The Times shall have no more of my business. Which is a shame, as they have an excellent and easy-to-read page (even if the mechanics of expanding sections is broken and annoying), and some outstanding columnists.The Times today has an unusually anti woke article. One of the comments is genius. The article first, then the comment:
It’s the labels that are causing the problems. They have set critics fuming. Particular ire has been provoked by a c 1757 self-portrait in which Hogarth, sitting on a mahogany chair, sets about painting the comic muse. “Could the chair also stand in for all those unnamed black and brown people enabling the society that supports his vigorous creativity?” the wall text inquires.It’s just one of the more ludicrous of a plethora of censorious interpretations. Tate curators, in their guilt-stricken anxiety to leap on a bandwagon, have engaged a gaggle of politically righteous contributors, among them Sonia Barrett — an artist whose practice, we are informed, “centres on people, place, and object-based commodification, performing furniture to explore themes of race and gender”. It’s not hard to detect her influence.The comment:
Amazed that The Times let the article or comment be published.
Having been a subscriber for quite a few years, I finally tired of their censor squad of 1st-year social studies interns, and the provocative and inflammatory tone toward conservative views, which is commented on under many a column before such comments are Disappeared. Only anodyne views and those which comply with the House Opinion are permitted. Humour is regarded with deep suspicion, and irony, sarcasm and - frequently - truth/fact in the face of the opinions of some of their contributors is -ist, and therefore forbidden.
That all started with the Guardian some years ago, when any opinion which diverged from that of their Editor and staff, including Rusbridger, Greenslade and Hirsch, was quickly excised and the commenter unpersonned. The Times took longer, but has reached the same level of neo-Stalinism now in those departments which deal with the rude, unwashed reader. They celebrate the BLM and other mobs now, forgetting that their attitude toward them just two or three years ago was contemptuous; 'principle' is not part of their editorial philosophy. Oh, and I'm not black, so their advertisers are not in favour either.
These were views which I aired when I last withdrew my subscription a year or so ago, and they lured me back with a half-price rate. I aired them again the other day, and made it clear that this time was final; no more cash from me, it'll go to the Telegraph.