Hacker News Reader

Comment by smackay | Hacker News Reader

It's definitely not made in good faith but I did say that generating angst was more important than facts not that the articles were based on lies though clearly being economical with the truth clearly helps push the writer's agenda.

Take the quote from the parent comment:

> Most Americans’ daily routines depend on single-use items and throwaway plastic packaging,

What purpose does singling out Americans here serve?

1. It makes readers of The Guardian feel superior?

2. The paper wants to attract more American readers who want to feel they are concerned and environmentally conscious?

It's pushing a sense of 'holier than thou' with a readership who live in countries and cultures whose economic systems make widespread use of single-use plastic on a very large scale. It's a sanctimonious attitude that's great for consumers of these articles but never the driver of real change.

View on HN

The article is written by an American, so it's not so weird that it talks about Americans: "Susan Strasser is an award-winning historian, a Distinguished Lecturer for the Organization of American Historians, and Richards Professor of American History Emerita at the University of Delaware. Her books include Never Done: A History of American Housework, Satisfaction Guaranteed: The Making of the American Mass Market, and Waste and Want: A Social History of Trash."

In other words, it's her academic speciality.

Given that the author is "Distinguished Lecturer for the Organization of American Historians, and Richards Professor of American History Emerita at the University of Delaware" it's perhaps not surprising that the article has a focus on the US?

> 1. It makes readers of The Guardian feel superior?

I think they achieved peak superiority when they organised their readers to send postcards to voters certain counties of Ohio in an attempt to influence the then 2004 Presidential election against Bush. But that was the good type of foreign interference in politics.

Well the thing about foreign election interference which is left unsaid in sound bytes is the "how" matters hell of a lot.

If say BBC or a state newspaper had "interfered" by say publishing accurate stories on say people affected by Hillary Clinton's policies complaints wouldn't have a leg to stand on. If it is a bit greyer if it is mere local advertising violation of truth but when it is local manipulative trickery.

> Well the thing about foreign election interference which is left unsaid in sound bytes is the "how" matters hell of a lot.

Indeed. I guess we can't know. But it is funny to imagine.

> was the "Guardian Effect" to blame for the pro-Bush swing in one Ohio county?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3981823.stm

It seems like you're taking this too personally... The article was published in the US News section and covers research of an American historian, so it's not surprising that it focuses on Americans. Of course this is a world-wide issue, but definitely related to the modern culture of consumerism.

It's produced by an American historian at a US university for the American operation of the Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/info/about-guardian-us

Presumably intended for their growing US readership

https://www.theguardian.com/us

Why wouldn't they then focus on their home US readership?

As a Brit I notice that since they formed Guardian US and Guardian AUS there's a marked growth in local stories, features and investigations for those two countries. Pieces on US and Australian politics and other news that wouldn't meet the usual "of global interest" bar for international reports.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com