here. When attack is the best form of defense, a savvy operator turns a problem on itself, a blemish is made into a feature, etc.
As these things go, they become apparent in hindsight.
It sounds like a deflective blow against perhaps anticipated boycotting. The nearish future will tell.

Posted by: Romeo at July 13, 2004 at 10:38 PM

Can the Grauniad advocate boycotting Stella, so I can drink even more vast quantities of the hangover inducing manna from heaven.

Yeast + Mankind = Civilisation!

P.S. Who else thinks the Grauniads blockade on checking their articles through google is backfiring?

Posted by: Rob Read at July 13, 2004 at 11:27 PM

If you want a laugh, do a Google with Bacardi and counter-revolutionary, and see who else is into that boycott effort...

Posted by: cirby at July 13, 2004 at 11:42 PM

If anything, I'd boycott Bacardi for being too pro-Castro. Don't they have tv ads that portray Cuba as a free and relaxed place to be?

But after taking a plane to Japan and drinking sake (saki?) with the mafia, you'd fly to Libya and drink what with Ghaddafia?

Posted by: Andjam at July 14, 2004 at 12:04 AM

Bacardi counter-revolutionary activities? I'm buying a quart of the silver and gold tonight.

Posted by: Brian Jones at July 14, 2004 at 12:48 AM

SUPPORT THE BACARDI FREEDOM FIGHTERS!

Posted by: Ken Summers at July 14, 2004 at 12:49 AM

Boycott al-Guardian due to its pro Palestinian, pro terrorists biases. Julie Burchill left al Guardian due to its anti Israel/anti Semitic positions and went to work at The Times.

Posted by: Joel at July 14, 2004 at 01:00 AM

tim g. it wouldn't surprise me at all if the article was serious

Posted by: drscroogemcduck at July 14, 2004 at 01:12 AM

I'm confused; boycott Lonely Planet because they aren't critical of a tyranical dictator AND boycott Bacardi because they are critical of a tyranical dictator...hmmmm

Posted by: Ann at July 14, 2004 at 01:27 AM

You guys need to back up off my budweiser. We're all drawn to what we were raised around. I was raised on Budweiser. Therefore, it tastes like a little slice of heaven. Besides, I would love to pick up a 12 of Guinness or Foster's on occasion, but I have to clean out my savings account to be able to afford one.

Posted by: scherz at July 14, 2004 at 01:36 AM

I like this little gem: "Bacardi shares the responsibility for the suffering imposed on Cuba over the last 40 years by those who refuse to accept the socialist path chosen by the Cuban people," reads the RATB website.

Yes. By not succeeding in overthrowing Castro and putting his head on a pike, they have contributed to the suffering of the Cuban people.

Flakbait,

You just put the little paper umbrella in the Bacardi and Coke. next round is on me.

Posted by: Val Prieto at July 14, 2004 at 02:19 AM

Budweiser imprisons orcs?! Isn't that a good thing? Orcs are quite mean and nasty and eat little children; I should think that imprisoning orcs is just too good for them -- what? What's that? Ohhhh, orcas.

Well, never mind.

Posted by: Tongue Boy aka Emily Latelle at July 14, 2004 at 03:45 AM

Enjoyed reading the reasons for many of the boycotts. Got a good chuckle over some.

Some posters mentioned the Guardian is not itself urging a boycott, merely reporting on existing boycotts. I think it's hard to tell if the intent is just to report, or to advocate for the boycotters. (I tend to think the latter because of how the intro. is worded & the paper's slant.)

Here's the intro:

"A recent survey revealed that more and more of us are boycotting companies that trade unethically. We all know about Nestle and Esso, but who are the other bad guys - and just how bad are they? Leo Benedictus offers a useful guide "

Is this advocating for the boycotters or not? I don't think it's that easy to detrmine.

Posted by: Chris Josephson at July 14, 2004 at 03:49 AM

Pissing off the Guardian is not enough reason to drink that bat-piss Budweiser.

Posted by: Andrew Ian Dodge at July 14, 2004 at 03:53 AM

Why?
Because it's NOT the Daily Telegraph.
*sniff*

Posted by: Alex at July 14, 2004 at 05:12 AM

I agree with boycotting the Guardian for the simple reason that those idiots are pretentious bores who believe themselves as the morally superior, hence the elite who will guide us poor down trodden workers of the world to victory over our opressors. In other words, the second group against the wall when the Revolution comes. Viva Revolucion

Posted by: Irritatingly Obnoxious Troll at July 14, 2004 at 08:49 AM

King of beers my ass! At any rate, I think the whole boycott thing was tongue-in-cheek.

Anyone seen this?

Pete Townshend vs. Michael Moore

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=540669

Posted by: Sean at July 14, 2004 at 09:20 AM

Tim, a poor man's P J O'Rourke? - you really know how to hurt, tim g.

Posted by: Freddyboy at July 14, 2004 at 11:49 AM

You want to read a newspaper, read the Mitre! 'The Newspaper That Brings Anachronism To Life".

Posted by: Il Editore at July 14, 2004 at 12:36 PM

It's a spoof of course. I don't read the Guardian so I can't say what kind of paper it is but anybody should be able to see that this is all tongue in cheek.

Tim, come on. This is the kind of false outrage that drives me crazy about the left.

Posted by: bbridges at July 14, 2004 at 05:05 PM